Talk:Bitter orange

Untitled

Dog trainers recommend Bitter Orange to keep pets from chewing their leashes or other household items. JC Tustin CA

There's an intersting article on this plant in the 'Plants for a future' database, see:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Citrus+aurantium

P.S: I was actually looking for the 'Citrus vulgaris' which apparently is a synonym for the 'Citrus aurantium'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.139.112 (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 2 is used to advance the claim that bitter orange is not effective for weight loss, but the article in question asserts that in the abstract rather than actually being a study about bitter orange's effectiveness. The Mayo Clinic's website suggests that there is evidence that it is effective, but still recommends against it. The claim for or against effectiveness should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.2.208 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

HEAVY bias

The page is mostly about health risk scaremongering and anti-stimulant propaganda. Not even nicotine has such hate press on Wikipedia.

I suggest that the page should be rewritten with a more unbiased point of view, mentioning important cultural and culinary significances of this fruit - eg. as a primary ingredient in several italian soft and alcoholic drinks, or in perfumery. 213.163.40.100 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have cut the medical information back in the lede to something more proportionate. If you want to add to the other sections, please go ahead. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

I agree that this article does lack balance, and even seems to contain factual inaccuracies. As time permits, I will attempt to re-write it in a manner more consistent with WP standards of objectivity. For the moment, the interested reader is referred to the WP article on synephrine (although it is still far from complete, and is in the process of being expanded, it now does contain some important references to discussions of safety issues).Xprofj (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted this set of edits for a couple of reasons. First of all, herbalgram.com is not a reliable source per this site's criteria. The edits also inappropriately downplay the fatal case of myocardial infarction associated with bitter orange. The source clearly identifies synephrine as the suspected culprit, but the editorial language we used downplays the source, saying that the supplement only "ostensibly" contained synephrine. We need to accurately convey the content and emphases of the sources we cite. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like someone was determined to underplay the mention of herbal supplements and the heart attack, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I was actually thinking about dropping you a message about that change. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at: "Assessment of the adverse event reports associated with Citrus aurantium (bitter orange) from April 2004 to October 2009." by S. J. Stohs (2010) J. Functional Foods 2 235-238, before jumping to conclusions. I had started to modify the Citrus aurantium article gradually when MastCell peremptorily jumped down my throat. For the record, I am not "someone" who is determined to downplay the role of herbal supplements in causing health poblems . As I wrote to MastCell on his User talk page, I couldn't care less if C. aurantium -containing supplements disappeared off the shelves overnight. I personally believe that Supplements can be potentially dangerous, but there are a lot of qualifiers to that, and one shouldn't tar everything with the same brush. However, what I was trying to downplay was a perceived bias against C. aurantium based on original wording that was very prejudicial, and summarizing only one of many publications on the subject. It's easy to cherry-pick adverse reports, and this sort of bias doesn't belong in WP either. If MastCell had not so rudely interrupted my ongoing edit, I would have eventually buttressed my comments appropriately, with many additional citations both pro and con. It is not WP's job to protect the public from itself by selecting what literature is cited in a particular article. I agree that we should all try to "accurately convey the content and emphases of the sources we cite", but this is a difficult and subjective process, and almost impossible to achieve without some element of bias creeping in.Xprofj (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bitter orange. 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/20041110035619/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=276 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=276

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Caribbean sugar

As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for the sugar that is used in making marmalade to be sourced from the Caribbean, nor even that it be cane sugar (refined sucrose obtained from beets is exactly the same substance as refined sucrose obtained from cane). I intend to correct this shortly. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I made that change. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Non edible?

I am sure this is plainly wrong, even if cited from a book. I eat them all the time, even though it is clearly an acquired taste. However it is clearly common in some countries to eat them with sugar or salt or in salad. helohe (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)