Talk:Chinese herbology/Archive 2

Sources for "Actions"
For each of the herb sources were insufficient sources to support presumed physiological effects identified as "Actions". The actions and sources removed may be sourceable to some herbalism reference, but would not stand to a science-based source. Let's discuss here. --Zefr (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. MrBill3 (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Further as a guide is this WikiEducation tutorial for medical topics which states: "Note that MEDRS applies to statements, not just articles. So, if you're writing about a plant in a botany article and decide to describe its medical uses, those statements would require MEDRS sourcing." --Zefr (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the background from the Herbalism article addressing the absence of credibility for most Chinese herbal sources, practices, and products used as medicines. In a new subhead under the section Herbs in use, I suggest a cover statement to define the pseudoscience and absence of rigor and therapeutic evidence addressing all of the herbs that follow in that section. Draft: Herbology is a pseudoscience practice with unreliable product quality, potential for safety hazards, and misleading health advice. Generally, there is an absence of high-quality scientific research on herbology practices and product effectiveness for anti-disease activity.  --Zefr (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Zefr, you missed adding your sig. I largely agree with these proposed edits. I would change the first to "pseudoscientific" and perhaps qualify "misleading health advice" with often or frequently, depending on what the sources specifically say. The second sounds right on, so long as sources are provided and support. MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Source for ginseng species
Hi, I'm trying to improve the ginseng section of the article. It's common in English to say "ginseng" without regard for what kind of ginseng it is. But, that's a problem since there are three different species of plants being called ginseng. My original solution was to put a statement at the beginning, making this clear at the start of the section, (but it's been reverted a couple of times). The section was already listing out the different species, later in it anyway. But now, I'm thinking it's better to separate these three herbs out into three separate entries, since they are totally different plants in both a botanical sense and TCM sense.
 * So sections would be like this, for clarity and accuracy, with pinyin first.
 * • Ren Shen. (人参) Chinese/Korean Ginseng
 * • Xi Yang Shen. (西洋参) American Ginseng
 * • Ci Wu Jia. (刺五加) Siberian Ginseng
 * My main issue with the current form of this section, is that it mentions colors of ginseng without making clear which species it's talking about! It will be very confusing to people wanting to learn about "ginseng".
 * Thanks for reading, all the best, Thorbachev (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * first, new discussion topics go to the bottom of the page. There are already Wikipedia articles on various species of ginseng, Panax ginseng, American ginseng, and Siberian ginseng. All of these could be linked without much discussion. In your edits that I reverted, you were proposing the various ginseng species have different biological or health-promoting properties, for which there is no high-quality scientific evidence. Any such statement, if true, needs a WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS source. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll make another edit soon, taking all this into account. Thorbachev (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)