![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re source #42 and #43
A google search for "Szucsko goji" shows that any previous mention of them (from 2008) has been purged.
Further the only relevant result in that search is: https://www.nsfcanada.ca/sites/default/files/On-line-Registry-September-2018-Rev7.pdf
Where we can find "V & M Szucsko Farms Limited" licensed only for "Asparagus"
It looks like their endeavor to grow them in Onterio failed?
Also the wording of "In the first decade of the 21st century" is a terrible way to say 2008, just fyi
Moved to Talk for analysis. Apart from the number of questioned statements, this appears to be largely original research that collates climatic/geographical material to advance the argument that "Tibetan" goji berries is a fake designation. Has this information been collated elsewhere by a reliable source? If not, it's WP:SYNTH and doesnl;t belong in the article. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the early 21st century, the names "Himalayan Goji berry" and "Tibetan Goji berry" have become commonnly applied in the global health food market citation needed to berries claimed to have been grown or collected in the Himalaya region.
They are sometimes also refered to as "the Tibetan and Mongolian Himalayas", a misnomer because the Himalayas do not extend into Mongolia [1].
None of the companies citation needed specifies an exact location in the Himalayas or Tibet where such berries are grown citation needed.
Some examples of a goji products do exist [2] as being sourced from Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, China. [3]
Although some Lycium species grow in some regions of Tibet which?, commercial export production of wolfberries in the Tibetan Himayalas is questioned among some sources, [4] as the mountain range bordering the Tibetan Plateau is a region inhospitable to commercial cultivation of plant foods of any kind citation needed. In the Himalayan foothills, bleak desolation is unrelieved by any vegetation beyond sparse, low bushes [5], whereas eastern valleys and plains of the Tibetan Plateau at lower altitude support growth of wild Lycium chinense [6].
The Tibetan Plateau, comprising most of Tibet north and east of the Himalayas, lies at more than 3000 m (10,000 ft) in altitude, with poor soil and arid climate conditions citation needed unfavorable for fruit crops.
Defined by the geography of Tibet, particularly in the western Himalayas, cold nighttime temperatures averaging -4°C year round [7] with six months of continual frost [8] would inhibit Lycium bud development and prevent fruit formation. citation needed
Existing in Tibet are minimal subsistence agriculture and impoverished crop management and transportation facilities unsupportive of commercial berry production citation needed. Although limited fertile regions suitable for food crops exist in the valleys of Lhasa, Shigatse, Gyantse, and the Brahmaputra River citation needed, there are no objective economic, scientific, or government reports on the commercial production of Lycium berry species from these Tibetan regions. [9]
I'm not sure if we have enough proper sources to salvage any of this. Do any of the sources meet WP:RS? The South China Morning Post doesn't seem too bad, though a direct link would be preferrable, especially given all the coi problems. I'm not so sure about the TibetInfoNet article. The lianghui.org.cn link is dead, without any information with which to find the article, unless some hint is contained in the edits that first included it. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the soil is not good so not condusive to fruit crops is not valid pertaining to wolfberries. Here in Arizona they grow in very poor soil naturally, may be the dominant speices. The statement about them not handling frost when flowering is also incorrect. Here they flower in winter and produce fruit in spring. Some natives also flower in summer and produce in autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.100.126 ( talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See [3] ( WP:STALK). Badagnani ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I never attack other editors, I simply point out that editors such as User:Eugene2x have followed me to nearly 10 other pages which he had not edited before, simply to revert my edits. They're all there in his edit history. This highly improper behavior simply must not be part of WP's collaborative and collegial ethos. Badagnani ( talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources in the very large blanked section (consisting of multiple paragraphs) are eminently reliable, and blanking the section prior to thoughtful, deliberate, and considered discussion does a disservice to the article's content, and to our readers, by impoverishing our article and neglecting a key facet of this berry's marketing. I am always civil but do point out when WP:STALK is going on (a look at your contributions over the past couple of days show it is). Badagnani ( talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An examination of your edit history over the past few weeks does a fine job of illustrating all of these adjectives (combined with the many reverts of my edits at approximately one dozen pages that you'd never before visited over the past few days) much better than my own explanation of them. My requests for thoughtful, considered discussion prior to massive deletions from individual articles, where requested by long-time editors, were eminently reasonable then, as they are now. Badagnani ( talk) 04:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is not to be deleted or moved as "off topic" as threatened in the previous edit summary by User:Ronz; the blanking of a huge area of this article, and the motivations for such, are integral to a discussion of this article and its content. Badagnani ( talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to a proper venue, such as
WP:WQA or
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani --
Ronz (
talk)
04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it really correct to say that people suffered certain effects after drinking "finite amounts" of tea, since its not possible to drink infinite amounts of tea?? 90.219.24.122 ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the atropine content of the berries the section concludes that the content is "below the likely toxic amount". I find this statement to be confusing and not in accord with the citation. Would you eat something that is "likely" not to poison you. That is a very vague standard. The abstract of the article cited states that the content is "far below toxic levels." This sounds a lot more certain, and a lot less dangerous than "below the likely toxic amount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.180.204 ( talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've visited this article, and while skimming it I noticed that source number 41 is always tagged with "unreliable source?" I took a look at the source and noticed that there's another article that cites the same ISBN as a source. Should it be tagged as possibly unreliable as well, or is this unreliability just contextual (i.e. only unreliable in this article) rlee1185 ( talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)?
Sorry if this is the incorrect procedure. I have just altered this word. Hadleigh is the name of the town in which this plant is commonly found in the hedgerow. I don't think there is a town called Hadley in Suffolk, let alone in the Sandlings. I have taken a picture of this plant growing in the hedgerow in Hadleigh. The grid reference is TM028412. The link to the record is. [1] babylonian_angel @hotmail.com 84.13.187.85 ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) sorry link went wrong... http://ispot.org.uk/node/93931?nav=latest_observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.85 ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There are serious problems with the etymology section.
First of all, this claim that "Wolfberry" is the most common English name is very odd to me. Here on the west coast of the USA Goji berries are quite common in health-food stores. If you say "Goji berry" people will have heard of it, even if not familiar. However, it is unlikely that "wolfberry" would be recognized at all. And stores that sell Goji berries never put a "wolfberry" subtitle, the way they do for things that really do have multiple common names. Furthermore, the claim that this "Goji" is some kind of confusion because it isn't "gǒuqǐzi" is ridiculous. ǒ ǐ are not even letters in American English. Goji is a fairly reasonable transliteration of either the Chinese or Thai words.
Second this claim that the word goji dates to the "early 21st century" is just crazy. Etymology is somewhat hyper-technical. To anybody who was shoping at health food stores on the west coast prior to the 21st century this is obvious and blatantly wrong, in addition to be original research.
My proposal is simply to delete the original research from Etymology. If there is not a good source to cite, simply saying that Goji is an approximate transliteration from 枸杞.
Amusingly, the USDA cite for the additional common names has "Goji-berry" but doesn't include the plain "wolfberry" at all, giving only "Chinese wolfberry."
Perhaps the whole article should really be renamed Goji-berry, which would remove confusion with Symphoricarpos occidentalis which does in fact have the common name of plain "Wolfberry." Rubypanther ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The other etymological connection of interest is the botanical proximity of wolfberry to tomato, Solanum lycopersicum where "lyco" = wolf. One has to consider first what compelled Linnaeus to name the tomato after wolf (lycopersicum = "wolf-peach"). The two plants are presented in the same section of Species Plantarum, so presumably, Linnaeus was working on his botanical descriptions of the two somewhat simultaneously around 1752-3. Tomato was apparently described first, then Lycium barbarum shortly thereafter. It seems logical that wolf-peach was regarded as the larger cousin to the small tomato-like berry, "wolfberry". A few years ago, we had this discussion in the article's etymology section, but was removed because it is, after all, speculative, however well-related. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to add some (perhaps marginal) information to the etymology - here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Волчьи_ягоды (russian wikipedia for "wolf berry") you find "wolf berry (in russian) is a common term used colloquially to several different unedible berries; most of them are red, some black, and even to some white ones the name is applied", the common point being poisonous/inedible. 94.64.30.16 ( talk) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zefr: If the details about "lycos" and "lycium" are relevant enough to be included, then "gojeh" certainly is, given possible silk road origins/ties. -- MahmoudHashemi ( talk) 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.
This review is meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The review is placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” ( WP:FURTHER).
The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” ( WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”
The review in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, it is scholarly and peer-reviewed, and it is published in an academic journal. Granateple ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: 'Move. Clearly the common name at this point. Further discussion about splitting articles for the species should continue below. Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wolfberry → Goji – - Now, I hate fad diets and superfood obsessions as much as the next guy, but it would be unreasonable not to acknowledge the impact those fads have had on this plant. The term "wolfberry" was always rather obscure, and now "goji" has made that term almost archaic. This is an Asian plant that was given a Westernized name, and now that name has been supplanted by (a close approximation of) the original name. Search results for "goji -Wikipedia" were nearly 10x those for "wolfberry -Wikipedia" for me, though Google searches are different for everyone based on location and that, so try your own. Here is a Google Trends search, and a second one, these signify how people are searching for the terms on this page (although "mede" could mean many other things, it still doesn't reach "goji"). Even the actual Chinese, 枸杞, doesn't get the search volume of "goji", and the word "goji" itself isn't popular in China. This is a uniquely Western word, it is the most popular word for this plant/berry, and it is the only name by which most English-language consumers would know this plant/berry. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as how people seem to agree that the content should be split no matter the title of this article, I've started an article at Lycium barbarum. It's basically just this article with the berry sections removed at this point. Is this the sort of thing that people had in mind? I'm not on expert on plant species articles, so it's hard for me to see what should be on the species page vs. what should be the fruit page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The content split looks good and is a fair justified edition of text for the L. barbarum page. Thanks, Johnny. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
There is currently quite a long list of common names on this page, but I think it should be removed in order to straighten out the Himalayan versus Chinese common names, which according to USDA GRIN here and here apply to the two different species. The separate lists could go on the two species pages, but combining them here seems to me to be rather untidy. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The change that I made to delete the taxobox has been reverted, and the page now lists two species in the box. Do other editors, particularly editors from WP:PLANTS who have frequently discussed the uses of common versus scientific names, agree that this is appropriate? I had thought that this would parallel a case like Banana, where there is a separate pages for that product of several species, and the species themselves have their own pages. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 11:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a change which produced these pieces of text at the start of the article:
My reasons are:
Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In the article, it says: "Potentially harmful interactions may occur if wolfberry is consumed while taking other medications, such as those containing cytochrome P450, warfarin, or drugs for diabetes or hypertension."
Cytochrome P450 is a liver enzyme. Medications do not contain it, but they can inhibit it. I think the correct wording should be "those inhibiting cytochrome P450." The reason I'm hesitant to make this change is because I'm not an expert and I'd rather have someone who is make the final call on how to accurately word it. Nonetheless, I'm positive this is incorrect as is. - Nanamin ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Any reason there is no mention of this fruit being a efficient source of Vitamin A? Source issues? I’m baffled. ( Dana60Cummins ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC))
This revert was justified because a) the content and sources are promotional of the Romanian company, Goji Bio Brașov, b) the sources are not independent WP:SCIRS references, and c) the editor is advertising. Placing a warning on Asimonna's talk page. Zefr ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re source #42 and #43
A google search for "Szucsko goji" shows that any previous mention of them (from 2008) has been purged.
Further the only relevant result in that search is: https://www.nsfcanada.ca/sites/default/files/On-line-Registry-September-2018-Rev7.pdf
Where we can find "V & M Szucsko Farms Limited" licensed only for "Asparagus"
It looks like their endeavor to grow them in Onterio failed?
Also the wording of "In the first decade of the 21st century" is a terrible way to say 2008, just fyi
Moved to Talk for analysis. Apart from the number of questioned statements, this appears to be largely original research that collates climatic/geographical material to advance the argument that "Tibetan" goji berries is a fake designation. Has this information been collated elsewhere by a reliable source? If not, it's WP:SYNTH and doesnl;t belong in the article. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the early 21st century, the names "Himalayan Goji berry" and "Tibetan Goji berry" have become commonnly applied in the global health food market citation needed to berries claimed to have been grown or collected in the Himalaya region.
They are sometimes also refered to as "the Tibetan and Mongolian Himalayas", a misnomer because the Himalayas do not extend into Mongolia [1].
None of the companies citation needed specifies an exact location in the Himalayas or Tibet where such berries are grown citation needed.
Some examples of a goji products do exist [2] as being sourced from Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, China. [3]
Although some Lycium species grow in some regions of Tibet which?, commercial export production of wolfberries in the Tibetan Himayalas is questioned among some sources, [4] as the mountain range bordering the Tibetan Plateau is a region inhospitable to commercial cultivation of plant foods of any kind citation needed. In the Himalayan foothills, bleak desolation is unrelieved by any vegetation beyond sparse, low bushes [5], whereas eastern valleys and plains of the Tibetan Plateau at lower altitude support growth of wild Lycium chinense [6].
The Tibetan Plateau, comprising most of Tibet north and east of the Himalayas, lies at more than 3000 m (10,000 ft) in altitude, with poor soil and arid climate conditions citation needed unfavorable for fruit crops.
Defined by the geography of Tibet, particularly in the western Himalayas, cold nighttime temperatures averaging -4°C year round [7] with six months of continual frost [8] would inhibit Lycium bud development and prevent fruit formation. citation needed
Existing in Tibet are minimal subsistence agriculture and impoverished crop management and transportation facilities unsupportive of commercial berry production citation needed. Although limited fertile regions suitable for food crops exist in the valleys of Lhasa, Shigatse, Gyantse, and the Brahmaputra River citation needed, there are no objective economic, scientific, or government reports on the commercial production of Lycium berry species from these Tibetan regions. [9]
I'm not sure if we have enough proper sources to salvage any of this. Do any of the sources meet WP:RS? The South China Morning Post doesn't seem too bad, though a direct link would be preferrable, especially given all the coi problems. I'm not so sure about the TibetInfoNet article. The lianghui.org.cn link is dead, without any information with which to find the article, unless some hint is contained in the edits that first included it. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the soil is not good so not condusive to fruit crops is not valid pertaining to wolfberries. Here in Arizona they grow in very poor soil naturally, may be the dominant speices. The statement about them not handling frost when flowering is also incorrect. Here they flower in winter and produce fruit in spring. Some natives also flower in summer and produce in autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.100.126 ( talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See [3] ( WP:STALK). Badagnani ( talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I never attack other editors, I simply point out that editors such as User:Eugene2x have followed me to nearly 10 other pages which he had not edited before, simply to revert my edits. They're all there in his edit history. This highly improper behavior simply must not be part of WP's collaborative and collegial ethos. Badagnani ( talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources in the very large blanked section (consisting of multiple paragraphs) are eminently reliable, and blanking the section prior to thoughtful, deliberate, and considered discussion does a disservice to the article's content, and to our readers, by impoverishing our article and neglecting a key facet of this berry's marketing. I am always civil but do point out when WP:STALK is going on (a look at your contributions over the past couple of days show it is). Badagnani ( talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
An examination of your edit history over the past few weeks does a fine job of illustrating all of these adjectives (combined with the many reverts of my edits at approximately one dozen pages that you'd never before visited over the past few days) much better than my own explanation of them. My requests for thoughtful, considered discussion prior to massive deletions from individual articles, where requested by long-time editors, were eminently reasonable then, as they are now. Badagnani ( talk) 04:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is not to be deleted or moved as "off topic" as threatened in the previous edit summary by User:Ronz; the blanking of a huge area of this article, and the motivations for such, are integral to a discussion of this article and its content. Badagnani ( talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to a proper venue, such as
WP:WQA or
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani --
Ronz (
talk)
04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it really correct to say that people suffered certain effects after drinking "finite amounts" of tea, since its not possible to drink infinite amounts of tea?? 90.219.24.122 ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the atropine content of the berries the section concludes that the content is "below the likely toxic amount". I find this statement to be confusing and not in accord with the citation. Would you eat something that is "likely" not to poison you. That is a very vague standard. The abstract of the article cited states that the content is "far below toxic levels." This sounds a lot more certain, and a lot less dangerous than "below the likely toxic amount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.180.204 ( talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've visited this article, and while skimming it I noticed that source number 41 is always tagged with "unreliable source?" I took a look at the source and noticed that there's another article that cites the same ISBN as a source. Should it be tagged as possibly unreliable as well, or is this unreliability just contextual (i.e. only unreliable in this article) rlee1185 ( talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)?
Sorry if this is the incorrect procedure. I have just altered this word. Hadleigh is the name of the town in which this plant is commonly found in the hedgerow. I don't think there is a town called Hadley in Suffolk, let alone in the Sandlings. I have taken a picture of this plant growing in the hedgerow in Hadleigh. The grid reference is TM028412. The link to the record is. [1] babylonian_angel @hotmail.com 84.13.187.85 ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) sorry link went wrong... http://ispot.org.uk/node/93931?nav=latest_observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.85 ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There are serious problems with the etymology section.
First of all, this claim that "Wolfberry" is the most common English name is very odd to me. Here on the west coast of the USA Goji berries are quite common in health-food stores. If you say "Goji berry" people will have heard of it, even if not familiar. However, it is unlikely that "wolfberry" would be recognized at all. And stores that sell Goji berries never put a "wolfberry" subtitle, the way they do for things that really do have multiple common names. Furthermore, the claim that this "Goji" is some kind of confusion because it isn't "gǒuqǐzi" is ridiculous. ǒ ǐ are not even letters in American English. Goji is a fairly reasonable transliteration of either the Chinese or Thai words.
Second this claim that the word goji dates to the "early 21st century" is just crazy. Etymology is somewhat hyper-technical. To anybody who was shoping at health food stores on the west coast prior to the 21st century this is obvious and blatantly wrong, in addition to be original research.
My proposal is simply to delete the original research from Etymology. If there is not a good source to cite, simply saying that Goji is an approximate transliteration from 枸杞.
Amusingly, the USDA cite for the additional common names has "Goji-berry" but doesn't include the plain "wolfberry" at all, giving only "Chinese wolfberry."
Perhaps the whole article should really be renamed Goji-berry, which would remove confusion with Symphoricarpos occidentalis which does in fact have the common name of plain "Wolfberry." Rubypanther ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The other etymological connection of interest is the botanical proximity of wolfberry to tomato, Solanum lycopersicum where "lyco" = wolf. One has to consider first what compelled Linnaeus to name the tomato after wolf (lycopersicum = "wolf-peach"). The two plants are presented in the same section of Species Plantarum, so presumably, Linnaeus was working on his botanical descriptions of the two somewhat simultaneously around 1752-3. Tomato was apparently described first, then Lycium barbarum shortly thereafter. It seems logical that wolf-peach was regarded as the larger cousin to the small tomato-like berry, "wolfberry". A few years ago, we had this discussion in the article's etymology section, but was removed because it is, after all, speculative, however well-related. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to add some (perhaps marginal) information to the etymology - here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Волчьи_ягоды (russian wikipedia for "wolf berry") you find "wolf berry (in russian) is a common term used colloquially to several different unedible berries; most of them are red, some black, and even to some white ones the name is applied", the common point being poisonous/inedible. 94.64.30.16 ( talk) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zefr: If the details about "lycos" and "lycium" are relevant enough to be included, then "gojeh" certainly is, given possible silk road origins/ties. -- MahmoudHashemi ( talk) 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.
This review is meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The review is placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” ( WP:FURTHER).
The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” ( WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”
The review in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, it is scholarly and peer-reviewed, and it is published in an academic journal. Granateple ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: 'Move. Clearly the common name at this point. Further discussion about splitting articles for the species should continue below. Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wolfberry → Goji – - Now, I hate fad diets and superfood obsessions as much as the next guy, but it would be unreasonable not to acknowledge the impact those fads have had on this plant. The term "wolfberry" was always rather obscure, and now "goji" has made that term almost archaic. This is an Asian plant that was given a Westernized name, and now that name has been supplanted by (a close approximation of) the original name. Search results for "goji -Wikipedia" were nearly 10x those for "wolfberry -Wikipedia" for me, though Google searches are different for everyone based on location and that, so try your own. Here is a Google Trends search, and a second one, these signify how people are searching for the terms on this page (although "mede" could mean many other things, it still doesn't reach "goji"). Even the actual Chinese, 枸杞, doesn't get the search volume of "goji", and the word "goji" itself isn't popular in China. This is a uniquely Western word, it is the most popular word for this plant/berry, and it is the only name by which most English-language consumers would know this plant/berry. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as how people seem to agree that the content should be split no matter the title of this article, I've started an article at Lycium barbarum. It's basically just this article with the berry sections removed at this point. Is this the sort of thing that people had in mind? I'm not on expert on plant species articles, so it's hard for me to see what should be on the species page vs. what should be the fruit page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The content split looks good and is a fair justified edition of text for the L. barbarum page. Thanks, Johnny. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
There is currently quite a long list of common names on this page, but I think it should be removed in order to straighten out the Himalayan versus Chinese common names, which according to USDA GRIN here and here apply to the two different species. The separate lists could go on the two species pages, but combining them here seems to me to be rather untidy. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The change that I made to delete the taxobox has been reverted, and the page now lists two species in the box. Do other editors, particularly editors from WP:PLANTS who have frequently discussed the uses of common versus scientific names, agree that this is appropriate? I had thought that this would parallel a case like Banana, where there is a separate pages for that product of several species, and the species themselves have their own pages. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 11:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a change which produced these pieces of text at the start of the article:
My reasons are:
Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In the article, it says: "Potentially harmful interactions may occur if wolfberry is consumed while taking other medications, such as those containing cytochrome P450, warfarin, or drugs for diabetes or hypertension."
Cytochrome P450 is a liver enzyme. Medications do not contain it, but they can inhibit it. I think the correct wording should be "those inhibiting cytochrome P450." The reason I'm hesitant to make this change is because I'm not an expert and I'd rather have someone who is make the final call on how to accurately word it. Nonetheless, I'm positive this is incorrect as is. - Nanamin ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Any reason there is no mention of this fruit being a efficient source of Vitamin A? Source issues? I’m baffled. ( Dana60Cummins ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC))
This revert was justified because a) the content and sources are promotional of the Romanian company, Goji Bio Brașov, b) the sources are not independent WP:SCIRS references, and c) the editor is advertising. Placing a warning on Asimonna's talk page. Zefr ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)