Talk:Echinacea: Difference between revisions
archive |
Osterluzei (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --[[User:StudentDeskUser|StudentDeskUser]] ([[User talk:StudentDeskUser|talk]]) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --[[User:StudentDeskUser|StudentDeskUser]] ([[User talk:StudentDeskUser|talk]]) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Significant cultivation areas and wide use == |
|||
E. purpurea and also E. angustifolia are still extensively cultivated in the US and Europe for their purported medicinal effects. E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but other species such as E. purpurea are now more often used in herbal remedies. Actually meta-studies for echinacea don't even look so bad. In many of them some effect is noted. They clearly contain biologically-active substances that might have implication in human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. ([[User:Osterluzei|Osterluzei]] ([[User talk:Osterluzei|talk]]) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 17:34, 21 January 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Echinacea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Tantalizing Ngram history
Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --StudentDeskUser (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Significant cultivation areas and wide use
E. purpurea and also E. angustifolia are still extensively cultivated in the US and Europe for their purported medicinal effects. E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but other species such as E. purpurea are now more often used in herbal remedies. Actually meta-studies for echinacea don't even look so bad. In many of them some effect is noted. They clearly contain biologically-active substances that might have implication in human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. (Osterluzei (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Alternative medicine articles
- C-Class plant articles
- Mid-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Dietary supplement articles
- High-importance Dietary supplement articles