|Lavandula has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Plants||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
Have put in a history which is referenced to my site as I wrote it and obviously I don't mind it being used. However, I have left the external link for my article rather than simply copy the growing advice etc over as it will be in danger of simply being a copy of my page. Hope this makes sense and is ok Andham2000 11:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've done an extensive edit to the history section to add links and reword where I felt it needed rewording. I wouldn't mind if you chose to carry over the edits to your own page. :-) - Blake's Star 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I had to correct your spelling errors. I hope you do not mind.
Added historical about dried lavender sold from USA. Does anyone have contribution about lavender grown in Southern France? Also distilled lavender flowers that is now cultivated in the State of Oregon? Some of the edits complain about commercialization activites, however the lavender business is a commercial fiddleie business, small, but like oranges, almonds, strawberries in the USA is commercial. I disagree that making references to long-standing commercial enterprises in any way violates the code of Wikipedia. You cannot write about uses without making reference to certain commerical entities. Thoughts??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the name lavender has any relation to the English word launder? I've often wondered if the plant's traditional uses in cleaning have had anything to do with its name, c.f. lavar in Spanish for "to wash". Eiríkr Útlendi 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The OED has a paragraph discussing that very question. They consider the washing etymology unlikely, but don't seem to have any alternate theory they like better. Stan 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- My botanical dictionary accepts it as being of Latin origin - "From Lat. lavo, I wash; lavender water, made from oil of lavender, has long been used as a fragrant wash". I don't see any problem with this, plenty of plants have their names derived from classical Latin. - MPF 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- OED goes on about this at some length, with references to "sense-developement", and an observation that the earliest-seen spelling is livendula, which connects to quite different meanings. It's clearly a troubling issue for them, most of their etymologies don't include quite so much discussion. Makes me wonder if there's a research paper on the question somewhere... Stan 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Had a look, see what you mean. Maybe best left as unknown then - MPF 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
To MPF: I don't understand the reason to link to Wiki pages about "July 4th" and "2006" in an article about lavender. I originally put the date in (unlinked) so readers would know when the Washington Post article was published. Wiki style policy specifically says not to put extraneous links into articles. If there is something I'm missing here, please advise. --Catawba 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Upson and Andrews provide detail of the possible derivation of the name from Latin livere and livendula and an explanation of why the lavere derivation may not be true, all with multiple references. I've put this into the article as another conjecture. Imc (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence calling it nardus (in the history section) is a bit misleading. While the word was used to describe any fragrant grass, the usual meaning was the unrelated plant nard Nardostachys jatamansi.
- The origin of the Nardus quote: (Dr. Fernie's book, 1985) as written now in the History references. So you claim Nard was used in greek to depict a different plant. What is your reference? That is interesting because in modern Hebrew we also have a different plant connected with the biblicle "Nerd" (the word in Hebrew is simply pronounced NERD, no "Stoke" mentioned), but still we have no explanation for the herb used in the Temple's holy essence called "Shibolet Nerd" or "Nerd Stalk".
- The city of Naarda, was pronounced Nehar D'Ah in most Talmudic quotes, but that perhaps refers to a Hebrew play on words meaning River (Nehar) of knowledge (De-Ah). As far as I know, there is no archeological finding or knowledge on the exact location of this city, except that it was on a canal between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (so either in the Baghdad area, or near Basra).
- Back to your questions: Dr Fernie himself says that Nardus later (in Roman times) came to mean any kind of fragrant grass.
- So it still could have originally meant this plant, and then changed its meaning to general fragrant herbs.
- And perhaps the "Nard Stalk" is in fact the Lavandula stoechas Pashute (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a new external link to a great informative article from reputable australian writer -
- History and uses of Lavender Article from Ben Sorensen's Druids Garden Nesneros1982 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but with a "Shop" link at the top, and a "Click here to buy" at the bottom, it looks too much like a commercial link to meet Wikipedia's policy regarding external links. I read the article; which parts would you consider most informative in the context of an encyclopedia? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the other external links Bill? They all (apart from the university) feature a "shop" button. The Article i suggested on Lavender was 100% editorial content - NOT advertorial or selling a particular product, however like most of the pages there is an option to purchase products from a sponsors site - the same as Google advertising or banners.
If your going to play "Wikipedia police" at least be consistent.
As for content, I enjoyed it as a topical article that I found helpful in addition to the Wikipedia content, and thought it correct to share with others - so that they may make up their own minds. Not everyone learns in the same way, so I feel that a variety of styles to present information is beneficial.
Wikipedia, as I see it, is an amazing site where ALL knowledge from many different view points can be shared, and where EVERYONE can collectively help - not just purists.
I would appreciate it if my small contribution to Wikipedia could remain there for all to share.
Hi, just read the external link, then saw this discussion. Have to say this external article had exactly what I was looking for and appreciate its addition. I use Wikipedia a lot; and the external link section is just as valuable as the info in the body article on Wikipedia itself. I didn't find it commercial at all Bill, as the external link relates to an article on lavender, and could not see that this page sold any products that used lavender, so full this point is mute. Good writer. Now off to cook some Lavender steak... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I am not asked to scour the external links sections of Wikipedia articles, but since you point it out, this one was in sorry shape. All better now. See WP:LINKFARM for the reasons why. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- In case you think that seems cold or harsh, please note that "Ilike it." or "It is useful." are not reasons to keep something in the encyclopedia. WP:EL summarizes the reasons that work. I still haven't had an answer regarding what particular bits of the Benno link make it worth keeping. Here's a sample:
- "I was 2 hours out of Tamworth, on the outskirts of Glen Innes, when by the side of the road was this beautiful little hobby farm with a crisp, clean, white, old style, wooden shop selling the best strawberry and cream milkshakes, and lavender – all grown on site! Crisp cool clean air, the taste of fresh strawberries, and gentle the waft of lavender! The experience reminded me of a simple pure life that we all in some way strive for, a wholesome existence far removed from the seeming complexity of life."
- All well and good, but encyclopedic? That is the question here.
- Different people do indeed learn via different routes. I'd like to suggest that if someone wants to find a recipe for lavender steak, a web search engine is the appropriate way to go. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed the section on gynecomastia to a Neutral Point of View. Simply creating a link to an industry trade groups letter does not allow you to claim the New England Journal article is a " claim, by just one irresponsible local doctor, has been refuted in detail by the Australian Tea Tree Industry Association ". It is fair reference the trade groups position, but not delete reference to the N.E.J. article or disparage it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philggg (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that your change retains neutrality and will not alter it. However, I am concerned about the balance - or lack of it - on Wikipedia between conventional medicine and complementary medicine. (I have had a commercial interest in aromatherapy for 16 years, but have an Honours degree in Biochemistry and a very sound education in science.) As I see it, the problem is that there is no way to reference studies in complementary therapies without linking to individuals who have an obvious interest in a supply company. Meanwhile, any reference that links to research by university researchers and which is reported in learned journals is perceived as independent and unchallangeable. In reality, we know that such studies are invariably funded by wealthy pharmaceutical companies, and their influence on results may be subtle and difficult to uncover but is often strong. The vast funds available to this industry enable there to be a greater distance between suppliers and researchers, and thereby a greater appearance of objectivity, but this does not mean that all conventional research is correct and conducted properly, nor does it mean that all interest in complementary therapies is incorrect and skewed by commercial interests. The topic under discussion is simply an example of outrageously poor science conducted and reported by impeccable establishment sources, whereas any rebuttal is dismissed as biased by commercial interests... Having read the Wiki guidelines on balance, verifiabilty, referencing, reliability of sources etc, I despair of finding a way to redress the imbalance. I know many things to be true by comparing them to my personal experience and that of my peer group, but do not know of any sources in complementary therapies that are completely free of commercial interest, so how can a dialogue even begin? Meanwhile, medicines and pesticides and other products of the chemical industry of which I was part are reported in Wikipedia as being of less benefit than originally promoted, having more side-effects than originally admitted, and sometimes enormously more danger than ever suspected - yet the only voices heard are from the same establishment that promoted them in the first place. I'd love to maintain my side of this debate until I am able to carry the day, but I need to take time out to find a way to support myself. Those defending conventional medicine and conventional science often have the funding to remove this pressure and thereby have the luxury of winning by default. This does not make them right. Cjsunbird (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, (not much!) I am one of no doubt many who have independently reacted dismissively to terms such as "alternative" or "complementary" medicine. No such thing. If it is a rationally applied measure that can be shown to work, then it is medicine (evidence based, if you must insist on a qualifier). If not, then it is not, whether complementary or not, and it is no alternative to medicine. Try Quackwatch for details. In any case, such argufying is not something we can afford to scatter through WP articles in general, in search of some undefined "balance". If you think there is some medical merit to Lavandula that deserves more than the encyclopaedic recognition in the lavender article, try a medical article; balance does not require that it be discussed in a largely botanical article. IMO the entries in the section "Medical uses" already are excessive. So much for balance. JonRichfield (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Link http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20070131/lavender-oil-may-spur-breasts-boys Shjacks45 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Lavender in cooking
I undid an edit claiming that lavender is traditional in South Indian cuisine, and changing a reference. IMO it was deliberate vandalism, but I am willing to be proved wrong. JonRichfield (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article contains the following statement, in the botany section;
- A number of other species within Lamiaceae are closely related (outgroups) including Ocimum gratissimum, Hyptis pectinata, Plectranthus barbatus and Tetradenia fruticosa.
This does not make sense to me, possibly it is now out of context. I've added a cite notice and posted this here for any comment, otherwise I'll delete it eventually. Imc (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Types/Cultivars List Request
I understand that it is alot of work but wanted to request that a list of cultivars be created for the page that includes the common name, the type(?)i.e. lavandula augustafolia(sp?), and a short description of the cultivar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- The type in the botanical sense is Lavandula spica. The cultivars of Lavandula angustifolia are described on that page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The following was posted on my Talk page overnight:
The assertion that Lavandula angustifolia, or any species of lavender for that matter, are cytotoxic is very much disputed. There are dozens of articles challenging the results in Prashar et al's "Cytotoxicity of lavender oil and its major components to human skin cells" study. Notably, Cavanagh and Wilkinson's (2002) "Biological activities of lavender essential oil" and Altaei’s (2012) article entitled ”Topical lavender oil for the treatment of recurrent aphthous ulceration.” Not to mention, this very comprehensive and well-researched refutation of Prashar’s claims by an esteemed and very experienced British aromatherapist, Robert Tisserand, which can be found at http://roberttisserand.com/2011/08/lavender-oil-skin-savior-or-skin-irritant/ Therefore, lavender oil has not been repeatedly found to be cytotoxic, if anything, it is the exact opposite in that it helps to heal wounds and repair damaged skin. This would not be the case if it was inherently toxic to dermal cells. The only study that has suggested this was flawed in methodology and results, therefore I removed the offending citations as they are alarmist and unfounded.
- I added the citation to that study back, but sought to balance it with other sources. (edit that removed it)
- Plenty of people use lavender everyday, and as far as I know don't have problems with skin irritation, but insofar as NIH states that "Applying lavender to the skin can sometimes cause irritation" it made sense to include the Prashar et. al. study. Although medical consensus can change over time I would think that NIH is seeking to convey the current general view.
- Other government health agencies can have different views.
- For example Germany has approved lavender for use as an anxiolytic(LASEA - SILEXAN - Lavender Oil Pills For Anxiety, Robert Tisserand blog) but the NIH page lists lavender as possiby effective only for hair loss, and as far as I know no lavender products have been approved for anxiolytic purposes in the U.S.
- Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)