Talk:Althaea officinalis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Much of this looks as if it had been lifted wholesale and uncritically from a very old and outdated reference work. The bit about Greeks and Armenians living for weeks in Syria on just gathered herbs like mallows may conceivably have been true a century or so ago... hardly at present. The descriptions of the plant might not change, but things like the example in the foregoing sentence would. And do. Xenophon777 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

because it is used as a medicinal material http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545372.pdf --124.78.209.238 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced of the source(s) used regarding the medicinal effects of this plant whatsoever. -24.130.65.122 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The author who used the Chemical & Engineering News article to cite it's use for sore throats mangled two independent statements. The C&E News article says it was used in ancient Egypt as a treat and used in the middle ages for sore throats and colds. I've fixed the entry so it no longer says the ancient Egyptians used it as a honey nut treatment for sore throats. Dorminus (talk) 3:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Natural History Museum database base suggests this is native to Great Britain. see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/fff-pcp/glob.pl?report=pcfllist&group=&sort=&inpostcode=ip11 Matthewcgirling (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The following unsourced text was removed from the page. Perhaps it will provide some search strings that could lead to a useful and reliable source of information about uses in Traditional Chinese medicine. "The leaves, which are collected in summer as the plant begins to flower, have demulcent, expectorant, diuretic, and emollient properties. It is generally used in ailments of the lungs and the urinary systems, specifically in urethritis and kidney stones. The root, which is harvested in late autumn, has demulcent, diuretic, emollient, and vulnerary properties. It is generally used for digestive and skin problems, specifically inflammations of the mouth, gastritis, peptic ulcer, enteritis, and colitis. It has been used to treat constipation as well as irritable bowel syndrome. Externally the root is used in treating varicose veins, ulcers, abscesses, and boils." Nadiatalent (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The etymology of “Malvaceae” needs some work. The word is clearly derived not directly from Greek, but from the Latin plant name “malva,” as are, through several stages, the words “mallow” itself and “mauve.” The source of the Latin word is unclear; it may be the Greek word “μαλαχός” (note the spelling), but the Latin etymological dictionary Walde-Hofmann s.v. “malva” seems to find independent borrowing into Latin and Greek from an unidentified Mediterranean language more likely. The same dictionary emphasizes that derivation from the Greek form mentioned in the article (“μαλακός” for “soft”) is folk etymology. Cf. also Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “mallow” and “malvaceous.” 93.202.115.94 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference #5 - John S. Williamson & Christy M. Wyandt 1997. Herbal therapies: The facts and the fiction. Drug topics - which redirects to http://research.rmutp.ac.th/paper/cu/Herbal%20Therapy.pdf - is no longer accessible. It results in a the following error: Not Found The requested URL /paper/cu/Herbal Therapy.pdf was not found on this server. I am not sure how important this is to the scope of this article but I felt it should be reported. 2601:100:4000:110C:0:0:0:982B (talk)ID —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the section Uses>Culinary I had included mention of this plant as food in the Book of Job. This got reverted by User:Zefr, reasoning that the bible cannot be a reliable source. I had also cited an article about the plant on gardenherbs.org that made this connection. This is not personally important to me, but I'd like to clarify the question: Why not include it, especially comparing to the Horace quote that is already included. 2.247.242.92 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The basic issue that led to my deletion of the bible and Horace quotes was: what significance do these sources provide? Both are unreliable from times when information had no enduring records, and add nothing of value to better understanding the plant. Using the quotes is simply myth perpetuation. --Zefr (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

But you reverted to a previous version that does include the Horace quote. So it seems like anti-bible cherry-picking to me. Consequent behavior would feel fairer here, I think.

I'm also not with you on the theme of cultural context not adding to the understanding of the article subject. Some weeks ago I cited a poem about the subject in the article about a huge massacre. I asked several experienced editors to review the article afterwards. None took issue with that. 2.247.242.92 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of the "description" section is almost word-for-word like that found in A Modern Herbal by M. Grieve (which can be found for free on Botanical.com) and yet that text is not cited in that section. 2607:FEA8:925C:6E00:E54E:790C:9239:3D21 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)