Talk:Rosemary/Archive 1

Archive 1

old discussions

Anyone know why it's called rosemary?

answered in text of article. WormRunner 04:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

though some think it too may be derived from an earlier name.

This seems rather vague who are the some referred to? what is this information based on? Shamus17 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo?

"Can be used as a disinfectant, fever, as a mouth wash and for rheumatism." Did you mean a fever reducer/reliever?

Really?

They are extensively used in cooking, and when burned give off a distinct mustard smell, as well as a smell similar to that of burning which can be used to flavor foods while barbecueing.

this seems to be syntactically terrible! I'm not in the least bit surprised that burning rosemary gives of a smell similar to that of burning. i would clean it up, but have no personal experience on the subject, and fear i might correct it to sound good, but not be entirely true. would someone who actually know something about the smell of burning rosemary clean up this sentence?

need more info

i think that on the sites they should have: maps labled parts ect stuff to help people understand more.............. please take this into concideration —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.135.161 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Rosemary is not in wild by nature fat coshia bread, even if its labeled as being so.

Anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean, or should it be deleted? Jhaverkamp 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The following passages have been removed from the main article due to being cite-needed tagged for several months without anyone providing any. If you can provide the needed citation from a reliable source, please do so and re-integrate the passage into the main article. As their factuality has been challenged for some time, they should not be restored without the needed citation. Alvis 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosemary has been found to be a stimulant and mild analgesic, and has been used to treat headaches, poor circulation, and many ailments for which stimulants are prescribed.

It can be used as a disinfectant, as a mouth wash and to treat fever or rheumatism.

Externally it can be used in hair lotions; a few drops of Rosemary oil massaged into the scalp, then rinsed with an infusion of nettles can revitalize the hair. Used in this manner, it is supposed to prevent premature baldness. Rosemary is also reported to stop dandruff.

For a tonic against headaches put some sprigs into a teapot, add hot water, strain, and serve.

Students in ancient Greece are reported to have worn sprigs of rosemary in their hair while studying for exams to improve their memory

Rosemary and its constituents carnosol and ursolic acid have been shown to inhibit the growth of skin tumors and to provide a natural anti-oxidant protection against skin cancer and photodamage.

Promotes a good sleep...

I'm surprised that it had not been mentioned that Rosemary when made as tea helps to promote a good nights sleep. It really helps when you are sick with a cold or flu and cannot get to sleep. In fact, one ought not to drive after a cup. I'm also surprised at the claims about improving memory and all that other stuff. --- Anonymous, Jan 1, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.191.15.227 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, were it mentioned, it'd have a problem. Derobert (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More information on compounds

No compounds present in rosemary are listed, except for the vitamins, yet there's all these claims made about the things it can do. The article needs to be balanced better. Yes I would do it, except botany is not an area of expertise for me. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Side-effects

Rosemary, for example, a cup of rosemary tea, can cause drowsiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.86.193.80 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Improves Memory

Is this claim saying that Rosemary improves memory after consuming it, smelling it, or as a symbol of remembrance? It is unclear weather this is meant literally that consuming rosemary would improve memory by biological/chemical means or if it is just used as a symbol.71.112.221.71 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is just a statement noting that rosemary in older times was attributed to improving memory - in reality this is both unlikely and AFAIK unsupported by any scientific studies. If the claim were that it actually did so, I would remove it, but as it stands there is no misinformation being presented, just a old-wives tale r.e. it's ancient reputation. Halogenated (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21877951 Though I'm not sure what wiki's policy is on evaluating this kind of material. I came here to see what the article said on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.147.61 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Article does have one non-quoted British spelling, but it has two non-quoted American spellings. The single British spelling was added most recently. Article uses American spelling per WP:ENGVAR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit by WormRunner at 23:08, April 10, 2004 has the first variant spelling (American) as far as I can tell, therefore the article uses American spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, I missed that one. We'll go with the American variant then. Orpheus (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The classification needs to be verified.....

as there is little info available publicaly http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Rosmarinus+officinalis+classification&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Rosmarinus+officinalis+Taxonomy&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tropicos indicates that there are several other species, one named in 2002. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated article with a recent reference that discusses the species.Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

cultivar info...

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903845618 --222.67.219.105 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthos?

Anthos redirects here - but the word is never mentioned? I was actually looking for a comic book character (Marvel, Guardians of the Galaxy). Why did I end up here?--Cyberman TM (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone had begun the page Anthos and had a single entry for this article. Somebody else created a redirect from that article to this one. Anthos means flower or blossom and should actually be redirected there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a citation that "anthos" was used for Rosemary here, which seems dubious originally, but likely to be picked up by the herbal pharmaceutical writers. It is a bit weird to have Anthos redirecting to flower, so I think this is a high priority for conversion into a disambiguation page. I'll see what I can do without knowing anything about comic books. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yours is the better solution. :) I tried to find a ref which linked it to this article without success. Good job.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On research I found "rose" comes from the Greek "Rodon" > rosy, as in rodochrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.220.252 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Xxx-Rated

Should this edit have really been RV'd by a bot? The Middle Ages were indeed somewhat pornographic. The children will have to find out about the naughtiness of Zoot sooner or later. Badanedwa (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pine needles?

The leaves only look like pine needles if you are someone who thinks every conifer is a pine. They resemble hemlock needless much more than they do pine needles. I'm changing the description accordingly. --Ericjs (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The leaves are actually fatter and rounder than conifer needles (the cross-section is similar to a square with rounded corners). The tips of the needles are almost hemispherical. There is no valley running along one side of the needle as there is with many conifer needles. Finally, conifers are Gymnosperms (no visible flower or a flower that is like a cone). Drbits (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Toxicity?! The stated doses can't be right

Currently the article states that the camphor content of rosemary is "up to 20%". Looking at the article on Camphor, we see that "Generally, two grams cause serious toxicity and four grams are potentially lethal" in humans. Thus, a dose of 10 grams of dried rosemary leaves might be expect to cause "serious toxicity" in humans. However, that's less than one tablespoon of dried rosemary! Either we need to put out a serious alert on people using this herb in cooking, or something is not right here. The "up to 20%" claim is currently uncited, I'm adding a citation needed tag. Any help on this would be appreciated. 2.25.3.227 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That 20% figure does seem high to me. Since it does not have a source, I have removed it for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC

That is surely "camphor content of extracted rosemary oil" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hardy Cultivars

Article reports that variety Arp has lemon -scented foliage. I grow it; it has the usual scent. It is also reported in standard references as having the best cold-hardiness of all rosemaries. Another cultivar (that needs to be added to the list of cultivars) is Mrs. Howard’s Creeping. I grow it; it slept, in a state of suspended animation, under the snow during an exceptionally bad winter that we had here in Portland (Oregon, USA) a few seasons ago. The varieties that I lost over that winter were the ones that were exceptionally powerfully scented, and this tenderness of the fumey cultivars could be quite general. I strongly recommend that such matters of practical concern to gardeners be addressed in the articles, rather than it be left entirely up to gardeners to slog through all the references for such vital information.192.220.135.34 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)c.s.auaeginal

The effect of fragrance on mental performance

Following a rapid-fire exchange with User:Prokaryotes I have added some content to the Fragrance section on a reseach study about mental performance. I raise this here so the record of the discussion doesn't remain wholly out of sight to other editors here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the addition. It's a possibility that is partially discounted in the source you site (although good you used the secondary source, not the primary) and based on a single research study. If it were a possibility raised by a couple of research studies, or something that came from a secondary source, not primary research, it might be appropriate to include this information in the article, but this one sentence in a short article, puts undue weight on a single, tentative, primary research study. Also, you should link to the discussion you had with Prokaryotes, and that discussion about an article's content should have been had on here, on the article discussion page. If you want to argue for reintroducing the content, here would be the place to do so. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this content - however, since this article had this longstanding[1] claim in it until a few days ago (when I removed[2] it), I re-included it (better sourced) out of deference to what seemed to be the established consensus. Since User:Prokaryotes is a very new user I continued discussion on my talk page since it was as much focused on the question of what constitutes good sourcing in general, as onthan rosemary in particular ... I didn't link to the exchange because the link would break when it is archived. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively you can post the relative discussion here; but discussions of article changes should be on article discussion pages so that all editors interested in the content can contribute. I think good sourcing is difficult for all editors, and imo, it would have been okay, and possibly helpful to others, to discuss good sourcing in general along with a specific article here, especially with an herb where cultural information will have a greater variety of sources than simple scientific facts. But that's done with. I don't think this study changes the cultural information, particularly with the better sources, and I would prefer we leave the primary source and its information out of the article. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AfadsBad since the source is valid (in agreement with wikipedia's valid sources), is a peer reviewed source and is additional information to the article content, in particular does this study affirm the history of this plant, hence "There's rosemary, that's for remembrance." (Hamlet, iv. 5.)". There is no reason your personal opinion should overrule wikipedia standards. Please re-add Alexbrn addition. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not all there is to including information in a Wikipedia article; for example, the information must be encyclopedic. This is not about my personal opinion, it's about the choice of information added, it's speculative nature, and the reliance upon a single primary source, without contradictory information from the secondary source. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."

"A research study in 2012 raised the intriguing possibility that rosemary fragrance might improve speed and accuracy in mental performance." What was "intriguing," about this "possibility?" And, a "possibility" is not a statement of fact. It is "original thought" on the part of the authors from a very narrow study, "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." Original thought

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not sufficient.

The conclusion was, according to the secondary source, "“This is an intriguing concept, but very preliminary,” she says. The findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance. “There is something here. I don’t know that I could conclude that it is the aroma of the rosemary that is associated with improvements though,” Tangney says." For some reason, you left this out of the article. --17:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The point here is that the study is adding to the data already part of the wikipedia page, and what you seem to missing is that the source here cited is a secondary peer reviewed, respected online publication. Your own argumentation supports the addition of this study. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

LNo, I'm not. I just quoted from the secondary source that it contradicts the information you put in the article. Don't start an edit war over this. The information put into an article should be discussed on the article talk page, particularly if it is controversial or, in this case, you've decided to put in only part of the information and exclude information that disagrees with it. The information does not meet Wikipedia standards.--AfadsBad (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I added the quote from the secondary source, which is not peer-reviewed, only the primary source is from scientific literature. So, now, in essence, we've told readers, a study speculated about something, and it was reported that it may be nothing. Encyclopedic? Not really. I will be glad to put this up for a third opinion, if you insist this is note-worthy. Let me know what you decide. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is peer reviewed. See under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other_sources - The addition was perfectly fine, what you did now is to add a single assumption from spmebody who guessed a lot. There is a study it got almost 700k google entries and is peer reviewed via secondary sources and according to wikipedia's own standards it is a credible source. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to listen to anything anyone says, so there is no point in continuing to attempt to discuss anything with you here. I will request third party input, and other editors can edit as necessary. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, your edit reason was wrong, your claim i added it is wrong and your arguments on original research are wrong, since this isn't a theory or opinion -it is a peer reviewed study in agreement with wikipedia standards. Then there are 3 users who agree to add this, i could sort this even out with Alexbrn. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What three users? I have requested a third opinion below, and I will notify User:Alexbrn, but would also like to notify the third. Please do so, or provide me with a name, and I will post a link. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously uncertain and speculative. Prokaryotes, please stop edit warring to insist on your preferred version of the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Prokaryotes, it is a little difficult to follow your arguments. Please be a little more patient, but, also you mentioned three editors agree with this information. Please name the other two, and maybe ths iscussion can move forward more productively. The information is stated speculativly in this article, so if it is not speculative, find a sourceable way to show this. -AfadsBad (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything has been said before see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosemary&diff=570703788&oldid=570408885 and the third user i mentioned is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary&diff=430666965&oldid=430389760 and if you look at the revision history there are even more. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence I removed is speculative, "possibility," "might"

A research study in 2012 raised the intriguing possibility that rosemary fragrance might improve speed and accuracy in mental performance.

"raised the possibility" -- This is not a conclusion, this is speculation, it is something that might be.

"might improve speed and accuracy" -- It didn't improve speed and accuracy; the study simply showed that there might be a "possibility" that rosemary "might improve speed and accuracy." It's pure speculation.

"intriguing possibility" -- Pure puffery.

And this isn't personal. I don't object to the information itself; but it has been inserted as speculation based on a single research study, that was reported at WebMD and dismissed by the WebMD authors.

I'm not going to search web histories to support your arguments. If you don't want to name the other editors, then, as far as I can tell, they don't exist. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some information was added to the Rosemary article after a discussion between two users on a user talk page. The information was from a secondary source about a primary peer-reviewed research study. The information added originally just stated that a research study "raised an intriguing possibility," and, to me, this is not encyclopedic content. The research study was very limited in scope, and the secondary source that was cited in the article even concluded that basically the study amounted to not much, the results "could be due to chance or something else," (n=20, I believe). The user who originally requested the information be added to the article disagrees with my addition of the information that the findings were not significant. I think that, as the original research is primary research and came to basically no solid conclusions, simply speculation, and the secondary source largely discounts the study, the information is not encyclopedic in nature and gives undue weight to a single, inconclusive, limited research study. (All biases in this post are entirely my own.)

"A research study in 2012 raised the possibility that rosemary fragrance might improve speed and accuracy in mental performance, however, researchers discussing the study pointed out that, "the findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance."[17]"

Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinions:

• The study was first added and since today part of the wiki on May 24 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary&diff=430666965&oldid=430389760 AfadsBad edited the page before, why he suddenly insist on removing the study is not clear based on his given input on the subject. The assertion and addition above from AfadsBad that a researcher said "due to chance or something else" is not correct, since the person wasn't part of the study, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999 - that is just an opinion and therefore shouldn't be included. The secondary source cited is WebMD, which is explicit listed on the WP:MEDRS page as a reliable source. Also the addition is not "original research" because it isn't a theory or opinion, something i already pointed out to AfadsBad above. And finally the reason to include this study is because it is supplemental to this information from the wikipedia page "Rosemary has a very old reputation for improving memory and has been used as a symbol for remembrance during weddings, war commemorations and funerals in Europe and Australia" Prokaryotes (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for link to WP:MEDRS, where I see this, "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful to temporarily cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study, for example...." Since the secondary source says 20 people, a small study, the information should be omitted entirely. The importance of the result or conclusion comes from the secondary source, not your opinion, and not whether or not they are involved in the study (if they are, of course they would rate their study as valuable). You say the secondary source is reliable, and it is their weight we attribute to the encyclopedic value of the study, and they don't give much. -AfadsBad (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you try to communicate with "the secondary source says 20 people, a small study". And what you quote is again not related since the study is from 2003, the WebMD review from 2012. You are almost on all assertion you have made so far wrong. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the sentence in the article:

"A research study in 2012 raised the possibility that rosemary fragrance might improve speed and accuracy in mental performance, however, researchers discussing the study pointed out that, "the findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance."[17]"

This is source 17 in the article:

"17. Mann, Denise (24 February 2012). "Can the Scent of Rosemary Make You Smarter?". WebMD Health News. Retrieved August 2013."

This is a quote from that secondary source where it says 20:

"Twenty people were asked to perform subtraction exercises and a task to see how quickly they could process new information before and after being exposed to the scent of rosemary in their work stations."

These are additional quotes from that article about what article this secondary source is discussing:

"The Scent of Rosemary Oil May Improve Speed and Accuracy During Mental Tasks," and "Researchers measured participants’ blood levels of 1, 8-cineole, rosemary's main chemical component, after the experiment." and "The findings are published in Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology."

This is the journal paper discussed in the secondary source in this article:

DOI: 10.1177/2045125312436573, Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, 2012 2: 103 originally published online 24 February 2012 by Mark Moss and Lorraine Oliver.

The study discussed in the secondary source in this article, Rosemary, is the 2012 Moss and Oliver paper. They used twenty subjects: "Twenty healthy volunteers performed serial subtraction and visual information processing tasks in a cubicle diffused with the aroma of rosemary."

If you are discussing a different paper, then use a secondary source that references that paper. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are so far correct that this study indeed is not related to the 2003 study. However, as Alexbrn points out above "since this article had this longstanding[3] claim in it until a few days ago (when I removed[4] it), I re-included it (better sourced) out of deference to what seemed to be the established consensus." What we have here now is a second study and Alexbrn should have included the old secondary source as well and the new secondary source because both studies come to the same conclusion. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

dew of the sea

there is a really odd claim made that rosemary is called "dew of the sea" becuase it supposedly only needs the humidity of the sea.

its called dew of the sea, because if you make a tea out of it, it somewhat resembled the taste of sea water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.190.32 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Flattened flower shape needed

When describing a species of flowering plant (Angiosperms) in detail, it is important to include sketches of the flowers from all visible sides (top, end, and at least one side) showing the flower and sepals. It is also important to show a drawing of the flattened petal outline and the arrangement of petals. In the case of Rosemary, each flower consists of six fused petals: two large petals and two small petals on each side between the large petals. This drawing of the flattened petal and the arrangement of petals allows for the identification of the family or order of plants.Drbits (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For all Angiosperms

These images for the leaves (3-D projection and flattened outline), seeds, sepals (as attached to the flower, a flattened outline of the isolated sepals, and an isolated flattened sepal if that is distinct from the sepals drawing), flowers (as described above), and petals (as described above) should be added for each species, genus, family, order, and clade definition. Drbits (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Taxonomy appears to be incorrect

I admit to not being up to date on plant taxonomy, but I believe that the taxonomy should be

• Kingdom: Plantae
• Class: Dicotyledon
• Subclass: Angiosperm
• Clade: Eudicot
• Subclade: Asterid
• Order: ...

Leaving out Dicotyledon (vs Monocotyledon, Fungi, and so on) leaves the taxonomy incomplete. Angiosperm separates flowering plants from conifers. A taxonomy should not have any "unordered" or unnamed levels (otherwise, it is not technically a taxonomy). Drbits (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

See the article Dicotyledon. "Dicotyledon" is now an obsolete classification, since it turned out to include groups of plants that were not closely related and were merely not monocotyledons. "Unranked" is just another way of saying "a clade that hasn't been given a formal Linnaean rank". The taxonomy in plant taxoboxes is standard throughout. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rosemary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323181037/http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/rosemary.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/rosemary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041119180436/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=873 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=873

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the name of the toxic Rosemary-like plant called?

I remember doing a trivia on Coolmath about a toxic plant like rosemary but forgot what's it called. Hopefully someone knows what it's called.

Minergamer1inonly (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Miner

Antimicrobial activity

Have just re-added two links to peer-reviewed research on the antimicrobial activity of this herb, both in general terms and specifically regarding s. aureus. These were very speedily deleted this afternoon, for no clear reason - which was vexing as this was student work I was supervising. For the avoidance of any confusion, peer reviewed articles are a reliable source of evidence for scientific claims. Please do leave a comment if deleting again. Vivrolfe (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS carefully. Medical claims need more than peer-reviewed primary studies. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For medical content, we use systematic reviews of completed, high-quality clinical trials per WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI, neither of which is met by the lab research indicating possible antimicrobial activity, a finding unlikely to be replicated in vivo and so is miscellaneous, primary research and unencyclopedic. Please don't edit war, WP:WAR. --Zefr (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Scientific evidence section

It is funny that the current article states that there is "no scienfific evidence to support" any curative properties of rosemary plant, when it was in fact wikipedia that brougfht my attention to it.

Let me explain first: We should make a distinction between "a plant" and its chemical contents, compounds which can be clearly characterized. A plant grown at one location can have a very diferent content that one grown at another location. That needs to be clear at all times in articles. But as far as effects of a certain chemical compound or a mix of chemical compounds go, there should not be any censorship. What brought me to rosemary plant is melissa oficinalis, which upon prolonged dosing had good health effects, so I researched why and arrived at a conclusion of the reason being the rosmarinic acid.

And the wikipedia article states "Rosmarinic acid is a potential anxiolytic as it acts as a GABA transaminase inhibitor... Rosmarinic acid also inhibits the expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase via its cyclooxygenase-inhibiting properties... The use of rosmarinic acid is effective in a mouse model of Japanese encephalitis."

So claiming that there is "no scientific evidence" is quite the contrary to the articles on all the individual chemical compounds inside of rosemary plant, the most significantly noticed effect of "GABA transaminase inhibitor". Seeing a trucker chew rosemary may seem weird, but hey, if it works, it works.

My question is: can please statements like "there is no scientific evidence to use of folk remedies" be changed to something less biased against the actual scientific evidence? even saying "...traditionally has been used for... ...with varying levels of success..." is less misleading that outright claim "there is absolutely no scientific evidence". Or the statement can be changed to "there hasn't been much scientific research into these specific folk remedies:..." or something else more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosemary is a Salvia

I heard that rosemary, Russian sage and a few other species have been moved to the Salvia genus. Why hasn't it been updated on any Wikipedia sites? I'm not an expert but the evidence seems solid and I'm not really up for re-writing these pages but I would love to see them corrected. I honestly have never even thought of correcting something on Wikipedia until now. Any thoughts? Am i going about this all wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.248.110 (talk) 16:06, 2019 February 3 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong. Reliable secondary sources, like the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, accept the change, so the article nneds to be moved. I'll do it some time if no-one else does first. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent DNA studies have reclassified as Salvia rosmarinus. Maybe there should be a sub-genus like what was done with Perovskia (i.e., create a subgenus Rosmarinus).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.161.255.31 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the article Salvia United, etc.? The evidence for including Rosmarinus in Salvia is not at all solid. They just don't want to split up Salvia. The writers of the article are afraid for the mess of splitting and want to please the public in general, especially in Asia, because the Asian plants will loose the name of Salvia. This article is written by lumpers, the splitters don't agree and the discussion in the international fora is not finished yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qabol (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Hardiness zones

I'd like to plant some Rosemary in my front yard, but it gets cold enough in the winter for snow, so I did some research, learning about hardiness zones and which one I'm in. I also learned that some cultivars can withstand our winters while others need to be brought indoors. As I'm a "fire and forget" gardener, I'll need to plant one of the hardier ones. As part of my research, I checked this article but found nothing I could use. I no longer need the info myself, but I'd think that enough other people will come here looking for this type of help that it would be a good idea to add something about it. If anybody here knows enough about this to make this addition, it would be appreciated. JDZeff (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Queen

Hello @Surtsicna: If you read the text it is obvious why that is necessary. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Invasive Spices. I have indeed read the text and I still do not see it. Edward is not otherwise mentioned in the text. So why is it necessary? Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither she nor her mother was from Britain. Without the king the British connection remains unexplained. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If rosemary becomes established in Britain after being sent to Queen Philippa, then surely this Philippa is queen of a kingdom on the island of Britain. I still do not see how defining her as a wife helps. Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If rosemary becomes established in Britain after being sent to Queen Philippa, then surely this Philippa is queen of a kingdom on the island of Britain. There is no reason to conclude that. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a severe underestimation of the reader's intelligence. Besides, he or she who cannot conclude from that that Philippa was the queen of a British kingdom will not conclude that Edward III was its king either. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)