Talk:Ginseng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Panax article[edit]

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)

Removing content because of reference.[edit]

I do not intend to start a "talk" war. A statement along with its reference was removed from this article giving "commercial site; not a WP:RS source" as the reason.

Yes, the referenced article was from a commercial site. But that is not disallowed.

I consider the existence of the article ("The piece of work itself") as "proof" of the statement. I chose the particular article because it is in English and primarily explained the cultivation of Korean ginseng. And not about the vendor's products.

I did not implement an "external link". Wikipedia's external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.

If the supporting reference was unsuitable, the reference should have been removed (probably replaced with [citation needed]), not the statement.

I was not able to find a "non-commercial reliable source". I would appreciate another editor replacing my reference with one.

For these reasons, I am undoing the undo.

From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. User-duck (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Move whole article to "Panax ginseng"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. --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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antepali (talkcontribs) 10:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I agree. Ginseng by default is Panax ginseng and the American ginseng has its own article. --Guculen (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2018 (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.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. --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. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose merge very strongly, for the reasons stated by 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.
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.
Syrenka V (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose "Ginseng" is a general term including all kinds of Ginseng, including American Ginseng. 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. 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. Thorbachev (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lack of any information on traditional uses[edit]

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)