Talk:Rhodiola rosea

message: Someone has destroyed the usefulness of this article.
People have gotten so overzealous about editing articles that they just delete everything.  This renders articles useless.  So what if a link is not to a peer reviewed journal?  It's better than no link.  If you disagree with a statement like "this herb is good for...", it would be better to edit the statement to say "this herb is reputed to be good for" or "fans of this herb claim ..., but this has not been confirmed by academic studies" rather than deleting the statement.  Alternatively, you could create a section called "non-scholarly alternative health claims about this substance," rather than just deleting information that could be important to someone.
Stop trashing what other people write.  You are not God.  This is the people's encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of pedantic scholars.  Pedantic scholars already have scholarly journals from which they can exclude the writings of people without scholarly credentials.  You don't have to treat wikipedia like this.  People spend a lot of time and energy putting information into this encyclopedia.  Just deleting it wholesale is no better than being a graffiti artist or vandalizing public property.
I came to this article to try to get information about this herb, and what it is claimed to do, and find this one paragraph piece of nothing.  You overzealous editors with swollen egos have made this article useless to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misunderstanding the point of wikipedia. Charles35 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the OP's comment. There is a LOT of support for claims about the possible or probable efficacy of rhodiola rosea for a number of conditions. Simply deleting is the wrong approach, and discussion (which doesn't appear here) is appropriate. I can (and will upon request) provide a dozen references to peer-reviewed journal entries providing scientific evidence supporting claims of psychoactive effects of rhodiola rosea. I suspect that drug company shills are editing this article to downplay the efficacy of herbal remedies, claiming things like "a review of the scientific literature shows no evidence of efficacy for any known condition..." BS. There is PLENTY of evidence.Phatgeek47 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll submit this first article describing a peer-reviewed experiment suggesting efficacy for depression:http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/Citation/2014/05000/Rhodiola_rosea__SHR_5_,_Part_2__A_Standardized.9.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatgeek47 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Over editing

message: The main Norwegian medical publication just published the findings of a review of the available literature, and concluded that there was no indication that R.rosea has any beneficial effect compared to placebo. It does, however, appear that it can have potentially risky interactions with prescription and OTC medicine. The consensus of this independent study was that patients that are ill, have risk factors, or take medication or other herbal supplements, should stay away from it; this from a country that sources a lot of the R.rosea that is sold.
Also, this article currently lacks useful sourcing for just about everything in it. Based on the existence of a verifiable secondary source (the preferred type on WP) that contradicts essentially everything in this article, it should probably be stubbed unless such sources are added reasonably soon.
I would suggest chainging statements like "It is very useful for XYZ" to "It has been claimed to be very useful for XYZ by source", with an inline reference to the study. Russian studies are fine, of course, as long as they are properly cited; online translation is adequate for a cursory attempt at verifying the number of patients studied and whether the methodology seems reasonably sane. Be aware that the actual "adaptogen" contents vary wildly from plant to plant, season to season, area to area and so forth, based on official studies.
I'm not opposed to herbal medicine as such, nor have my own experiences with R.rosea been negative (they have, by and large, been positive but within what I would also expect from a passive placebo), but Wikipedia needs to document the statements of others, not make statements of its own when these are not clearly supported by available evidence.
Obtw, I've never heard of "Golden Root" or "Arctic Root" here, until those were used for marketing. Up here, it is called "Rosenrot", which translates as rosy root. It may have been used by the Vikings, but they also used essentially every edible plant in their herbalism, as well as quite a number of inedible ones (e.g. Fly Agaric and Psilocybe), and R.rosea was (to the best of my, admittedly limited, knowledge) primarily used in salads.
Replies should be directed to or mirrored at my talk page; I don't track this page actively.
Zuiram 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature review just in

message: This genus is not monotypic; Rhodiola rhodantha (rose crown, queen's crown) also belongs here and Rhodiola should thus have a page on its own . Please someone fix that. Dysmorodrepanis 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong redirect

message: This article mischaracterizes 'stimulant substances' as adaptogens. Adaptotgens are not stimulating-- they are strongly balancing-- so, when taking an adaptogen,  a person with high blood pressure will experience a lowering of blood pressure, wheras a person with low blood pressure will instead experience an increase in blood pressure: this is true for many bodily functions-- adaptogens do not 'stimulate', instead they better regulate-- towards restoring the body's natural balance or homeostatic center.
Also-- All adaptogens are not 100% regulating and will have a minor tendency to also stimulate or relax a person-- the key to finding the right adaptogen for you is dependent on your own tendency towards 'heat in the head' (a TCM or traditional chinese medicine term)-- such as anxiety, irritability, or even a warm or hot feeling in the head, or a red tongue etc). Generally speaking-- if you have 'heat' symtpms, avoid 'warming' adaptogens and instead use 'neutral' adaptogens (or 'cooling' adaptogens--** but never use a 'cooling' herb long term without the direction of a certified [repeat- CERTIFIED FROM A MAJOR ASIAN SCHOOL] practitioner). 
Seeing a certified chinese or other certified asian-trained herbalist is a g od idea when taking adaptogens in order to reap the benefits while avoiding potential problems. 
161.98.13.100 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stimulants are not adaptogens

message: Many of the key statements are not backed up with references, particularly under "uses of".  For example, reference 1 links to a citation-lacking website (http://www.mdidea.com/products/herbextract/salidroside/data.html) as opposed to, say, PubMed papers.
Sal7777777 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references needed 

message: I've had to remove references to 'mdidea dot com' since that article itself has no references, and on a side note, they are selling herbal products. Still, we need to clean up the quackery in this article and replace it with real peer-reviewed journal-published scientific evidence. --Mark PEA (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs cleaning up. 

message: Rhodiola alsia has been added based on the following
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u444x064123m3051/ 
However, a verification from other publications and authors is needed--222.67.207.79 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of .... 

message: The plant was also planted around the pipes of old sod-roofed houses in the nordic countries I belive, as the plant is less likly to catch fire then some of the other plants that used to grown on the roofs.
Luredreier 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire safty 

message: This article is unreadble due to numerous in-text references to studies and authors. References are great, but Wikipedia doesn't use the Harvard system and this article now looks more like a bad university essay. There are even references to page numbers and publishers!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.124.165 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I started replacing some of the inline references with ref tags, but there are a number of these remaining. The format of the references still needs to be cleaned-up as well. Also it appears that many of the references were copied directly from the text at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3363/is_4_18/ai_n57336387/ GranolaB (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: That material was, for the most part, pointless and unintelligible jargon. I object to it via WP:NOTABILITY. It looked like it was simply copy/pasted from a study. For example, a list of some of the "50 polar compounds" found in the plant has no relevance to "potential health effects". There were stray characters and words everywhere, making it almost impossible to read. I removed almost all of it. Charles35 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreadable and full of in text-references 

message: What are the specific alkaloids / molecules involved in its CNS effects? 216.227.117.35 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the psychoactive chemicals in Rhodiola rosea? 

message: Edit screen for footnotes should show only the template.  This shows the template, then the text of 29 & 30:
29. Panossian, A., Wikman, G. 2010. Rosenroot (Roseroot): Traditional Use, Chemical Composition, Pharmacology, and Clinical Efficacy.  Phytomedicine  17(5-6): 481-493.  DOI 10.1016/j.phymed.2010.02.002
30. Bozhilova, M. 2011. Salidroside content in Rhodiola rosea L., dynamics and varyability. In: Botanica Serbica 35 (1): 3-6. http://botanicaserbica.bio.bg.ac.rs/arhiva/pdf/2011_35_1_533_full.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes are messed up -- 2 column, then 29 & 30 are one-column.   

message: This massive recent edit needs to be addressed. I think all of that material needs to be edited to include paragraphs and address other structural and grammatical needs before being added to the article. The walls of text are too massive to have in the article without paragraphs. I am going to remove all of the material from the article and put it here. We also need to make sure all of the references are up to par. Thanks, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more than enough to simply put the information here for others to work from. The ip made similar edits to two other articles, which I've removed for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Looks like the ip has an account now. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: The part about the FDA in the lede is backed by a reliable source. It is a pdf that you can find here by removing the space between the two o's in the following link: http://www.go ogle.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FDrugs%2FGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation%2FEnforcementActivitiesbyFDA%2FCyberLetters%2Fucm059168.pdf&ei=SA5vUa2SN8PU0gHQ54DwBA&usg=AFQjCNHZlNlcYCgefoH6gsPZNfXkd5sS9Q&sig2=IzWOiwqVvkRK3QoVTBg-KA
The pdf is only accessible through the google domain. The google domain is blocked by wikipedia for technical reasons that are unrelated to this source. Please remember that WP:V requires that info be verifiable, not verified. In other words, there must be a source, but that source does not have to be cited in the article. If you would like to verify the info, I welcome you to look at that pdf. Thank you. Please do not delete the lede because it doesn't have a source because it can be found here.
I do not know how to make a different link to the source. If you know how, please let me know. Thanks.MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, when I punched in the address, I was forwarded to a URL not hosted by google, so inclusion of this url should be fine. I question whether this is a sufficient WP:RS for the claim made in the article. I would feel more comfortable with something other than a primary source to verify this - perhaps a review of the event or some secondary source that discusses the account. Rkitko (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - added it. Will be searching for better source. Thank you, MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel the section about the FDA removal a bit deceptive and unclear. After reading the pdf it seems the only complaint was to a specific website about portraying the product (which included echinacea, rhodiola rosea and other botanicals) as "drugs". Can someone with more editing experience weigh in on this? - anon. 05/09/2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.196.21 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: http://www.livestrong.com/article/168785-what-is-rhodiola-good-for/ simply isn't a reliable source. Nor does it verify the information cited. What's it there for and why? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing is not that cut and dry. It is being used for the sentence about how some people claim the plant treats anywhere from fatigue to cancer. Let me offer an analogy for why this is allowed. Say Donald Trump had a personal website in which he claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This is obviously not a reliable source to say "Barack Obama is from Kenya." But, if we phrase it properly, we can use the source to say something like "Donald Trump has claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya." See the difference? Livestrong is popular and stable enough to use as a source for such a claim. We cannot use it to say "this plant treats cancer", but we can use it to say "some people have claimed that this plant treats cancer." MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  claims in lede about FDA 

message: It is not apparent how the following list of references have been used to support article content (if at all), so I am moving them here so that other editors can use them to improve the article.  Deli nk (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused references 

message: This article is self-contradictory.  The introduction says "it has never been conclusively shown to be effective in treating any medical condition" but later on says "there is scientific evidence only for depression as a benefit in humans".  Perhaps "never been conclusively shown" is not entirely inconsistent with some "scientific evidence", but this vagueness needs to be clarified.  Also there are apparent contradictory statements about which chemical are present, which are predominant, and which may be responsible for the pharmacology (if there is any).  Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: This article is verbose, repetitive, and has grossly overlapping categories.  I'll try to work on this a bit as I'm interested in this plant, but I haven't done this large of a revamp before.
For instance: "Phytochemicals and potential health effects" includes "Uses"; Better would be to separate Phytochemicals from Uses.  Further, "Scientific Evidence" is a ridiculous category, evidence for claims should be provided via citations for those claims, but claims should be in whatever category they fall under.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VagueObjects (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization Overhaul 

message: According to the The Plant List, Rhodiola rosea L. is one of many synonyms of Sedum roseum (L.) Scop. (accepted), while the USDA Plants Database lists Sedum roseum (L.) Scop as an orthographical variant of Rhodiola rosea L. I'm not sure which name should be the primary article title, but as there is now an article Sedum roseum, the two should be adroitly merged. The many synonyms, if included in the taxobox, might better off be placed in a collapsible list in the interest of aesthetics and succinctness.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA PLANTS database is not an authoritative list of plant names and synonymy. It does what it can, but it doesn't keep up with most taxonomic changes. Browsing the recent literature just now, it appears that Sedum was found to be highly paraphyletic and segregate genera were split off. Rhodiola appears to be well supported now on its own; most recent papers acknowledge it as a genus and not a subgenus of Sedum. GRIN is a decent source for taxonomic information -- far better than USDA PLANTS -- and indicates that Rhodiola rosea is the accepted name. I'll merge Sedum roseum (which really should be Sedum rosea as the specific epithet is a noun and doesn't change gender with the genus as GRIN notes) and collapse the synonym list as you suggest. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wonder why the Plant List, which I take to be somewhat more authoritative than USDA plants, lists Sedum roseum as the accepted name when its use (1771) is much later than the 1753 nomen of R. rosea, which, for animals at least, makes the elder name valid under the principle of priority. Maybe just an oversight or a pending change in their system.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid name and synonyms