Talk:Goji/Archive 1

message: Discussion Archives created,--Paul144 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This article reads more like an advertisement than a neutral discussion of wolfberries. Dubious claims, such as the discussion of qi energy, are presented uncritically and as fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.238.136 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality questioned

message: Link to Pubmed demonstrates that there is very real demonstrable efficacy in the berry. Some studies showing remarkable effects in cancer too. Within China, the Goji berry has almost miraculous properties - which seem to bear fruit (if you pardon the pun)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docboat (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  real thing 

message: Search the web and you'll find many hundreds, if not thousands, of pages that really do read like ads. Because they are ads. This entry seems fair enough to me. This is an interesting plant that has long been used for medicinal purposes. Maybe discount the hype over species; I sure wouldn't pay some Internet huckster $28 per pound for "official goji" when you can purchase the L. chinense variety for $5 per lb. at your local Chinese market. Pop out a few seeds and grow your own plants to avoid sulfur dioxide :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.128.233 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good thing, but 

message: Shouldn't Tibetan Goji berry be merged with the Wolfberry article? I think these are the same species. Badagnani 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Botanists: does anyone have information on the various Lycium species known as wolf berry in the desert Southwest -- were used as food sources by indiginous people? Please see the discussion page on Hovenweep National Monument. Possible source:
* Rea, Amadeo M. At the Desert's Green Edge, An Ethnobotany of the Gila River Pima Sumi-e illustrations by Takashi Ijichi. University of Arizona Press, 1997. .
Thank you. WBardwin 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Paul144 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwestern Wolf berry 

message: Does anyone know if this berry has natural stimulant properties? Also, since it's related to the tomato, does that mean it's a new world food and not native to Asia?-- Stbalbach 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solanum plants are also found in Asia.  Eggplant is an example. Don't know about the stimulant part but I haven't noticed such a feeling even when ingesting large amounts of the berries.  Badagnani 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Paul144 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  natural stimulant? 

message: Well, saying there are over 70 published papers that mention the Wolfberry isn't saying much, it is misleading - what exactly did these 70 studies find?  It sounds like sales-speak, meant to impress and wow the lay public who doesn't know better. And even then, individual papers are not the final word, they may suggest something, but there may be other views (the rats had to eat 50 pounds a day to see a benefit). Either the citations need to be refined, or the wording needs to be clarified. Also this is an encyclopedia so a "hard number" of 70 will be outdated within a month and silly within a few years. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked and there were 88, I think, under "wolfberry."  Perhaps there are others under the genus/species name or Chinese name as well; I don't know.  You are correct; these may show only marginal health benefit, or no health benefit at all.  The changes are good, but at least saying "several dozen" or "over 80" is more accurate than "many."  If there have been over 80, those studies won't cease to have been done in the future; they've been done, so the number is correct.  We could say that the studies have explored health effects but without looking through the findings one by one, as you say, we don't know whether they've found miraculous things about the berries.  Badagnani 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Paul144 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request 

message: Why does goji redirect to wolfberry, if this is true:
http://www.astrologyzine.com/himalayan-goji-berries.shtml
Family Guy Guy 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most commercially available wolfberry (gouqi) is grown in the Ningxia region of China.  The myth of the "Tibetan goji" is just that.  Where did they get that spelling and what part of Tibet is it grown in?  None of the distributors give any specifics about this.  They simply claim their "goji" is grown in the most inaccessible Tibetan mountain passes, untouched by human hands and pesticides, etc. etc.  So most likely it's all from Ningxia; "Tibetan goji" is simply a marketing term.  Does this answer your question?  Badagnani 11:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tibetan goji versus wolfberry 

message: I can assure readers that there are plenty of places in Tibet that are capable of growing just about anything. There are numerous areas in the far east of Tibet, now administratively part of China that are below 10,000 feet (3,048m) and are home to an amazing variety of plants. In the region of Kongpo (administratively part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region) the elevation varies from 3,280 feet (1000m) to snowy peaks over 20,000 feet (6,096m). In both Gansu and Qinghai provinces there are plenty of Tibetans living in villages below 10,000 feet. In fact Takster, the birth place of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is below 10,000 feet and unlike the arid scenes portrayed in the movie “Kundun” (Sorsese 1997) is quite fertile. However I have yet to see the Wolfberry but I will enquire next time I visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.214.55 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do! That's very interesting. While you're at it, can you also find out the Tibetan word for "wolfberry" (both plant and berry)? I don't think it's "goji." Badagnani 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good to have more accurate information on Tibet, with thanks. --70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Flora

message: Section added today discussing the often-used ORAC value for wolfberry. It is certainly one of the highest reported for foods but likely is not the highest as claimed by some marketers -- acai appears to be higher and certain spices like clove are many times higher according to published research on ORAC by USDA scientists, now cited in the References. --70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC)

message: The article needs a description of the flower (which is depicted in the photo at the top). Badagnani 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope that suits, Badagnani. Please revise or request revisions as needed. Thanks. --Paul144 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. You've got good sources! This article is becoming very thorough. Badagnani 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flower 

message: The Wolfberry is native to China? This sounds highly suspect. My understanding it is a New World plant that was re-planted in China where is has done very well in the ecology. This is supported by being in the family Solanaceae (which also includes the potato, tomato, eggplant, and tobacco).  .. all those plants are New World plants also. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what does the scholarship say about this?  I think it's supposed to have been known in China for at least a few thousand years, and the New World was "discovered" by Europeans in 1492 (or 1000 if you count the Vikings).  So how would it have been possible to get it to China so early?  By the way, as far as I know the eggplant is certainly not native to the New World; it's an ancient food in the Middle East and India.  Badagnani 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right the eggplant is not native to the new world. My rule of thumb "all nightshades are new world" is wrong, learn something new. But I think it should be verified as the other nightshades are all new world afaik. I don't have a good source for "botanic history"<?> .. -- Stbalbach 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that deadly nightshade and woody nightshade are old world too jimfbleak 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native to China? 

message: As there are questions, the historical information about Tang Dynasty poetry, mention in 16th century treatises, etc. should be mentioned (if it is the same wolfberry that's being discussed in these old texts). Unfortunately the main literature available on the Internet is sales material, such as this: http://hanlin.hit.bg/wolfberry.htm Badagnani 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Part of the current history of wolfberry gaining public recognition, particularly in the US, comes from juices sold through the internet and multilevel marketing firms. Is it useful for the article to describe directions wolfberry products have taken, to name them, detail their composition, etc.?
There are also dried fruit, juice and pulp powders for industrial preparations, seed oils, soaps, granola bars, etc. The public may know about these and may come to Wikipedia for objective reviews of how wolfberry is being popularized. Comments?
I recognize this is not a priority but it might be of use to discuss it.
--Paul144 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was a good summary and it took only two short paragraphs. I don't think this is a high priority but if written in a factual, NPOV way I think a mention of the various commercially available forms should be fine. I agree that the phenomenon of wolfberry's increasing popularity is driven by this commercialism, though I myself knew about it through a Korean friend who gave me some "gugija" a few years ago. In fact, I thought it was a Korean herb until just recently. Badagnani 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your newest edit makes it unclear which of the species of boxthorn (or all of them?) you're referring to. There are a lot of them, many of which are closely related. Badagnani 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we determine when the wolfberry jumped on the world scene as far as a health fad? I'm guessing about 2002? Badagnani 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial Products?

message: There is a card game with the same name...played by 6 people and 4 decks. Anyone can do a artical for that game and add a disambiguation page?
Rockvee 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A card game called "Wolfberry"?  Never heard of it.  Seems like a strange name for a card game.  What country is it played in?  Badagnani 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Goji redirects here. Goji is a popular card game in China. We need a disambiguation page for "Goji". Rockvee 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are the Chinese characters for this game?  Badagnani 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proper Pinyin is "Gouji", but sometimes, when it is written in alphabet it's "goji". Chinese character is 够级. Buy the way, there's no artical named "Gouji" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockvee (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card Game 

message: As "goji" is a term of recent origin used primarily in marketing (and one that doesn't reflect the actual Chinese name), I don't think it should be promoted by appearing in the lead paragraph (though it should be described later in the article).  Thus, I think a new disambiguation page entitled "Goji" should include both meanings.  Maybe this is what you originally had in mind.  Right now "Goji" redirects to "Wolfberry."  Badagnani 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in first paragraph

message: Someone has just commented on a BBC website that in Chinese culture gouqi (wolfberries) are never eaten hand to mouth, as some Western marketers recommend, but instead are used primarily cooked in various soups.  Is this accurate and, if, so, is there some reason why they are not eaten in this way?  Badagnani 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese medicinal herbs are usually prescribed in teas or brews of multiple herbs.  It's not like western medicine where one pops a single pill four times a day to cure a single symptom, as Chinese herbalists address everything that is out of order.  Instead of saying pop one berry every 6 hours for 14 days, the patient would be told to brew a tea with a concoction every morning for 10 days.  In addition to the wolfberries they may be barks, seeds, flowers and other ingredients less likely to be palatable as a chew food.  Yes, cooking does change the chemical value of some toxins, the cyanides, I believe.  However, I don't know that this is the case for the toxins found in the Solanaceae.  So, probably the berries are not popped into the mouth because when prescribed they are prescribed with other medicinal herbs.  I don't know about individuals self-prescribing, though, how this changes how medicines are taken. KP Botany 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating wolfberries 

message: This is one of the more comprehensive plant-related articles on WP. However, here are a few things that need to be cleaned up before it is re-nominated:
#The latin names of the species involved should be in bold the first time they are mentioned, unless they link to their own separate pages.
#The introduction should give an overview of the article. In other words, mention its medicinal and culinary use. (Something like: "The Wolfberry has been shown to have antitussive properties, and has been used medicinally in China since the 10th century. etc.)
#More Inline citations would be good, especially in the following sections: Nutrient Content, Functional Food and Beverage applications.
#Some of your citations exist but need to be converted to inline citations.
#I would make section 10 a subsection of section 9 (and maybe 8 of 7?)
The amount of info in this article is amazing (Nice work! now get it all cited...). I does seem somewhat onesided and a few sections don't seem to "fit", but I don't know if there is much that can be done about it. Keep it up and this will be a GA in no time. Maybe even on its way to a FA... --NoahElhardt 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I'm a bit worried about the article's tone - it's comprehensive and inforative, however, it reads like an advertisment in a nutritional supplements catalogue. I'm not sure. Adam Cuerden talk 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I like the article overall, but the first couple of sections make several claims with no references.  I'm removing from the good article candidates.  /Blaxthos 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does have a slew of problems in spite of it having a lot of good information and covering the topic to an appropriate depth (imo, but others may consider it too much).  The biggest problem is its non-neutral tone that Adam Cuerden cites.  I'm watching it because I would like to work on its tone--or hope someone else does--when I have a little time.  I think with additional balance and references it could be a GA. KP Botany 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Fail 

message: The article is extremely inaccurate in its comparison of wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. For example:
* It states that the potassium content (1100mg / 100g) is more than twice that of soybeans. Yet, nutritiondata.com (Note: the figures are for 1 cup or 186g by default, I didn't find a way to make a link that automatically shows the figures for 100g) states that soybeans contain 1800mg potassium per 100g dried mass (the macronutrients section strongly suggests that the figures are those for dried wolfberries). The only explanation I have is that dried wolfberries were compared to cooked soybeans, which  have a water content of about two thirds.
* Likewise, the iron content of 9mg/100g is touted as being twice that of soybeans. Yet, according to nutritiondata.com, soybeans have an iron content of almost 16mg/100g.
* The same goes for zinc, only more so: The article claims that soybeans contain 1mg/100g zinc, according to nutritiondata.com it's 5mg/100g.
* Selenium: While wolfberries seem to contain a lot of selenium, the amount cited for soybeans is again much lower: less than 8mg vs. almost 18mg.
* Riboflavin: This part incorrectly states that the RDI is 1.3 micrograms, actually it's 1.3 milligrams, or 1300 micrograms (for adult males, that is). It also incorrectly states that soybeans contain only "trace levels" of riboflavin, whereas nutritiondata.com lists (yellow) soybeans as a very good source of riboflavin (ca. 900µg/100g). Note that nutritiondata.com uses a "Daily Value" for riboflavin that's higher than the US RDA. This error may be partly excusable insofar as only yellow soybeans (the most commonly used variety) contain this much riboflavin, green (immature) soybeans for example contain significantly less, though still far more than just "trace levels" (about 500µg/100g).
* The calcium content of soybeans is claimed to be around 100mg/100g, but nutritiondata.com's figure is 277mg/100g. Suspiciously close to the other presumable dry vs. wet mass mistakes. Aragorn2 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three points concerning this dispute about wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. First, nutrients were presented as relevant to the way in which the two foods are commonly eaten -- wolfberries as dried fruit and soybeans as cooked (boiled) mature beans. Second, one can only choose available public data that appear to be consistent across references. World's Healthiest Foods  has proven to be such a source. Third, the presented values for soybeans on WHFoods are for a US cup which can be converted to 100 grams by multiplying the cup value by 0.58. Thanks for your input. The riboflavin value was in error and is now corrected. I'm certainly willing to give this section a closer look with the Nutritiondata.com values if you feel there remains disputable information --Paul144 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soybean bashing / Disinformation