Talk:Saigon cinnamon

Production
"Saigon cinnamon has 1-5% essential oil in content and 25% cinnamaldehyde in essential oil, which is the highest of all the cinnamon species." Yet cinnamon bark oil is normally ~%90 Cinnamaldehyde. request citation and clarification, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The entry says that Vietnamese cinnamon (que) is produced "particularly" in the Quang Nam Province of Central Vietnam. That's not exactly true because one of the name for Vietnamese cinnamon is que Thanh Hoa. Besides Quang Nam, que is also known to be produced from the provinces Yen Bai and Thanh Hoa. Those two provinces are in the north of Viet Nam and the disruption of que production together with the lack of any trading between North Viet Nam and US during the Vietnam war are likely the reasons why que was not available during or immediately after that period. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)


 * If you know these to be facts (have you been to these places?), then please add this to the article. If you have sources, in English or Vietnamese, that would be even better.  Badagnani 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you have sources showing that Saigon Cinnamon (of this same species, not Cassia) is produced in other provinces of Vietnam, please add them. Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a vn.Wikipedia page titled Quế Thanh - Wikipedia written in Vietnamese which is much more detailed on cinnamon than the vn.Wikipedia for cinnamon. You can get Google to translate it into Vietnamese and check some reference in English. Mirrordor (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Name
If it's not produced in or near Saigon, why is it called "Saigon Cinnamon"? Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Other species produced in Vietnam?
Is all "cinnamon" produced in Vietnam Saigon Cinnamon (Cinnamomum loureiroi)? Or are other species also grown commercially in Vietnam? Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer seems to be no. One work identifies multiple species with Vietnamese names though it says nothing about commercial production and may be only an indicator of native species. The study Studies on commercial cinnamon and allied barks. VIII. Cinnamon bark produced in Viet-Nam identifies collected 29 samples, with them being identified as c. cassia, a cultivated form of c. cassia, and two groups unidentified. Aristippus (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed with comment
Badagnani (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ..if you look at my edit summary there was a comment. It's called housekeeping -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 03:20 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese links
Informative external links in English from this species's nation of production are exceedingly rare, and the one we have enhances this article quite a bit for our readers. Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * .. The link is a commercial link, it has claims that are unsourced, it sells the product. It does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Doesn't matter if it is from a page from Vietnam or Luna itself, it is commercial and should go. -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 03:20 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Informative external links in English from this species's nation of production are exceedingly rare, and the one we have enhances this article quite a bit for our readers. See the Pepsi article for many external links drawn from the PepsiCo official website (which certainly is commercial). We must be reasonable in everything we do, and keep our users foremost in our mind with every edit we make. In this case, having a single English-language link from the nation of production does enhance the article quite a bit for our users. Badagnani (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me spell this out for you: That external link... leads to a site... which markets and sells the product. See the WP:EL policy instead of using such verbiage such as "exceedingly rare" and "enhances" in order to convince people that that ad link is 'required'. That page offers no information on the spice whatsoever and only lists phone numbers and price-by-weight, all purchasing information. If I didn't know better, I'd be tempted to say that you were advertising for someone else.  GraYoshi2x► talk 04:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read all discussion prior to commenting further. The Pepsi article contains many references from the PepsiCo official site. When that is the best source, we do use it, because our EL guidelines are eminently reasonable. We must be reasonable in everything we do at Wikipedia, and keep our users foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make. In a similar fashion, the English-language link from the nation of production really is important, and reasonable, to include in this article, in order to have the best article for our users. Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what wording on the website that sells the product is informative, provides additional information not already in the article, and enhances the article quite a bit for our readers? If you can answer those three questions, I'll go my separate way, otherwise this will need to go before a review so that we don't get in trouble for edit warring or 3RR. And your argument on the Pepsi article won't work. That is an article about a corporation, of course the links are commercial, but not to a site that sells Pepsi. If this were an article on CHANHKHANG CINNAMON TRADING then of course a link to the website would be appropriate. -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 04:47 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the wording on the website is informative and valuable for our users. It is eminently reasonable that we have at least a single English-language source from the nation of production, which are quite rare, and used in the same manner as the Pepsi article includes many links from the PepsiCo site; both are very reasonable and enhance the respective articles for our users. Badagnani (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not reasonable for you or anyone to give free advertising to a marketing site, especially when it contains no proper information whatsoever. Reread WP:EL, and then get back to us. Re-posting linkspam is quite a bad thing to do on Wikipedia.  GraYoshi2x► talk 04:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the section if you can't find it:

"Links to be avoided: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services."


 * That sums up pretty much everything. Case closed.  GraYoshi2x► talk 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a guideline. WP:STALK, on the other hand, is a policy, yet you have engaged in it nearly 100 times today. Kindly stop engaging in WP:STALK, which is very destructive to our community. Badagnani (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that your mantra or what? You still haven't answered my question and an "English-language source from the nation of production" doesn't make it a "Valuable" commodity. The website in question just regurgitates data it found somewhere else. Just repeating yourself over and over is not engaging in dialog. You should have paid more attention to [|this]. Again with the pepsi reference, I think you are being intentionally obtuse, especially if you are a native speaker of English. You charge him with WP:STALK yet you act like you WP:OWN this article -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 05:00 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet ironically he reverts all my edits on articles like these for no valid reason for the past few days and I haven't even checked his contribution list once today.  GraYoshi2x► talk 05:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All aspects of the source are valuable. Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 05:03 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. So are we going to just continue this ad hominem or something?  GraYoshi2x► talk 05:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We could just call for a consensus on the topic... -- Nashville Monkey -- Friday • April 24, 2009 • 05:35 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Coumarin content?
This is driving me crazy, does it or does it not contain coumarin? This would make a huge difference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.33.70 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded! -- 207.237.107.72 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you provided some background pertinent to your question it could be answered - however - article talk pages are for the article itself and not a forum for questions and answers outside of the scope of the article itself. —N·M—talk 02:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you should be reading at the cinnamon article. —N·M—talk 02:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I was able to gather, it does -- but it may not be as bad as the cassia/Chinese cinnamon that we are warned against. Why Nashville Monkey considers information about the coumarin content of Saigon Cinnamon to be "outside of the scope" of an article on Saigon Cinnamon is beyond me. If someone can find a reliable source that gives the actual coumarin content (I couldn't find a good source, which is why I am just posting this on the talk page), I think it should definitely be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.247.59 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

According to one study, Cassia cinnamon as a source of coumarin in cinnamon-flavored food and food supplements in the United States, it does. According to another, Chemical compound identification and antibacterial activity evaluation of cinnamon extracts obtained by subcritical n-butane and ethanol extraction, if I’m reading it correctly, coumarin content is approximately ~45x lower. Aristippus (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Coumarin
I second the other person's question about coumarin content. Coumarin can be toxic, and is more prevalent in cassia (not true cinnamon). That is why we are wondering where this particular cinnamon stands in terms of coumarin content. Ceylon cinnamon has almost no coumarin. Look it up; I learned about this from Wikipedia itself. So we want to avoid cassia related products. 71.139.161.9 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)