Talk:Ginseng/Archive 1

Yin/Yang messed up
The Yin/Yang cold/hot talk in Panax quinquefolius American ginseng (root) is messed up. First you associate Yin with cold, Yang with heat, and next you do it the opposite way. The reason it has been claimed that American ginseng promotes Yin (shadow, cold, negative, female) while East Asian ginseng promotes Yang (sunshine, hot, positive, male) is that, according to traditional Korean medicine, things living in cold places are strong in Yang and vice versa, so that the two are balanced.

[response] I think the idea is that plants living in hot places tend to be Yin, so to balance the heat of its surroundings, and vice versa. American Ginseng promotes Yin because it (initially) came into China from the ports of Canton (Guangdong), which in China is a very hot place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.228.115 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy changes
Panax notoginseng is the same as Panax pseudoginseng. So it shouldn't be listed twice in the box. I just added to the stub for Panax pseudoginseng. Ksvaughan2 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reordering this article
This article is primarily about two different plants: American Ginseng and Panax Ginseng. Panax ginseng is divided into red and white. The uses and doses are different between different ginsengs. I think that the sections should be substantially reordered, with subheadings under each type. Ksvaughan2 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved some of the paragraphs around and changed the fonts on headings so that it flows: American, Asian- white and red, red paragraphs, wild, substitutes. It still needs some structural changes so that uses and dosages are under each type. Ksvaughan2 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Overdose
This is all about notoginseng, which is neither sold as ginseng nor dangerous. I think it should be removed. I also question the citation- the same author has an extensive article on notoginseng called "Rare Reactions to a Safe Herb" where he lists all 19 documented adverse reactions, all allergic, which has nothing to do with dosage or toxicity. And the article mentioned does not say anything about notoginseng. [] Besides, ancient references to only two alleged overdose reactions could be misidentified plants if such references actually exist. The herb is hemostatic so is unlikely to cause hemorrhage. If no one objects I will remove it Ksvaughan2 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) herbalist

I removed it since it didn't have to do with ginseng and I can find no legitimate sources with that information. Ksvaughan2 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Chinese folklore about the dangers of applying ginseng belongs in the overdose section. Overdose refers to a specific concept within medicine. If you want to create a new section about what was traditionally believed to be potential dangers of ginseng then that's fine but it shouldn't be mixed in with the overdose section which should just state the simple information pertaining to overdose. I'm particularly concerned because it contains the phrase 'death may be inevitable' which i think we should try and keep away from an overdose section without some reliable evidence. 84.13.105.45 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ginseng Folklore
Text of Ginseng Folklore article created by User:Tdiddi:

''Ginseng has been a subject of Chinese folklore and legend for it’s healing power. Ginseng has been used as a tonic, and has a reputation for being a root for long life. Many of the Ancient Chinese Emperors have paid their own weights in gold just to possess a root which was very old and would insure longevity themselves as well. People on their deathbeds have been given a strong dose of a good quality root in order to prolong their lives a little longer so that distant relatives could travel from afar to bid them farewell or to extend their life so that they could finish speaking their last wishes to the family and bestow their blessings on the survivors.''

If any of this is verifiable, it should be added to the main Ginseng article. Andrewa 23:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a quote from the Chinese classics, cited from Dharmananda's article.Ksvaughan2 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

.................. is it a fruit or vegetable??

Reply--
 * a vegetable is any edible part of a plant. A fruit is usually scientifically defined as the seed carrying part of the plant. That's why most fruit a person eats has some seeds in it. So a fruit is always a vegetable but a vegetable is not always a fruit. BUT I believe the part of the ginseng used is the root.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ability to concentrate
In the article at the moment it says that Ginseng decreases the ability to concentrate. In many articles around the web and in common knowledge, it says that Ginseng increases the ability to concentrate.

What is it then?

Good question.

It is an adaptogen which increases the ability to concentrate. The article was wrong. Ksvaughan2 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist with degree in Chinese medicine)

ginseng works
I can tell you ginseng works for me. It is not a placebo. It has given me extended energy on long difficult bicycle rides.

On another ocasion I drank about 2 liters and I had more energy for sexual activity than I had ever had in my life.

I came to this sight to learn why this happens. I was dissapointed.

I have been told that there are 4 types of bodies in asian medicine. Perhaps my body is particularly receptive to ginseng.

Then why is there no literature (as far as I can tell) on its pharmochemistry? Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, but when it's between Western medicine and Eastern voodoo, we're supposed to go with Dr. Smith. --The Lizard Wizard 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe Ginseng's effect, you should try it and see for yourself. It's not that expensive and can be found in TCM stores.  Some Asian grocery stores also carries them.  The most common way of preparing ginseng is just boil it with broth or other liquid (water, vodka, etc).  You can also eat it directly, but I promise that you won't like the taste.  Lightblade 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If taking it seems to help you in whatever way, how do you know whether that is because of some physiological effect or because of the boost in confidence that accompanies taking something you believe works? It is logically impossible for you to know, isn’t it? This is the reason that claims of the physiological efficacy of whatever substance can be verified only by means of studies that examine the _comparative_ effect between groups of people who take the substance in question and those who take an inert substance. I’m happy that ginseng does it for you, whether its “effect” is physiological or not, but conclusions can’t be drawn from your experience alone.

Secondly (not speaking about this article in particular), while I strongly support the idea that Wikipedia should not _arbitrarily_ subordinate one school of thought to another, that is something very different from writing articles that blindly advance as possible truth every known view on a subject, no matter how bizarre. Take an example: The availability of modern medicine undeniably results in extraordinary gains in life expectancy. Hypothetically, suppose that a few individuals, for whatever reason, believe that modern medicine is a hoax and that “infections” are really caused by invisible garden gnomes that beat people with tiny hammers while they sleep. We have two views here, but including the blatantly absurd view, for which no evidence whatsoever is advanced, as a possibly true alternative to the demonstrably plausible view is nothing short of misinformation. (I however think it’s perfectly legitimate to include it in the context of “Some people believe … but there’s no evidence for it,” if that has some relevance.)

--Jim 03:00 28 October 2006

"It's not a placebo, because I tried it and believe it works" <-- this is a completely false argument anyways. If it's a placebo, it means you believe it works. Stating that you believe it worked for you is in no way an argument that it's not a placebo.
 * I've read through all of your arguments in this section and it appears the last two are the most informative with strong arguments that they have supported well ... however I am in no position, myself, having no experience in medicine and recieving very little information from wikipedia on this matter to assume anything about what is or isn't right. So with that said, my argument will aslo have no supporting evidence and can be written off as the humorous 'garden nolmes beating people with shovels' example but that's okay ... let those who want to win win. I am an international athlete who has used ginseng at varying periods of my life since I was 14 years old. My reasons for using it were based soley on rumors of it being something healthy to drink, and I remained ignorant to the arguments of its other benefits up until reading these articles. From personal experience and without any expectations of ginseng, I drew several conclusions about its benefits based on what I've deduced using it for many many years that match up well with a few of the arguments here. For instance, at a young age I quickly began to realize that it helped me concentrate better, and my mental endurance while undergoing heavy training sessions was greatly increased by ginseng. I have also, over the past few years, noticed its advantages during sexual intercourse (something that caught my interest just now when I read that it's traditionaly been used as both a stimulant and an aphrodesiac.) As irellevent my personal experience with ginseng may be to most of you, the point that I would like to strees would be not to rely on conflicting arguments over it be your deciding factor in whether or not you use it. I have no doubt that it could have different reactions for different people and I would suggest that whoever is curious should simply try it in small amounts and decide, based on the reaction they get, whether they enjoy its effects on them or not. -dan


 * Please don't post your personal experiences on Wikipedia, they have absolutely no relevance. - Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.64.58 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think this article is terrible
Ginseng has rescently come in my life. Wikipedia let me down when i tried to learn why i felt so good. This stuff cured my adhd, i feel great 24/7. Never tired, energised, sleep very well, heart feels healthy, can remember everything.


 * REPLY:
 * Well, it doesn't really state in the artical that ginseng is horrible for you, or that it makes you feel ill or tired.


 * The reason the Wikipedia does not contain any information about how ginseng cures ADHD, reverses Alzheimers, destroys cancer and runs for president, is because it's all unverifiable hocus pocus. I'm sure that if there IS an effect from ginseng, it's minor.  All of the claims that ginseng cures this and that and makes people have great sex is all entirely in the mind.  I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing - after all, according to ANOTHER Wikipedia article, "other studies argue that up to 75% of the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication is due to the placebo-effect rather than the treatment itself."  Indeed, "placebo-effect" does not equal "no-effect."  A "placebo-effect" means that the reaction is entirely mental, not chemical – and it appears that the mind is stronger than even the best anti-depressants.  So if Western medicine, which has proven chemical benefits, is still a majority placebo effect, then is it so unimaginable that an herb like ginseng has placebo-effects?


 * As a side note, I would like to agree with you, this article is horrible. But not because it doesn't contain all of your Eastern hoodoo.  It's because it contains so many unverified, uncited statements.  It also is just terribly written.  Can we work on that? Brash 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Brash, I don't use ginseng and I'm pretty sure I never will, but I find the tone and offensive language of your remarks to be prejudicial, Eurocentric, inherently unscientific and frankly--I can't help but say this--asinine. Only someone of such a cast of mind might seriously consider that one's mind is so powerful that even pharmaceutical substances will not affect it--whether they come from a sterile retort somewhere or from some Asian mortar and pestle.  By all means ratioanlly discuss the mild or moderate effects of this substance on people.  But keep your insulting language and cultural biases to yourself if you want your opinion to be considered without a disgust that overwhelms anything important you may have to say.  NaySay 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is interesting, and has a lot of potential, but contains WAAAAAYY too many uncited facts. I just pretty much wiped out the side-effects section, and added citations for the little that remains. There's no excuse for adding a statement--especially a medical one--without a citation to back it up. (Remember there are people out there stupid enough to make health-related decisions based on what they read on the internet.) -Bindingtheory 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * REPLY:

A lot of Ginseng's effects have to do with the fact that it is a vasodialator. However, it also contains elements that can cause the heart to beat harder (similar to epinephrine), thus the overall effect is an increase in pulse pressure where the systole increases and the diastole deacreases. In a normal healthy individual that has a balanced diet, there wouldn't be much effect on the body other than perhaps an increase in vitality. Due to its ability to cause the heart to pump harder, it is contraindicated for people with hypertension and yet conversely can cause hypotension from the vasodialation. In essence, it would be the same as taking medications to treat high blood pressure (such as nitroglycerin), then going out for a run. The pipes widen but the flow goes up. Keep in mind that when blood flows easier to the rest of the body, muscles work better, cells can produce more energy (ATP), your brain receives more oxygen and sugars, vitamins, etc. and your overall metabolism goes up. -Zexola 12:40, 30 November 2006 (PST)

well.....
this article covers the true ginsengs, as well as those tradtitionaly called ginseng but bear no resembulance or simular chemical makeup to that of those of the panax species. although Eleutherococcus senticosus has been proven to be a powerful adaptogen along with Schizandra chinensis: Stimulating effect of adaptogens: an overview with particular reference to their efficacy following single dose administration

according to the doctorine of signatures, ginseng root,which is called tradtionally "man root", bearing resimulance to a human, has been thought to be a cure all. and given this, there have been alot of uses traditionally for ginseng as a cure-all. what is concidered to be "true" ginseng contain ginsenosides, but only 7 of the 28 known ginsenosides are currently used in clinical studies. Korean Ginseng has been proven to be an affective alternative to convential E.D. treatment methods, so says a july 2006 double blind, placebo controlled study, where 20 men had improved rigility, penetration, and maintenence then those who haven't had the gensing. you can see for yourself: Study of the efficacy of Korean Red Ginseng in the treatment of erectile dysfunction

which in other words, great sex.

not all of the ginsengs provide vasodialating effects: An evaluation of the hemostatic effect of externally applied notoginseng and notoginseng total saponins

according to a published article, Panax notoginseng (teichi ginseng) flower extract has been proven to decrease the proliferation of colorectal cancer (cancer of the rectum and the colon) cells. again, see for yourself: Notoginseng enhances anti-cancer effect of 5-fluorouracil on human colorectal cancer cells

that's just three of the MANY types of ginseng (those panax and not) that have had proven studies for just some of their uses.

as for citing references, i can see the writer's concern with citing a medical statement with no back up. yes, people do actually use just what they read off the internet and accept it as gospel truth. to some, elvis is still alive and kicking. bottom line, it's been proven to work. Arisugawa 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Arisugawa


 * Two very limited studies can hardly be called conclusive proof that ginseng works in all cases. While I find it easy to believe that ginseng has hemostatic properties, I find it a little harder to believe that it cures ADHD, as someone in this talk page dubiously claimed.  We simply are going to have to have absolutely specific scientific evidence to back up every single statement made on the ginseng page, not testimonials from new age wikipedians.
 * By the way, I hope you don't mind me fixing your post so it was actually readable. Brash 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This editor didn't say it "cures ADHD," nor were claims to that effect made on the article page. Furthermore, the person who originally made that claim did so in the context of recounting a personal experience, not putting forth facts for inclusion in the article.  Just because some people make unsubstantiated claims does not mean that other more modest claims cannot be substantiated.  Essentially, your argument is a strawman. 209.30.90.117 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

although, to this date, over 2,000 medical studies have been done on ginseng(various species), of those over 300 of those are just clinical trials. And yes, one of those does include ginseng with ginko biloba to relieve, but not cure, the effects of ADHD:  although the effects on the person on this talk page may be of an exceptional nature. ADHD is a chemical imbalance, and very differnet from ADD. the testimonials on this page represent a very small percentage of the body types out there.Arisugawa 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)arisugawa

Well after listening to all of the bashing of opposing research, namecalling, and nit-picking, I can only suggest that if you want a good read on some really good research from Canada (locations listed below), then read Null and Opposing Effects of Asian Ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) on Acute Glycemia

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital (J.L.S., L.A.L., V.V.), Toronto, CANADA

So let's not bash sources or reports because anyone can pull up "valid" research if you look hard enough... -Zexola 01:07, 28 February 2007 (PST)

White Ginseng
In the section on differnet types under Red Ginseng the article states

"A study of ginseng's effects on rats show that while both White ginseng and Red ginseng reduce the incidence of cancer, the effects appear to be greater with Red ginseng."

I can't find any other mention of white ginseng any where on the page. Is this a differnet type, a substitute, or what? 64.16.40.18 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ginseng
I am really got that not much has been said about hunting and selling wild ginseng. At more than $8 per ounce and the joy of finding a ginseng plant during the beautiful autumn months is wonderful,(it is seasonal and can only be hunted a for few months and in most states it is illegal to take the berries they must be left behind).

It is very difficult to find but nothing lifts your spirit like finding a ginseng plant.

More later. . . . Daytrivia 02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read that the most potent ginseng (which are of course extremely rare) causes a person to black out because its so powerful. Good friend100 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I only dug the root and sold it. I did not know then nor do I now that using ginseng internally had any after effects. It just never occurred to me to take it internally. Wild ginseng is a beautiful plant. It is valuable and rare but it still grows and awaits to be found. A person can really get close to nature by hunting it.

The root grows something like 1/2 inch every 50 years. Later...... Daytrivia 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We have harvested most of our old growth ginseng and it is increasingly rare. It won't make you black out, but it is warming and good for the feeble aged. It is not for, say young men. Because of the rarity and expense it is cooked down to a concentrate by itself and later added to formulas. It doesn't take much. Ksvaughan2 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist)

American ginseng is endangered. If you are wildcrafting it, please leave most of it to regrow and plant seedlings in similar areas. There are links for woods-grown ginseng programs in the Wild Ginseng section, including places where you can learn to cultivate it in the woods.

Also you can just harvest leaves, but do it carefully so the plant isn't hurt. In Cherokee medicine, ginseng leaves makes everything work better in a formula. It is illegal to harvest the root unless it is cultivated on your land in most of the US. Licenses may be required to sell it out of state. Ksvaughan2 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (herbalist)

Horticulture
There should be a section on growing and caring for wild or potted ginsing plants. 69.242.82.192 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on woods grown ginseng under the Wild Ginseng section which leads you to outside references on how to grow it. The North Carolina Arboretum also has information. Also contact United Plant Savers to get sources of seedlings and direction on cultivation. Ksvaughan2 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology
In addition to horticulture, there should be a section on the pharmacology of ginseng -- what its active chemicals are. How does it work? What parts of the body and/or brain does it stimulate? And so on. Zweifel 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Side Effects
The side effects section does not cite primary research. In fact none of the citations that the article referencing the side effects uses is primary research. It isn't credible unless the research or the traditional observation cites it. KSVaughan2 04:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ginseng, Nitric Oxide, and Reproductive Activity
This section doesn't mention Nitric Oxide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather questionable double blind study
"Of the 625 patients recruited, 124 were excluded from the study due to lack of compliance with the treatment, so that 338 patients in group A and 163 patients in group B completed the study." I can only access the abstract but I find these drop out rates suspicious. Actually technically they are participants excluded, not necessary drop outs. Double-blind studies typically involve random assignment in a 50-50 ratio. Apparently the study didn't do this which is not really a problem in itself but it means there could have been systematic differences in the participants excluded from each group. 20% of the participants were excluded from this study so group differences could have easily been created through biased exclusion criteria, especially given the apparent disequal initial group assignment.

It also appears that the subjective measure used was validiated by the same group that used it potentially in the same study (again only have abstract) which only increases my suspicion. Unless someone can find the full artcile and convince me participant exclusion has not effected the results I think we should remove this study from the article or at least state the caveats.JamesStewart7 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see someone checking up on things like this.
 * I don't know where else to put this but I was quite disappointed by this article. It seems to have been written on/off by opponents and proponents with very little cold hard objectivity. In the opening the whole idea of ginseng working is pretty much debunked, but then the rest of it goes into detail on a whole lot of studies done on ginsengs effects(some also linked from ginsenoside article). I don't have a clue about this, and so it's hard for me to correct anything, but both sides should perhaps work together to try to promote a more objective and undecided article. I, at least, ended up feeling like it blatantly stated two (almost) opposite things in the same article. Araziel (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin ginseng copyright violation
The entire section titled "Wisconsin Ginseng", added in March 2008 by 63.164.145.198, seems to be copied verbatim from http://www.ginsengboard.com/whywi.cfm. Here's a link from archive.org showing they had the text before it was added to Wikipedia. I've removed the section.

As part of the same set of edits, the same user modified the text "Ginseng that is produced in the United States and Canada is particularly prized" to say "Ginseng that is produced in the United States, especially Wisconsin, is particularly prized" (emphasis added). I've reverted that change too, but please feel free to add it back if you have a reliable source for it. --mconst (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the removal. The section also seemed to look a lot like advertisement.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
The "etymology" section currently reads (emphasis added):

"The English word ginseng derives from the Chinese term rénshēn (simplified: 人参; traditional: 人蔘), literally 'man root' (referring to the root's characteristic forked shape, resembling the legs of a man). The difference between rénshēn and 'ginseng' is explained by the fact that the English pronunciation derives from a Japanese reading of these Chinese characters. However, the current Japanese word for these characters 人参 (ninjin) means carrot, and ginseng is referred to in Japanese as 朝鮮人参 (chosen ninjin), adopting the name of the last dynasty of Korea 朝鮮 (Choson). The Korean name is 고려인삼 高麗人参 (goryo insam)."

I haven't been able to find a source for the sentence in bold. The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's, and the American Heritage Dictionary all claim that English "ginseng" derives directly from Chinese "rénshēn" (although the OED spells it "jên shên", since it uses Wade-Giles rather than pinyin.)

I've deleted that sentence for now, but please feel free to add it back if you have a source for it. I also removed the following sentences (talking about Japanese and Korean), since they're no longer really relevant to the article. --mconst (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

what in god's name is "ginnsuu"? the first sentence claims it's what ginseng is mainly called in china and korea, but it is not called however you pronounce that word. if that's some sort of bastardized form for "insam" (the actual word for ginseng in korean) that's a horribly corrupted spelling/pronunciation. ginnsuu isn't even pronounceable in revised romanization or mccune-reischauer. was the writer drunk when he/she wrote the sentence? 211.179.47.182 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are aware that Insam is part of the Sino-Korean vocabulary. It's not a native Korean word, it comes from Chinese. The English term Ginseng comes from Hokkien jîn-sim, Hokkien being a dialect of Chinese used in the Southeast and in Taiwan. As for "ginnsuu", I have no idea, and I do not know who wrote that. I am aware that "ginnsuu" makes no sense in Korean, Japanese or any Chinese dialect, and we might possibly be dealing with a hoax/vandal edit from quite some time ago, or alternatively someone might have added unverifiable content without malicious intent. If no one is willing to bring forward references to back that claim up, I will remove the problematic sentence. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Koryo Insam
Korea's Goryeo dynasty is famous for one of the first cultivated ginseng, and Korea was No.1 source for best valued ginseng up until Joseon Dynasty. This should be added in cultivation section. --Korsentry 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Ginger?
Why would anyone confuse ginseng with ginger? __meco 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it starts with same letter, looks similar, tasted similar(atleast to me), and all other stuff. I'm Korean, so I know difference between them, but most Americans or other people of different nations tend to confuse thse two into thinking that ginseng is Oriantal or Asian pronouncement of ginger, which quite frankly to me would be logical thinking if you are not too familiar with them.--Shadic333 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ginseng produced in the United States and Canada is particularly prized in Chinese societies.
Various contributions above contradict this statement, and it is unsourced. Therefore I removed it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC) May I ask what your first language is please? As an American you would not necessarily have English as your first language of course,but is it Chinese? I am just curious if this may have a bearing on you view point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylonsburning (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay.
What you guys basically agree on is that Ginseng has little effect besides the placebo effect. We also at least agree that it is very valuable monetarily in many parts of the world. Perhaps a section on how best to sell it, how to grow it, and how to farm it? Just my opinion. Now, I must point out that this is turning into an edit war, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. I know that many of you have very important things to say, but in the interest of keeping order, I strongly suggest that you guys resolve the edit dispute, or go and work on a different article, one that you can agree on, and let people less biased contribute to the article on Ginseng. It is clear we are getting nowhere with this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.241.8 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this article is a very confusing: it is a mix of facts, personal experiences, opinion and rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.13.145 (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ginseng meta analysis
The most widely cited (by an order of magnitude) meta analysis of ginseng (and other herbal therapies) on google scholar states plainly in its abstract that "Well-conducted clinical trials do not support the efficacy of ginseng to treat any condition" (it finds mild benefits to other herbal therapies, such as St. John's Wort for depression). I think this should be included in the "Modern science and ginseng" section. I don't have a strong opinion about whether Ginseng has beneficial effects for people, but I think the science section of the article should reflect the prevailing scientific consensus, and reading it did not give me the impression that it was an accurate reflection of google scholar.

In addition to this comment, I have renamed the "Use with other medications" to "Use with medication" as the implication that ginseng is a true medication is not supported by the citations in this article. I also agree that a citation is desirable for the sole sentence in this section, since the sentence, along with the original title, strongly implies that ginseng and its base constituents are potent enough substances to potentially adversely affect bona fide prescription or OTC medicine. This may be true, but a citation would be lovely.

The article is "The Risk–Benefit Profile of Commonly Used Herbal Therapies: Ginkgo, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, Saw Palmetto, and Kava", Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, http://www.annals.org/content/136/1/42.short (389 citations listed in google scholar - next result 89) Dawaegel (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

huh???
this sentence: "A comparative, randomized and double-blind government study does indicate it to be "a promising dietary supplement" when assessed for an increase in quality of life [2]" That's pretty vague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.93.97 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * actually it tells exactly what the herb does. Helps several problems.  If you don't like it don't take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.50.121 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia
I think Wikipedia is one of the most useful tools to learn about, just about, any subject matter... And unlike other encyclopedia's and engines of learning (i.e. the US School System), articles' neutrality and accuracy are constantly under survelliance by the community of intelligensia. I like Ginseng. I take it in my tea almost every day. I think it does help my energy levels and concentration to some extent (esp when taken with ginkgo). Some of the disputable "facts" on this website are very useful in learning, at least what people think about ginseng, and the undisputed ones help us learn what we know about ginseng. I don't think drawing attention to inaccuracies in any theory or underlying thought on a subject (i.e. ginseng = good / ginseng = garbage; superstitious crap), no matter how substantiated, should be ignored. If Bush and the Christian right, for example, point out holes in the theory of evolution, they should be heard. But that is not to say that we reject all logic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.88.244 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On stress, other psychological diseases and Ginseng
In my phytotherapy books Ginseng's roots (and also their essential oil) are indicated after and during long periods of mental and psychological stress. So, according to them, the statement Ginseng decreases the ability to concentrate is false. The capacity of the human body to react and to adapt when it is internally and externally stressed, is increased when it assumes Ginseng roots. Someone advises Ginseng's roots against sexual inappetence, but this is only collateral, it is not its primary function. This is due to a general reactivation of internal organs and systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catraga (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New post
I am an American. I have lived in China for over 6 years. I report on the Ginseng

In China usually there are two Ginsengs available. There is the JILIN RED (or Korean Red) and the white-woody American. The Chinese prefer the JILIN RED (or Korean Red) for medicinal purposes. The American Ginseng is almost never used in medicinal purposes, but it is often given as family gifts. This is probably due to the expense of imports, the novelty of the product to the many of Chinese Inner Kingdom and the irregular product distribution network. I will not discuss the American Ginseng. I do not know much about it. I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

JILIN RED Ginseng is a deep-red super-hard woody root when you buy it from the Chinese herbalist or upscale department store. The deep red woody root usually is about 3 to 5 inches long about one-third inch tick, tapering, and is UNBREAKABLE. It shatters rather than breaks. Therefore when you buy the Ginseng always have them slice it for you at the shop. If you do not, then you have to smash it with a hammer when you get home. This is very uneconomical, but it is the only way. Although you can see the Ginseng in pretty golden boxes, if the Ginseng is for you, have them chop it in the shop and throw the box away. They know exactly what you are talking about. Often they have pre sliced red Ginseng arranged like flower petals in little boxes. Selecting your own red root and having it sliced while you wait is the ideal thing to do. The red Jilin Ginseng is not cheap and is used or purchased for medicinal purposes only. I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

The Jilin red Ginseng can be bought pre-sliced or as I have mentioned in its full root. To use the full root (length 3-6 inches) the Chinese create like an herbal consomme and throw the entire root in. The concoction is simmered for about five hours and then poured into a large tap-glass jar. Other herbs are added (as well as the necessary rice wine, a brandy sustitute would obviously work). Medicinal or herbal shops usually have these concots pre-made. Snakes, lizards, exotic animal parts are always seen, snakes and seahorses and so on. You can also have them made to order. The tap-glass is used throughout the year. The tap-glass is stored in a coold dry place and is highly prized. Usually there is a family recepie. Usually you drink a small shot-glass of this liquid when one is feeling generally low or generally under the weather. The liquid is not rolled out like a beer barrel at the family function. Rather it is highly prized, and usually very expensive to make, and it is sipped in small shot-glsses. I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

Red Ginseng, when sliced (at the purchase point) easily dissolves on the tongue and is easily digestable. I suspect that if Ginseng was grown in a warmer climate the root would naturally cook underground. Red Ginseng dissolves readily, although it is strangely impossible to saw in half, as I have mentioned. I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

Having the sliced Red Ginseng before you, if you do not want to chew on a slice like a lozenge, then you pour boiling water on a single slice and allow it to steep for, say five minuites. Usually you add a flavouring like fruit rinds (lemon, orange) or aniseed, cinnamon, a slice of thin ginger root, or sliced cranberries. But overflavouring is too easily done. When boiling water is poured on to the Ginseng it will expand and turn white and the taste will be unmistakable. If you wish to make your own ginseng teabags, a most popular method of ingesting it, again, grind the root at the purchase point. Smashing the ginsing red root with a hammer gets you large fragments which can be used for infusion several times. People nibble, suck and chew on the infused ginseng but rarely eat it. Usually one slice in a cup of tea is sufficient for one day.I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

Red Ginseng is also sold in thin black fingers. This is the less expensive ginseng, probably comes from Korea and has identical qualites to the unpackaged Red Ginseng I have been discussing. (Yes Korean Ginseng comes in a sardine-like tin. When you open the sardine-like tin you then have to open a wooden box. Inside the wooden box are your very small Korean red ginseng fingers, although they are black and not red). I believe the above pargraph provides accurate information.

Standard uses of Gensing, and I am not a doctor, include impotence, motion sickness, reduction in stress and to neutralize or reduce or stabilize the acidity within the body. In many adult sex shops they have ginseng tablets on the counter, and the flavour is a natural distraction when chewing it. It is a food stimulant suppressant. That is to say, and for me, the root has so much flavour that it distracts your from the though of eating food.

With a healthy body and a few strong simple drinks of ginseng and water on an empty stomach, I personally have experienced excellent penis erections and increased sexual stamina. But this is only my opinion and I am not a doctor. But I would suggest giving this a try if you suffer with lackadasical sexual urges. Also I have seen bowls of Ginseng tea been sold in the mornings at construction sites peppered with bitter tealeaves. Overuse for me causes insomnia, restlessness, high irritability and stomach pangs. In my opinion it is true that overdosing on measurably on Ginseng decreases your attention span. Overdosing also makes my eyes feel sore and heavy. I believe the above in its oringinal format pargraph provides accurate information.

As far as I know Red Jilin Gensing or red-woody Ginseng is widely used and prized everywhere in China. The references to the root are embedded within the Chinese Dictionary and is part of the herbal heritage of humanity. I believe the above pargraph in its original format provides accurate information.

I have written this in order to contribute and increase our knowledge on Korean Red Ginseng. I have not written it in order to confuse of misinform. This information, all of it, is taken from first-hand experience of living in China. Because it is true there will be found no contradictions.

This ends my report and I believe the above report provides accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.91.32.149 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs a Better "Modern Science" Section
I was amazed that an article on a well known substance like Ginseng has managed to have a section as bizarre as "Modern Science and Ginseng" that has not been flagged for several issues. Not only does it contain information regarding Ginseng's use in Traditional Chinese Medicine (which is nothing more than complete quackery, any health benefits are merely coincidental due to the fact that in Traditional Chinese Medicine virtually every consumable herb is labeled as a miracle drug of some sort, and to top it off, TCM is not considered "Modern Medicine", it's at best "Modern Alternative Medicine"), most of the health benefits have unconfirmable sources, one source is actually for the so-called Siberian Ginseng, not real Ginseng, and one source can be suspected of being unreliable just by looking at it's title ("Double-blind study of a multivitamin complex supplemented with ginseng extract", the study was testing several substances at once, therefore it's unclear which ones could have caused the alleged health benefits). It's also noted to be a so-called "Adaptogen", a concept not recognized in mainstream medicine due to the fact that it's never been observed in any legitimate studies. I propose that the section is rewritten, culling the references to Alternative Medicine (or moving them to their own section), verifying the studies and removing the poor-quality ones. LiamSP (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this section of the article needs work, your statement that the adaptogen concept has "never been observed in any legitimate studies" is demonstrably false. I have responded more fully to your post at Talk:Adaptogen. HairyWombat 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary reference to other "herb"
Removed the passage, "It is possible to treat an overdose with an herbal decoction of 120 grams of gan cao (Radix glycrrhizae). However" This is basically advising people to treat themselves with Licorice Root when they have what can be in some cases a life threatening illness. Further it advises dose without reference to age or body weight. The passage did nothing but to detract from the usefulness of the paragraph in order to promote licorice root as a medicine on a page not about licorice root.Donhoraldo (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mania When Combined with Antidepressants (28)
It appears the cited study only looked at Panax Ginseng, and as such, should not be generalized to all ginseng. Additionally, I have been unable to find any evidence that Panax Ginseng has had documented interactions with any antidepressants other than MAOI's. Since there is great diversity among antidepressants, this too should be specified, and not generalized to all AD's. MadManV (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow.
This article is a mess. It violates NOR, NPOV, and verifiability in multiple sections, most especially "Modern Science." Undiskedste (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential references
Moved from "Further reading" section: --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pritts, K.D. (2010). Ginseng: How to Find, Grow, and Use America´s Forest Gold. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-3634-3
 * Taylor, D.A. (2006). Ginseng, the Divine Root: The Curious History of the Plant That Captivated the World. Algonquin Books. ISBN 978-1-56512-401-1
 * Choi, K.-T. “Botanical characteristics, pharmacological effects and medicinal components of Korea Panax ginseng C A Meyer”, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica (2008),29(9):1109-1118.
 * Qi, L.-W. et al. “Ginsenosides from American ginseng: chemical and pharmacological diversity”, Phytochemistry (2011),72(8):689-699.
 * (No authors listed). “Panax ginseng. Monograph”, Alternative Medicine Review: a journal of clinical therapeutics (2009),14(2):172-176.

Blade Runner
How about including the section Popular Culture mentioning that, in Blade Runner, Deckard orders ginseng to relieve stress from having killed a replicant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.54.221.157 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, merge it
It's a fairly short article. But the thing is you would have to merge the medicial benefits with the main "ginseng" article. Problem with this is that Korean ginseng purportedly has different medical effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattherb (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge which article?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources for medical claims
Please don't do this... WP:MEDRS. Lesion ( talk ) 17:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sun ginseng?
Removed from article for discussion/editing if of interest. --Zefr (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sun ginseng is created from a heat processing method which increases ginsenoside components such as ginsenoside-[Rg.sub.3], -[Rk.sub.1] and -[Rg.sub.5] by steaming white ginseng at a higher temperature than red ginseng. The herb is steamed for three hours at 120 °C. Sun ginseng has increased nitric oxide, superoxide, hydroxyl radical and peroxynitrite scavenging activities compared with conventionally processed red or white versions. The increased steaming temperature produces an optimal amount of biological activity due to its ability to amplify specific ginsenosides.

Recommended doses?
Hello - I'm not experienced enough to know or edit according to the accepted Wikipedia format for articles... but I can tell when there is information missing that I might be looking for which could / would be of interest to others. In this case, there is nothing in this article about doses - recommended, excessive or overdosages. This information is of special importance for supplements where the FDA usually has not posted any helpful guidance for researchers & potential users. Anyone with more knowledge & experience want to step up?

Cheers,

Dirty Dan the Man (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

effects of consuming
while i wont ask for the usual marketing blah-blah about what it is supposed to do to its consumers - like anecdotic evidence: "there lived once a man who was taking it daily and had his blindness cured by it", nevertheless it would be nice to find a paragraph describing the generic notion experienced by people who consume it, i mean something in the lines of a description that could be given for coffee, tea, chocholate, etc(*). so this would be something less than a claim for specific medically significant effects, yet more informative than just merely passing on the information that in a scientific-medical sense no useful effect is proven as yet.(80.98.114.70 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)). (*):or tobacco, or chilli pepper, or garlic, or cinnamon. (80.98.114.70 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)).

Dubious and unintelligible claims
None of the following is sourced, and I'm going to be bold and give it the sh*t can.

''According to traditional Chinese medicine, American ginseng promotes yin energy, cleans excess yang and calms the body. The reason it has been claimed that American ginseng promotes yin (shadow, cold, negative, female) while Asian ginseng promotes yang (sunshine, hot, positive, male) is that, according to traditional Chinese medicine, things living in cold places or northern side of mountains or southern side of rivers are strong in yang and the converse, so the two are balanced.[citation needed] Chinese/Korean ginseng grows in Manchuria and Korea, the coldest area known to many Koreans in ancient times. Thus, ginseng from there is supposed to be very yang.''

24.51.217.118 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Panax article created
I moved content to create the Panax article. Primarily, I moved the list of species which I had added previously to this article. I also moved information about the ginseng (the plant) to focus this article on ginseng (the product).User-duck (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing content because of reference.
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 ), 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:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

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"
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 (talk • contribs) 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 . 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)

Ginseng buyers
Someone to pur have my ginseng 162.249.147.155 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)