Jump to content

Talk:Ginseng: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Biology|subtopic=Biology|class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | class=B | importance=high }}
{{WikiProject China|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject China|class=Start |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Korea|class=Start |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Plants|class=Start |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture|class=Start |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=Start |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start}}
}}
}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Cornell_University/NS1150_Health,_Health,_and_Society_(Spring_2018) | assignments = [[User:Sl2763|Sl2763]] }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(100d)
|algo = old(730d)
|archive = Talk:Ginseng/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Ginseng/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|search=yes}}


==Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine==
== New Panax article ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Siena_College/Traditional_Chinese_Medicine_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:Sf23olso|Sf23olso]] | reviewers = [[User:SienaTCM|SienaTCM]], [[User:Sienasaint13|Sienasaint13]], [[User:Cam Coe27|Cam Coe27]], [[User:Em09gatt|Em09gatt]], [[User:Mr13maye|Mr13maye]] | start_date = 2022-09-07 | end_date = 2022-12-12 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Cam Coe27|Cam Coe27]] ([[User talk:Cam Coe27|talk]]) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
An article for the genus ''Panax'' needs to be created, at least a stub. Panax redirects to Ginseng so some of the information in this article is superfluous to ginseng. I have no idea what this takes to do.[[User:User-duck|User-duck]] ([[User talk:User-duck|talk]]) 01:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


:TCM is [[quackery]] which is not used as supposed evidence of medicinal efficacy for ginseng. Read [[WP:MEDRS]] and choose reputable reviews if changes in content are warranted. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Most of the comments on this page talked about the reorganization and specification of information of the Ginseng page. I do agree that this page needed these changes, but I also want to point out that the information on this page lacks sufficient detail on each category about ginseng. For example, if you take a look at the History section of the article, many facts reported by the author can be elaborated on to build a strong point or statement. Also, I would like to point out that the "Ginseng Processing" section was confusing because like the previous comments mentioned, I wasn't sure which species of ginseng you were talking or if the types of processing were used on different species of ginseng. I hope my feedback helped with your article.[[User:Bchen1100|Bchen1100]] ([[User talk:Bchen1100|talk]]) 14:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


== Sourcing ==
== Move whole article to "Panax ginseng" ==
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was not to merge. --[[User:Tisanophile|Tisanophile]] ([[User talk:Tisanophile|talk]]) 09:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)}}
All other languages have a single article on Ginseng under the heading "Panax ginseng". English should go there, too. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Antepali|Antepali]] ([[User talk:Antepali#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Antepali|contribs]]) 10:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:'''Support''' I agree. Ginseng by default is ''[[Panax ginseng]]'' and the [[American ginseng]] has its own article. --[[User:Guculen|Guculen]] ([[User talk:Guculen|talk]]) 12:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Zefr]], can you please review whether the article [[Ginseng]] is adequately sourced? [[User:Maxim Masiutin|Maxim Masiutin]] ([[User talk:Maxim Masiutin|talk]]) 07:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' I agree; but, and this is a big but, this article needs to be rigorously tidied up before any move. If it cannot be tidied up, it should simply be removed.[[User:Everlong Day|Everlong Day]] ([[User talk:Everlong Day|talk]]) 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Support''' But I think some content should be moved to ''[[Panax]]''. And some to [[American ginseng]]. --[[User:Postcol|Postcol]] ([[User talk:Postcol|talk]]) 08:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' There's always a question as to how to best deal with cases like this, where a ''product'' is better known than the ''plant(s)'' from which it is derived. Generally, I think it is best to have two articles, as for [[Tea]] and ''[[Camellia sinensis]]'', or [[Coffee]] and the relevant species of ''[[Coffea]]''. When all aspects are covered in one article, as at [[Apple]], the result can often be that the article is too long and will eventually be forked, or is very "bitty" because it covers so many subtopics. I think either approach can be made to work here, but I agree that the article needs some serious work either way. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 13:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' merge very strongly, for the reasons stated by {{u|Peter coxhead}}. I agree with his arguments but not with his tentativeness in drawing their conclusions. More than one species is used as ginseng root, and the pharmacology and folklore of the root are a quite different focus than the botany of the genus or of each individual species. Precedents from other languages are not only irrelevant but misleading. Other Wikipedias should also split off the article on ''Panax ginseng'' from the article on the root and its uses, for the same reasons the English Wikipedia should retain the existing distinction. If all other Wikipedias do it differently, then they are all wrong and should fix their mistake.
: —[[User:Syrenka V|Syrenka V]] ([[User talk:Syrenka V|talk]]) 21:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
: Also: a quite different change from the suggested merge should be made. The hatnote stating that this article is specific to the root of ''Panax ginseng'' should be removed, and the present article should cover the pharmacology and folklore of ''all'' use of ginseng root as a drug, not just that of ''Panax ginseng'' specifically. If there is extensive material on pharmacology and folklore of use as a drug in the articles on the particular species, it should be moved here for unified treatment, and replaced with brief summaries and links to the comprehensive treatment in the present article.
: One concept, one article.
: —[[User:Syrenka V|Syrenka V]] ([[User talk:Syrenka V|talk]]) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' "Ginseng" is a general term including all kinds of Ginseng, including American Ginseng. [[User:螺钉|螺钉]] ([[User talk:螺钉|talk]]) 14:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Since I am not a plant scientist, if I were to look for "ginseng" on Wikipedia, it would be for general issues of the plants that are used in tea for medicinal purposes. Whether or not this is Panax, I wouldn't know, and I'd have to check my bottle of "ginseng" to see if I'm using Panax. I note that this article [[Ginseng]] presently lists a variety of plant types that are used as ginseng. I suppose the article [[Panax ginseng]] could use some additional material. Thank you. [[User:Attic Salt|Attic Salt]] ([[User talk:Attic Salt|talk]]) 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' What really should be done, is to sort out the "Ginseng" page's info out into the respective species pages for Panax notoginseng, Panax quinquefolius, Eleutherococcus senticosus, etc. The "Ginseng" page should be turned into a disambiguation page, with links to the species pages. This will prevent confusion, because with the way it currently is, readers can't be sure which ginseng variety is being talked about at certain points, and it's too easy to mix up details between species. Thanks. [[User:Thorbachev|Thorbachev]] ([[User talk:Thorbachev|talk]]) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}


:As with any consumed herbs or food ingredients, the literature supporting health effects is dubious and low-quality, exemplified by [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ginseng+review this PubMed search], which displays sources in [[MDPI]] (predatory) and untrustworthy altmed journals. To keep the information readily understandable for non-science users, I would rely on Drugs.com and MedlinePlus [https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/1000.html here] and/or [https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/967.html here], i.e., it is not ''effective'' for anything. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
== Lack of any information on traditional uses ==
::I read this article and it didn't contain any health claims at all, but I thought you have a different pair of eyes and could notice something that I missed. [[User:Maxim Masiutin|Maxim Masiutin]] ([[User talk:Maxim Masiutin|talk]]) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

:::Over the years, there have been many attempts to insert health claims. The section on traditional medicine states well the absence of clear efficacy, and the section on FDA warning letters specifies the regulatory position on US supplement companies which are still marketing ginseng products falsely claimed as therapies. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 20:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Neither this article, nor the [[Panax ginseng]] article contain any information about what medicinal properties ginseng is traditionally believed to have, apart from only the briefest of mentions of it being used for folk medicine. Indeed, the "Traditional Medicine" section under [[Ginseng#Uses|Uses]] in this article begins "Although ginseng has been used in traditional medicine for centuries, modern research is inconclusive about its biological effects," and continues with several statements about modern clinical studies of Ginseng, while not talking at all about any of its traditional medicine uses. The [[Panax ginseng#Folk medicine|Folk medicine]] section in the [[Panax ginseng]] article consists of a single sentence saying only that it is used in folk medicine. I understand the importance of presenting accurate, evidence-based information about Ginseng's actual, proven effects, or lack thereof, but surely it is useful to at least discuss beliefs about ginseng from a cultural history perspective. To have this whole article about ginseng while completely leaving out its significance in Chinese culture shows a rather shockingly biased western-centric viewpoint. [[User:TV4Fun|TV4Fun]] ([[User talk:TV4Fun|talk]]) 03:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
::::I removed any unsourced mentions about "therapeutic" properties, can you please review this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ginseng&diff=1209426548&oldid=1209289836 to let me know whether it addresses your concern and the article content is now OK for you. [[User:Maxim Masiutin|Maxim Masiutin]] ([[User talk:Maxim Masiutin|talk]]) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
:I agree to some extent, but it's difficult to write about based on reliable sources while respecting [[WP:MEDRS]]. However, I cannot accept that it is "biased" to require evidence when claims of efficacy are discussed, if that's what is meant by the last sentence. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
::To clarify, I don't think it's biased to discuss actual medical evidence or lack thereof, or to require evidence before stating that it has any efficacy. What I do think is biased is to, in a section on its traditional uses, only discuss the modern clinical assessments of it and completely leave out its traditional cultural significance.[[User:TV4Fun|TV4Fun]] ([[User talk:TV4Fun|talk]]) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
::Also, I don't know if I agree that [[WP:MEDRS]] should be the standard for sources on the claimed properties of ginseng. Again, this would not be medical information, it would be cultural and historical information. In a general article on ginseng and its history, that is relevant, and unrelated to its modern clinical medical use.[[User:TV4Fun|TV4Fun]] ([[User talk:TV4Fun|talk]]) 14:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:::The issue, I think, is that if you write that ginseng has traditionally been used to treat a certain condition and you don't say whether there's evidence for its effectiveness or not, there is an implication that it is effective, and this is what worries some editors. But I'm not disagreeing that there should be more on its use in TCM. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|TV4Fun}}: Wikipedia defines it should have the goal of presenting the best established facts tested for veracity ([[WP:V]]) by critical peer-review through the ''reliable source'' process, [[WP:RS]]. Traditional medical practices about ginseng, including the cultural and historical information that concern you, are typically undocumented by reliable published research on dosage, efficacy and safety among its numerous applications, which vary according to the herbal practitioner. As discussed in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism#Scientific_criticism Herbalism article], absence of reliable sources and practices for product quality, safety, and potential for misleading health advice is a "minefield" [https://www.nature.com/articles/448106a leading to misinformation] which opposes the purpose of an encyclopedia. --[[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 15:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

== No link to the Russian article ==

As it currently stands, there's no link to the Russian article. While there's is [[:ru:Женьшень|(Женьшень)an article]] on RU end, which should be used here, it is already reserved "by item Q7213683.", the [[Panax]] article, which is totally wrong, as it describes a genus, not the actual plant(root). There's no genus article on RU end, so it is the Panax article that should have no links, while this article would link to the one I provided above. I don't know how to resolve the conflict by myself. Can anybody help with this? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gotoro|Gotoro]] ([[User talk:Gotoro#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gotoro|contribs]]) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 07:31, 8 October 2024

Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sf23olso (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SienaTCM, Sienasaint13, Cam Coe27, Em09gatt, Mr13maye.

— Assignment last updated by Cam Coe27 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCM is quackery which is not used as supposed evidence of medicinal efficacy for ginseng. Read WP:MEDRS and choose reputable reviews if changes in content are warranted. Zefr (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

User:Zefr, can you please review whether the article Ginseng is adequately sourced? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with any consumed herbs or food ingredients, the literature supporting health effects is dubious and low-quality, exemplified by this PubMed search, which displays sources in MDPI (predatory) and untrustworthy altmed journals. To keep the information readily understandable for non-science users, I would rely on Drugs.com and MedlinePlus here and/or here, i.e., it is not effective for anything. Zefr (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read this article and it didn't contain any health claims at all, but I thought you have a different pair of eyes and could notice something that I missed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, there have been many attempts to insert health claims. The section on traditional medicine states well the absence of clear efficacy, and the section on FDA warning letters specifies the regulatory position on US supplement companies which are still marketing ginseng products falsely claimed as therapies. Zefr (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed any unsourced mentions about "therapeutic" properties, can you please review this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ginseng&diff=1209426548&oldid=1209289836 to let me know whether it addresses your concern and the article content is now OK for you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ginseng&oldid=1250058276"