Talk:Cordyceps

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The merge tag was added to this, but no discussion was started here.  I'd say that the two in their present form shouldn't be merged.  Having an article on Cordyceps that is 3/4 on caterpillar fungus seems to be undesirable to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took off the merge request tag, it's been on since 2008-10-02, and has had no positive responses.  There are 400 known species of Cordyceps, to merge the entire caterpillar fungus article into it would give caterpillar fungus way to much emphasis on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithonearth (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: This should be rewritten as to be more accessible to the common people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.34.186 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it does not seem too technical to me.  Unless someone objects, I am going to wait seven days and then remove the tag. Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Removing tag now. Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: This was published today. Smartse (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source for medicine 

message: This article is not updated with current taxonomical nomenclature.  For example, Cordyceps species are now divided into several genera and three different families and are therefore not all members of the Clavicipitaceae (as is currently posted).  Also, Cordyceps sinensis has been renamed Ophiocordyceps sinensis.  These are just a couple of examples.  See Sung, G-H, Hywel-Jones NL, Sung J-M, Luangsa-ard J, Shrestha B, Spatafora JW.  2007. Phylogenetic classification of Cordyceps and the clavicipitaceous fungi, Studies in Mycology 57. Bluelicorice (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: This article is written as though it's an advert for alternative medicine. I'm pretty sure if eating parasitic fungii cured cancer, and had done for 'thousands of years' that we'd be using that now. Further, there's no sign of medical efficacy of ANY medicinal benefits of cordycep consumption or use; this needs to be clearly reflected in the article. I'm all for letting crackpots express their tin foil hat points of view about alternative medicine, but if it doesn't have any scientific backing, that should be stressed heavily in the article to avoid idiots taking it as gospel that it REALLY CURES CANCER OMG. :/ 114.76.167.183 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I toned down some of the claims, removed some of the uncited claims, and introduced some referenced content about the lack of clinical trials showing benefits to human health.  Perhaps another editor with an eye for WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE can look over the text, but I think it is balanced enough now that I have removed the NPOV tag.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: As per the edit summary I left, I removed the reference to Minecraft. It's "source" was a Minecraft user-wiki. Even on said wiki, it is not directly claimed that the Mooshrooms are infected with Cordyceps, it is simply suggested that they bear a resemblance to a Cordyceps infected creature. In the absence of some statement from the game's creators and given the extremely flimsy source material the statement that these game creatures are infected by Cordyceps is pure speculation and shouldn't be in the article. 217.44.139.248 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minecraft 

message: There is a recurring theme in horror-fiction circles in which a mutated strain can infect humans as well, often triggering an epidemic of apocalyptic magnitudes. Whether it is through online roleplay, a series of short stories by a virtually unknown author, or a well-established video game franchise, the notion of this fungus parasitizing humankind seems too notable to be left ignored. Any thoughts? 47.136.62.201 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a section on that, but it was removed for being "unsourced trivia". I'm not sure I would call the occurrences too notable though. Your first two sources are forums, which are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Aside from that, TLoU seems to be the only other significant media where I've heard of them (unless you can find instances of them in literature or something) The issue with popular culture sections is that they often get bogged with every minor appearance, whereas an encyclopedia is meant to summarize major aspects of a topic. An entry would need to demonstrate the lasting cultural impact of the appearance with a third-party source discussing it. Based on that, I think using the source mentioned for TLoU would be fine and worthy of mention, but any other instances would need to meet the aforementioned criteria. (which is why editors usually avoid creating sections just for popular culture items in general) Opencooper (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture? 

message: As specified in the lead, "Cordyceps sinensis" is no longer a valid species name; the fungus formerly known as such is now called Ophiocordyceps sinensis and places in a different family. I am aware that that removes pretty much all of the fun facts about this genus, along with the majority of valid references. Unfortunately, science has spoken, and life must go on. Talking about O. sinensis in this article beyond saying that it doesn't belong to the genus is like discussing whale meat in an article about tuna. Just save it for the right article. complainer (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one sentence so that people looking for information on the dietary supplement ingredient "cordyceps" are directed to the article Ophiocordyceps sinensis. Yes, is should have been obvious, but some people need more breadcrumbs. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Stop 

message: A contributer writes: "...there is no scientific evidence that their use has any clinical effect on human diseases.[8]" That very citation flatly contradicts the contributer's opinion-
"Cancer: Numerous in vitro and animal experiments have been conducted on aqueous and ethanol extracts of cordyceps, as well as with cordycepin and oxypiperazines extracted from the mycelium. The extracts enhanced cytokine activity and induced cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, thereby reducing tumor cell proliferation and enhancing survival times.4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Limited clinical studies report subjective improvement of symptoms, increased tolerance of radiation and chemotherapy (possibly caused by enhanced immune function), and reduction in tumor size with coadministration of cordyceps.3, 4 Animal experiments suggest a protective role for cordyceps in radiation- and chemotherapy-induced injury, with increased survival times demonstrated in mice.21, 22" 77Mike77 (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Human diseases: there is no scientific evidence of a clinical effect, i.e., use by physicians or approval as a prescription drug by a regulatory agency. Traditional medicine is unscientific and not supported by WP:MEDRS sources. Animal and in vitro studies are primary research, too preliminary to mention. The statement in the article is correct. Zefr (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation contradicts statement. 

message: This revert was justified because there are no WP:MEDRS sources to support any statement about cordyceps benefiting human health. 1) There are no good sources to support any health effect of mushroom polysaccharides, and there are no polysaccharides approved as prescription drugs; this is not a MEDRS source, but is rather a review of primary research with no confirmation or general scientific agreement in clinical publications; see WP:MEDSCI. 2) Publications in sports journals or from lab animal research are primary studies too preliminary for the encyclopedia, and are not MEDRS-compliant. The proposed edit is carelessly written, does not improve the article, and is too misleading for any part of it to be included. The current version in the article on uses is adequately stated and sourced. Zefr (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading content about "health benefits"