Talk:Ginseng

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sl2763.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New Panax article

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-duck (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2017 (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.Bchen1100 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Lack of any information on traditional uses

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 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 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. TV4Fun (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2019 (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. 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.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.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. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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 Herbalism article, absence of reliable sources and practices for product quality, safety, and potential for misleading health advice is a "minefield" leading to misinformation which opposes the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Zefr: I came across this article while reading The Three Body Problem, in which there is a brief discussion of ginseng and one character mentions that she can't have it because of her blood pressure. From my western perspective, not knowing anything about the historical uses of ginseng, I had no idea how to interpret this and came to the Wikipedia article in hopes of finding some clarification. Again, I am not suggesting we document it as actual medical data, but understanding its cultural significance can be important to understanding media from that culture.

No link to the Russian article

As it currently stands, there's no link to the Russian article. While there's is (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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoro (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)