Talk:Lavandula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History only[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry I had to correct your spelling errors. I hope you do not mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.103.25 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 75.218.161.130 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Had a look, see what you mean. Maybe best left as unknown then - MPF 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Long before there was a Wikipedia (I'm old), I heard it the other way around: that "launder" is a corruption of "lavender" because it was formerly used to make the wash smell better. J S Ayer (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nardus?[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.45.34 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know next to nothing about Hebrew vowels, but I've never seen this as "nerd" in English. "Nard" is a lot more familiar... __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New external link[edit]

I added a new external link to a great informative article from reputable australian writer -

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)[reply]


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.

I do appreciate your honesty in outlining your issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.133.33 (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 58.171.227.225 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fernleaf?[edit]

There are two species listed with the common name of Fernleaf Lavender (Lavandula multifida and Lavandula pinnata). Any thoughts or comments? —Gaff ταλκ 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over gynecomastia link[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Link http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20070131/lavender-oil-may-spur-breasts-boys Shjacks45 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(see also: lavandula revisions, and this edit) Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now two refs, different research groups, each reporting a few cases of topical (skin) use of lavender essential oil apparently causing gynecomastia in young boys. Not referenced here, but a test tube study reported that compounds extracted from lavender essential oil promoted production of estrogen and suppressed testosterone. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender in cooking[edit]

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)[reply]

Closely related outgroups?[edit]

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)[reply]

It's gone now. Imc (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types/Cultivars List Request[edit]

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 214.3.140.16 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Formulation/Composition[edit]

Would be nice to have a list of ingredients in Lavender oil like percentage of Linalool and other substances in the oil. Shjacks45 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 'composition' section in the Lavender oil article. Imc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lavandula revisions[edit]

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.
— User:IP:65.102.181.200

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.181.200 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited accordingly. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 07:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Soap[edit]

I was surprised to find nothing about its traditional use to perfume soap, and therefore its commonly percieved soap-like taste. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid?[edit]

I cannot find a reference to Lavandula 'Goodwin Creek Grey', which I have growing in my southern California garden. I believe it is a cross between L. lanata and L. dentata. Unlike some lavenders that are seasonal, this blooms all year long. DERoss (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)D.E.Ross[reply]

Herbes de Provence[edit]

What evidence is there that spice wholesalers invented the "Herbes de Provence" (HdP) spice blend? Francis Laget, in his article, "From its Birthplace in Egypt to Marseilles, an Ancient Trade: 'Drugs and Spices'," makes no such assertion. Neither does the HdP Wiki entry, for that matter. Is this merely conjecture on behalf of an overzealous editor, or is there some substantive evidence in support of the claim? Regarding this herb's culinary use, it's striking to me that lavender is not listed as a culinary herb of any sort by Tom Stobart in his classic reference book, "Herbs, Spices and Flavoringa" (McGraw0Hil, 1970). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.209 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English lavender[edit]

The article currently contains the statement - "Culinary lavender is usually English Lavender, the most commonly used species in cooking (L. angustifolia 'Munstead' )". This seems to assert that this cultivar 'Munstead' is the English lavender, which I believe is wrong? Imc (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add back "Research" section[edit]

The "Research" section of this article has long existed with information about the medical usage of lavender and its oil, as well as containing some of the same information in the lede. User:Zefr has been one of the editors and maintainers for this section. Recently I updated the "Research" section to reflect the same information as was recently added to the Lavender oil page. After this Zefr immediately removed the entire "Research" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavandula&type=revision&diff=1095655196&oldid=1095594900

He argues that the page should not contain the information since this page is about the plant rather than its oil. However, the health information about the oil has always been on this page, even in the lede. And the oil is talked about in multiple places across the article.

I propose we at least add back the "Research" if not the lede as well. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a precedent for whether articles on plants may or may not contain information on medicinal purposes for their extracts? Some one could point out how this violates MEDRS and I'd gladly agree. I was just curious about the consistency among plant articles and if anyone has looked at that aspect. --ARoseWolf 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I believe there is a precedent:

Etc. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the current article until today. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf - a search of plant families and genera would show that most articles do not contain information about human health research, mainly because they are for species description, distribution, and variation. See Lamiaceae, Mangifera, Cucurbita, among hundreds of examples. The links above given as "precedents" are where plant names and dietary supplements are the same, such as echinacea, cannabis, chamomile, ginger, and hypericum, and so may be isolated uses of the genus article to include research. Also relevant and conspicuous is your point that uses and references of plant extracts, oils or powders to human health are most often alternative medicine, poorly studied, and generally unreliable and not suitable for the encyclopedia per MEDRS. The IP raising this issue for the Lavandula article appears to be a WP:SPA fixated on including dubious reports on the use of oral lavender oil in anxiety treatment, for which there is no WP:MEDSCI evidence that it is recommended, used clinically, or mentioned in a clinical review on anxiety treatment. Substantial discussion here and on the IP's talk page does not seem to be getting through. Zefr (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason that most articles about plants do not contain medical information is because 99% of them are like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachyandra_erythrorrhiza
There are hundreds of thousands of species of plants. Most of which have not been studied to that extent. So of course that information cannot be on Wikipedia.
By definition of the link you posted: "Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective."
Since there are recent meta-analyses published to peer-reviewed journals showing effectiveness, it would be incorrect to label it as "alternative medicine" and frankly the labeling is not constructive, we should focus on the content of the encyclopedia by summarizing reliable, third-party published secondary sources, from roughly the last 5 years as per WP:MEDRS guidelines. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from the third opinion page. It appears that some of the sections can be consolidated into a single "Uses" section since they are not so large, with subsections such as "Culinary uses" and "Herbalism", etc. Looking at the previous research section, some of the content does appear relevant to the article, but again with WP:MEDRS, we don't want to overemphasize a single study. This "research" could be placed in the "Herbalism" section, though the content should be slimmed down somewhat. It should be okay to include the meta-analysis as it is a collection of multiple studies while wording it in a manner that suggests nothing is conclusive (again, this is just one meta-analysis). Not entirely familiar with these types of articles, but I'm happy to provide more thoughts as well if you ping me.--WMrapids (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WMrapids!
Just to let you know, there are actually multiple MEDRS-compliant secondary sources:
  • 2021 meta-analysis, published to Brain and Behavior (a journal cited on Wikipedia 26 times)[1]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Phytomedicine (journal cited 131 times)[2]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Scientific Reports (journal cited 6424 times)[3]
  • 2018 systematic review, published to World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (journal cited 46 times)[4]
Let me know if you have any additional thoughts. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, another concern would be the reliability of the organization/entity that is performing the analyses. If they are reputable, good, but if it is a group advocating for alternative medicine, then such studies should be taken with a grain of salt.--WMrapids (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's a valid concern that MEDRS addresses, since it requires that the secondary-sources be peer-reviewed and published by reputable journals. If there were problems with the methods to reach their conclusions, then the peer-review process should have rejected them. Additionally we are talking about four different meta-analyses, not an advocacy group. To quote WP:MEDRS:
Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lavandula&oldid=1216623524"