Talk:Goji

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) 22:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Coming to North America

Re source #42 and #43

A google search for "Szucsko goji" shows that any previous mention of them (from 2008) has been purged.

Further the only relevant result in that search is: https://www.nsfcanada.ca/sites/default/files/On-line-Registry-September-2018-Rev7.pdf

Where we can find "V & M Szucsko Farms Limited" licensed only for "Asparagus"

It looks like their endeavor to grow them in Onterio failed?

Also the wording of "In the first decade of the 21st century" is a terrible way to say 2008, just fyi

"Tibetan" goji berry

Moved to Talk for analysis. Apart from the number of questioned statements, this appears to be largely original research that collates climatic/geographical material to advance the argument that "Tibetan" goji berries is a fake designation. Has this information been collated elsewhere by a reliable source? If not, it's WP:SYNTH and doesnl;t belong in the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the early 21st century, the names "Himalayan Goji berry" and "Tibetan Goji berry" have become commonnly applied in the global health food market to berries claimed to have been grown or collected in the Himalaya region.

They are sometimes also refered to as "the Tibetan and Mongolian Himalayas", a misnomer because the Himalayas do not extend into Mongolia.

None of the companies specifies an exact location in the Himalayas or Tibet where such berries are grown.

Some examples of a goji products do exist as being sourced from Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, China.

Although some Lycium species grow in some regions of Tibet, commercial export production of wolfberries in the Tibetan Himayalas is questioned among some sources, as the mountain range bordering the Tibetan Plateau is a region inhospitable to commercial cultivation of plant foods of any kind. In the Himalayan foothills, bleak desolation is unrelieved by any vegetation beyond sparse, low bushes, whereas eastern valleys and plains of the Tibetan Plateau at lower altitude support growth of wild Lycium chinense.

The Tibetan Plateau, comprising most of Tibet north and east of the Himalayas, lies at more than 3000 m (10,000 ft) in altitude, with poor soil and arid climate conditions unfavorable for fruit crops.

Defined by the geography of Tibet, particularly in the western Himalayas, cold nighttime temperatures averaging -4°C year round with six months of continual frost would inhibit Lycium bud development and prevent fruit formation.

Existing in Tibet are minimal subsistence agriculture and impoverished crop management and transportation facilities unsupportive of commercial berry production. Although limited fertile regions suitable for food crops exist in the valleys of Lhasa, Shigatse, Gyantse, and the Brahmaputra River, there are no objective economic, scientific, or government reports on the commercial production of Lycium berry species from these Tibetan regions.

This reasoning is no good, because the sources backing up this text were insistently removed just a week or two ago. With the sources, the text is accurate, properly sourced, and crucial to an encyclopedic presentation and understanding of the marketing of this berry grown primarily in the province of Ningxia, China as being from the "Himalayas" or "Tibet." Do not massively blank this section. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources that you claim "back up" the text are nothing more than a few dead links and product ads, and the text is absolutely filled with "citation needed" tags. Please, for Wikipedia's sake, read WP:RS. Eugene2x►^talk 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And in addition, Badagnani, show us where this information has been previously collated by a reliable source. Not the bits separately that combine to make the argument: the whole argument. If it hasn't been done previously, it's WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have enough proper sources to salvage any of this. Do any of the sources meet WP:RS? The South China Morning Post doesn't seem too bad, though a direct link would be preferrable, especially given all the coi problems. I'm not so sure about the TibetInfoNet article. The lianghui.org.cn link is dead, without any information with which to find the article, unless some hint is contained in the edits that first included it. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was doubtful too about those. As a completely anonymous site with no indication of credentials or editorial process, TibetInfoNet isn't a reliable news source. The SCMP piece is fine, but we certainly don't want it hosted at a site that sells wolfberry products (and was previously involved in fairly solid COI issues). It should be in the SCMP subscription archive (down at this instant), which would satisfy WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. We would just need to trim it down a little more and remove the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences since they seem a bit unnecessary to say the least. Eugene2x►^talk 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

a little more

Well, a lot more. The "Fruitless search" article by Simon Parry comes down to "we went to Tibet and couldn't find any", which is fair enough. The synthesis starts when the above text gets into countersinking that with various found botanical/climatic evidence that isn't actually mentioned in the Parry article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Off topic discussion

Kindly avoid WP:STALK, a practice which is very damaging to our project. Badagnani (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ignoring your message above. There's no point to discussion if you are going to assume bad faith and be disruptive on Wikipedia. Eugene2x►^talk 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the most productive and sincere contributors to Wikipedia, but do feel strongly that our articles should be as encyclopedic and well sourced as possible, and that large areas of content should be discussed at "Discussion" prior to their deletion from individual articles, where and when requested by long-time editors. Badagnani (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the soil is not good so not condusive to fruit crops is not valid pertaining to wolfberries. Here in Arizona they grow in very poor soil naturally, may be the dominant speices. The statement about them not handling frost when flowering is also incorrect. Here they flower in winter and produce fruit in spring. Some natives also flower in summer and produce in autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.100.126 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

See [3] (WP:STALK). Badagnani (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there any need for a personal attack? Besides this, your editing is considered to be disruptive by a lot of fellow Wikipedians.Eugene2x►^talk 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I never attack other editors, I simply point out that editors such as User:Eugene2x have followed me to nearly 10 other pages which he had not edited before, simply to revert my edits. They're all there in his edit history. This highly improper behavior simply must not be part of WP's collaborative and collegial ethos. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet you continue to ignore the "collaborative and collegial ethos" you say there is, instead choosing to violate numerous policies such as WP:RS and WP:CIVIL. I am not deliberately trying to cause you any distress, so please assume good faith. Eugene2x►^talk 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources in the very large blanked section (consisting of multiple paragraphs) are eminently reliable, and blanking the section prior to thoughtful, deliberate, and considered discussion does a disservice to the article's content, and to our readers, by impoverishing our article and neglecting a key facet of this berry's marketing. I am always civil but do point out when WP:STALK is going on (a look at your contributions over the past couple of days show it is). Badagnani (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that calling editors hyperaggressive and insistent is not exactly abiding to WP:CIVIL. I am not violating WP:STALK either, as I'm not trying to deliberately harm you or irritate you in any way whatsoever. Still, I will try to cease it and let the other editors clarify some of the policies for you. Eugene2x►^talk 04:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An examination of your edit history over the past few weeks does a fine job of illustrating all of these adjectives (combined with the many reverts of my edits at approximately one dozen pages that you'd never before visited over the past few days) much better than my own explanation of them. My requests for thoughtful, considered discussion prior to massive deletions from individual articles, where requested by long-time editors, were eminently reasonable then, as they are now. Badagnani (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is not to be deleted or moved as "off topic" as threatened in the previous edit summary by User:Ronz; the blanking of a huge area of this article, and the motivations for such, are integral to a discussion of this article and its content. Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to a proper venue, such as WP:WQA or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety issues

Is it really correct to say that people suffered certain effects after drinking "finite amounts" of tea, since its not possible to drink infinite amounts of tea?? 90.219.24.122 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Signing the above Jddriessen (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the atropine content of the berries the section concludes that the content is "below the likely toxic amount". I find this statement to be confusing and not in accord with the citation. Would you eat something that is "likely" not to poison you. That is a very vague standard. The abstract of the article cited states that the content is "far below toxic levels." This sounds a lot more certain, and a lot less dangerous than "below the likely toxic amount." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.180.204 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't clear. I've added some more details from the cited publication. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

This is the first time I've visited this article, and while skimming it I noticed that source number 41 is always tagged with "unreliable source?" I took a look at the source and noticed that there's another article that cites the same ISBN as a source. Should it be tagged as possibly unreliable as well, or is this unreliability just contextual (i.e. only unreliable in this article) rlee1185 (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)?

Thanks for pointing this out. I think it should be tagged and discussed in Carotene. It's been tagged long enough here that I think it's probably best to remove it at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, it appears I mistyped one or more of the numbers when searching, as I can't find the unreliable source in the Carotene article. rlee1185 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All the same, there are some very questionable sources in Carotene. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing Hadley to Hadleigh

Sorry if this is the incorrect procedure. I have just altered this word. Hadleigh is the name of the town in which this plant is commonly found in the hedgerow. I don't think there is a town called Hadley in Suffolk, let alone in the Sandlings. I have taken a picture of this plant growing in the hedgerow in Hadleigh. The grid reference is TM028412. The link to the record is. babylonian_angel @hotmail.com 84.13.187.85 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC) sorry link went wrong... http://ispot.org.uk/node/93931?nav=latest_observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.85 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Etymology

There are serious problems with the etymology section.

First of all, this claim that "Wolfberry" is the most common English name is very odd to me. Here on the west coast of the USA Goji berries are quite common in health-food stores. If you say "Goji berry" people will have heard of it, even if not familiar. However, it is unlikely that "wolfberry" would be recognized at all. And stores that sell Goji berries never put a "wolfberry" subtitle, the way they do for things that really do have multiple common names. Furthermore, the claim that this "Goji" is some kind of confusion because it isn't "gǒuqǐzi" is ridiculous. ǒ ǐ are not even letters in American English. Goji is a fairly reasonable transliteration of either the Chinese or Thai words.

Second this claim that the word goji dates to the "early 21st century" is just crazy. Etymology is somewhat hyper-technical. To anybody who was shoping at health food stores on the west coast prior to the 21st century this is obvious and blatantly wrong, in addition to be original research.

My proposal is simply to delete the original research from Etymology. If there is not a good source to cite, simply saying that Goji is an approximate transliteration from 枸杞.

Amusingly, the USDA cite for the additional common names has "Goji-berry" but doesn't include the plain "wolfberry" at all, giving only "Chinese wolfberry."

Perhaps the whole article should really be renamed Goji-berry, which would remove confusion with Symphoricarpos occidentalis which does in fact have the common name of plain "Wolfberry." Rubypanther (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the medical science literature represented by PubMed, the word "goji" appears in published papers only 9 times, the first in 2008 just a few years after the name was popularized. There is only one "goji" citation in 2011, and just 4 in all of 2010. The word "wolfberry", pronounced in Mandarin in a way similar to saying "goji", has been in the scientific literature since 1949 representing Lycium species of wolfberry or its cultivars. There are 269 total citations retrieved by searching for wolfberry, including 12 papers already in 2011 (April 3, 2011), indicating that scientists persist in using "wolfberry" while the consumer public seems to prefer "goji". --Zefr (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Amusingly, the USDA cite for the additional common names has "Goji-berry" but doesn't include the plain "wolfberry" at all, giving only "Chinese wolfberry."" That's because the USDA page is concerned only one of the species, L. barbarum. This page concerns other wolfberries as well. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The other etymological connection of interest is the botanical proximity of wolfberry to tomato, Solanum lycopersicum where "lyco" = wolf. One has to consider first what compelled Linnaeus to name the tomato after wolf (lycopersicum = "wolf-peach"). The two plants are presented in the same section of Species Plantarum, so presumably, Linnaeus was working on his botanical descriptions of the two somewhat simultaneously around 1752-3. Tomato was apparently described first, then Lycium barbarum shortly thereafter. It seems logical that wolf-peach was regarded as the larger cousin to the small tomato-like berry, "wolfberry". A few years ago, we had this discussion in the article's etymology section, but was removed because it is, after all, speculative, however well-related. --Zefr (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for this speculation in a linguistics or botanical journal, that would make it not original research/synthesis/"Latin-root-guessing"? Or would it be reasonable to simply note that Wolfberry is in botanical proximity to tomato (with source), that tomato is S. lyco.. in Latin (source), and that 'lyco' is the Latin root for wolf (source), and let the reader make the 'synthesis' themself.. (Is that really 'synthesis' or is it just making associations in ones mind? I.E. learning? Sometimes I wonder if WP:SYNTH could ever be used to rule out simply stating two facts in proximity that logically could be connected such as this just because some 'real author' hasn't published that that connection might be true in some Etymological journal.. Note: I haven't really studied the intricacies and interpretations of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR yet..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.128 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add some (perhaps marginal) information to the etymology - here: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Волчьи_ягоды (russian wikipedia for "wolf berry") you find "wolf berry (in russian) is a common term used colloquially to several different unedible berries; most of them are red, some black, and even to some white ones the name is applied", the common point being poisonous/inedible. 94.64.30.16 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zefr: If the details about "lycos" and "lycium" are relevant enough to be included, then "gojeh" certainly is, given possible silk road origins/ties. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable authoritative source to support it and you're good to go. At present, that source doesn't seem to exist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2015 (U

Perhaps it would clarify things if you cite some standards for the source required to justify the common understanding that there is a possibility of language origin. Note the lack of source for the portion about Lycos, as I mentioned above. Even if you don't like the source, then revert it to the point where citation was needed, no need to delete the sentence wholesale. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out -- the portion about lycos should be removed as well. The sources should be authoritative with respect to either botany or etymology. A pop magazine article in the food and drink section by a little known non-expert, like the one you posted, doesn't fit the bill. Proper attribution is important too. In this case that would mean writing a statement beginning " According to X" but X in the case carries no weight. There's no point keeping the text if it can't be attributed to a source that's at least somewhat scholarly and credible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

After deleting the portion about "lycos", I actually found a half-way reasonable source that supports it, so I added it back along with the newly identified source.[4] Perhaps with some digging you can find a good source for the Persian origins and that can be added back in as well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential reference

• Potterat, Olivier “Goji (Lycium barbarum and L. chinense): Phytochemistry, pharmacology and safety in the perspective of traditional uses and recent popularity”, Planta Medica (2010),76(1):7-19.

--Ronz (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

This review is meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The review is placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The review in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, it is scholarly and peer-reviewed, and it is published in an academic journal. Granateple (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 'Move. Clearly the common name at this point. Further discussion about splitting articles for the species should continue below. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Wolfberry → Goji – - Now, I hate fad diets and superfood obsessions as much as the next guy, but it would be unreasonable not to acknowledge the impact those fads have had on this plant. The term "wolfberry" was always rather obscure, and now "goji" has made that term almost archaic. This is an Asian plant that was given a Westernized name, and now that name has been supplanted by (a close approximation of) the original name. Search results for "goji -Wikipedia" were nearly 10x those for "wolfberry -Wikipedia" for me, though Google searches are different for everyone based on location and that, so try your own. Here is a Google Trends search, and a second one, these signify how people are searching for the terms on this page (although "mede" could mean many other things, it still doesn't reach "goji"). Even the actual Chinese, 枸杞, doesn't get the search volume of "goji", and the word "goji" itself isn't popular in China. This is a uniquely Western word, it is the most popular word for this plant/berry, and it is the only name by which most English-language consumers would know this plant/berry. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd only support this proposal if you can demonstrate that the name goji applies to both species, Lycium barbarum (Chinese: 寧夏枸杞; pinyin: Níngxià gǒuqǐ) and L. chinense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar is the best way to reliably do that, here's one clear example: "Goji is a relatively new name given to Lycium barbarum and L. chinense, two close species with a long tradition of use asmedicinal and food plants in East Asia, in particular in China." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Another: "Goji berry, also known as wolfberry (Lycium barbarum and Lycium chinense), belongs to the Solanaceae family..." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Definite WP:COMMONNAME, acknowledged in general and scholarly sources alike. Good catch. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, I might prefer Goji berry, which seems to be more common than "goji" alone. But either one would be an improvement. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here is another Google Trends chart, showing popularity of different "goji" searches. "Goji", just by itself, is hugely more popular than "goji berry" or "goji berries". That being said, I would not oppose "goji berry", if that is the decision. I simply thought "goji" was a better title, as the article is also about the plant itself, and there is no other "goji" to disambiguate from. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here is a paper about "goji leaves", implying this is also the word used for the plant itself, not just the berries. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Either one works for me. I do appreciate the conciseness of Goji. But of course "goji" alone will be more popular, based on search statistics, than the term plus something else. Any search you do for "goji berry" or "goji berries" will be a subset of the results for "goji." --BDD (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As it is a tool to analyze searches, I assumed that results were for complete search terms, and that "goji berry" would not count as "goji" & "berry", but you're probably right. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Etymology discussion above this one.--Zefr (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support if we finally split the two species off onto their own articles since this article is mostly about the fruit of both of them but not about the species themselves. It definitely shouldn't have a taxobox since taxoboxen are for taxa and this article includes just two species that collectively do not represent a taxon. Split the species into stubs so they don't redirect here, remove the taxobox, then move the berry article and I think we'd be good. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that you want to split the articles, does that hinge on the renaming? Or should the article still be split even if it remains at the current title? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Rkitko's split idea is good if there is a rename. Note that the edit history should remain with the culinary article. I'll let others decide on the merits of a split if there is not a move but it might not be a bad idea. The intro and early sections imply an article about a plant which does not reflect the bulk of the article. —  AjaxSmack  01:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally support Rkitko's proposal to remove the taxobox and have two other articles about the two species. I don't care which common name this article goes by. (If it remains as wolfberry, then I'd like to see a "not to be confused with wolf apple" tag at the top.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unsure. Tempted to relist. It seems that wolfberry is the traditional name and goji is the name given by aggressive marketers. Whether we've reached the point where it's not guesswork that this usage will prevail I'm not at all sure... currently borderline IMO. The two new articles on the two species are an excellent direction, there's plenty of notability and information to justify all three articles. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the name goji is recent and received penetration due to aggressive marketing and fad followers, but I'd also say that most web users had never heard of the berry before that, and wouldn't have cared. The aggressive marketing and branding was part of the push that made this berry so well-known. If you look at Google Trends, from the very beginning, for at least 8 years, the word "goji" has always had more traffic than "wolfberry". The best analogy I can think of would be a rapper. We don't have an article at Howard Bailey, Jr., because nobody cared about him until he was being marketed as Chingy, just like we have articles at Bow Wow, Snoop Dogg, MC Hammer, Lil Wayne & Del the Funky Homosapien. On the extremely rare occasions, the marketing could someday make a switch, and the Fresh Prince could revert to Will Smith, or Marky Mark to Mark Wahlberg, but it isn't our place to predict that. We assign articles the names that the majority of people would currently recognize, even if that name only gained prominence due to marketing, or even if another name previously had more prominence. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content split

Seeing as how people seem to agree that the content should be split no matter the title of this article, I've started an article at Lycium barbarum. It's basically just this article with the berry sections removed at this point. Is this the sort of thing that people had in mind? I'm not on expert on plant species articles, so it's hard for me to see what should be on the species page vs. what should be the fruit page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. I would even keep most of the cultivation sections (except the hedgerows part) with the food instead of the plant. Thanks for doing the work. —  AjaxSmack  01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The content split looks good and is a fair justified edition of text for the L. barbarum page. Thanks, Johnny. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but, just to be clear, all I did was follow-through on Rkitko's idea, and "edit" someone else's content by deleting a few sections. I agree that it doesn't look half-bad, but it never would have even occurred to me if Rkitko hadn't mentioned it. That being said, I'm going to leave that article alone for a little while, if anyone sees improvements that can be made (as Sminthopsis84 has already been doing, thank you). I'll see what I can do with the Lycium chinense article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Common names

There is currently quite a long list of common names on this page, but I think it should be removed in order to straighten out the Himalayan versus Chinese common names, which according to USDA GRIN here and here apply to the two different species. The separate lists could go on the two species pages, but combining them here seems to me to be rather untidy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the pages are looking great, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox on not?

The change that I made to delete the taxobox has been reverted, and the page now lists two species in the box. Do other editors, particularly editors from WP:PLANTS who have frequently discussed the uses of common versus scientific names, agree that this is appropriate? I had thought that this would parallel a case like Banana, where there is a separate pages for that product of several species, and the species themselves have their own pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a taxon, but rather two species. Taxoboxes, as I understood them, are used and designed for a single taxon. Is this true that al species originated one place 20+ Mya, were carried elsewhere, and no species have evolved elsewhere since then? If goji is the article title, why is wolfberry used throughout the text instead of goji? If the name of the article is too awkward to be used within the text, the article should he moved back. Speculation needs removed everywhere not tied directly to a source. The taxobox, at first glance, because it is a format for a single taxon, gives the appearance, in bold at the bottom, that only one species is being discussed. At least for now, please remove the binomial name. 166.137.210.36 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You were correct in removing it as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. User:Zefr added a taxobox; User:Sminthopsis84, remembering the talk page discussion from November 2012, reverted the bold move. Zefr was incorrect to escalate and revert Sminthopsis84's edit. It is easy to explain why a taxobox does not belong on this article. Unless the two species themselves form a series, section, or subgenus on their own with no other members and that taxon has been given a valid name, then this article should not have a taxobox. A taxobox is for a single taxon. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, although it seems too strict to me, and dismisses visitor learning about phylogeny, I'm removing taxobox per discussion.--Zefr (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The phylogeny should be developed in the genus article; unless the two species form a clade they have no phylogeny distinct from the genus, as Rkitko points out. -150.135.210.89 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits to lead

I reverted a change which produced these pieces of text at the start of the article:

1. "Lycium barbarum ... or Lycium chinense ... two genetically related species of boxthorn ..."
2. "A phylogenetic study provided evidence that Lycium species must have originated in the New World and were dispersed to Africa and Eurasia by continental drift, wind or birds seven to 29 million years ago."
3. "Another author stated goji is native to southeastern Europe and Asia."

My reasons are:

1. It's not useful to say that two species of a genus are "genetically related"; all species in a genus are genetically related. The issue is whether these two are closely related, e.g. in the same sub-generic taxon or sisters in a phylogenetic tree. The text previously said that they were "closely" related, which if correct, is meaningful.
2. This information isn't relevant at the very start of the article; it would be if the article were about the genus Lycium, but it isn't. The sentence doesn't summarize an important part of the article, as the lead should.
3. Given that "goji" is the fruit of two species of Lycium, saying that it is native anywhere isn't really correct: by all means say where the two species are native. Also the reference given seems to be only about Lycium barbarum so it doesn't support the information given.

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

3. A cladogram for current distribution and interpreted dispersal routes to show origin (fig. 5, Discussion) in this article[5] indicate L. barbarum and L. chinense are closely related and originated in the New World. This finding is rarely mentioned in discussions of goji, as universal acceptance seems to be it is Chinese in origin. I attempted to add this to the Introduction but will leave it to experts following this page to comment and/or correct the article.--Zefr (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A better-supported statement derived from that article would be that L. barbarum, L. chinense, and L. europaeum are closely related, and together with L. ruthenicum form a clade that is native to Eurasia. The discussion of dispersal out of South America and continental drift would belong on the genus page. It is not appropriate to state that L. barbarum and L. chinense are closely related without including L. europaeum; the branch lengths in figure 3 show L. barbarum having diverged more from the ancestral states than the other two species of that trio. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cytochrome P450

In the article, it says: "Potentially harmful interactions may occur if wolfberry is consumed while taking other medications, such as those containing cytochrome P450, warfarin, or drugs for diabetes or hypertension."

Cytochrome P450 is a liver enzyme. Medications do not contain it, but they can inhibit it. I think the correct wording should be "those inhibiting cytochrome P450." The reason I'm hesitant to make this change is because I'm not an expert and I'd rather have someone who is make the final call on how to accurately word it. Nonetheless, I'm positive this is incorrect as is. - Nanamin (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I'm not sure if that is the only form of cytochrome P450 that causes concern, so I've put in some rather vague wording. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The deal is, cytochrome P450 in the liver is involved in the metabolism of some drugs. If you take some food/whatever that's metabolised via the same pathway, it uses up some of the cytochrome P450, and slows down the metabolism of the drug. I'll edit accordingly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114010238/http://www.hrt.msu.edu:80/glfw/GLFW_2010_Presentations_Posters/Alternative%20&%20Novelty%20Crops/Saskatoon%20and%20Goji%20GLFW%202010.pdf to http://www.hrt.msu.edu/glfw/GLFW_2010_Presentations_Posters/Alternative%20&%20Novelty%20Crops/Saskatoon%20and%20Goji%20GLFW%202010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120203800/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/gojiberriesrep.pdf to http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/gojiberriesrep.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801124833/http://www.gojitrees.com:80/FreeLifeClassActionLawsuit%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.gojitrees.com/FreeLifeClassActionLawsuit%5B1%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

All 3 check ok. --Zefr (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wolfberry

per official classification, it is seen that "wolfberry" is for various specis of Lucium, not only goij. It also says that barbarum is called "matrimony vine". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013135340/http://functionalingredientsmag.com/fimag/articleDisplay.asp?strArticleId=1446&strSite=FFNSite to http://www.functionalingredientsmag.com/fimag/articleDisplay.asp?strArticleId=1446&strSite=FFNSite
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231112217/http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3887 to http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3887
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603012504/http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/080430b.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/080430b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin A?

Any reason there is no mention of this fruit being a efficient source of Vitamin A? Source issues? I’m baffled. (Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC))

New topics for discussion go to the bottom of the talk page; WP:TALK. We don't have a nutrition table in the article because there are no WP:SCIRS sources for nutrient contents in fresh or dried goji berries. There is some evidence, such as PMID 30064788, that goji contains provitamin A carotenoids, such as beta-carotene, but there appear to be no reliable publications of vitamin A levels in blood or tissue of humans who consumed goji berries. --Zefr (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems in Wikipedia page of Banana. They make a big deal about its potassium content. Goji berries are very high in Vitamin A. Many top sources says the same. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy. USDA database (published 2019) shows it too. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You are misreading that article - the abstract doesn't mention vitamin A (PMID 30064788). Zeaxanthin is not a provitamin A source. Goji does contain beta-carotene which is a provitamin A carotenoid, but there are no reports of blood vitamin A levels being increased by consuming goji berries or juice - that would be the evidence of goji consumption influencing vitamin A levels. I don't see your point about the banana article potassium content: the issue there is that bananas actually have a relatively low content of potassium. Overall, your argument is poorly researched, mistaken and weak. Zefr (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually already known for a long while that Banana are food items, where many other foods "relatively" have much more potassium than them. I only mentioned it to point out, it doesn't stop other editors from adding in that Bananas are a good source of potassium, which they still are. Just not the "most" of all the food items in the World. And also what food item in this World is even 100% digestible? If you use that reasoning, we should remove every food nutrition label for every food item in Wikipedia as they don't account for anti-nutrients reducing iron absorption, protein absorption, etc. That would be ridiculous. Goji are edible and not so different to others edible fruits. The goji berries do have high levels of vitamin A. https//fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients USDA obviously disagrees with you and I trust their professional judgement to publish what they trust is the exact amount of vitamin A in Goji. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Romania

This revert was justified because a) the content and sources are promotional of the Romanian company, Goji Bio Brașov, b) the sources are not independent WP:SCIRS references, and c) the editor is advertising. Placing a warning on Asimonna's talk page. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous Origin

The problem with the term "Asia" is that it refers to a vast region and doesn't give clear specificity of the actual range(s) of origin. A plurality of sources do not agree that such a broad swath from S.E. Europe to E. Asia represents its native range. For example, an older version of Malus domestica gives a confusing mention of both Turkey and Kazakhstan, while the newer version winnows it more accurately to one region, namely S. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Xinjiang.

I would suggest using GRIN as a more up-to-date source. The article should be updated accordingly. Facial (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No health benefits?

The article was like 85% a smear campaign against Goji. The previous editors mostly talked about how it's a scam and made sweeping claims that all health claims are false and it has zero proven health benefits.

How can there be no health benefits? In this modern age where science has shown antioxidants as very useful to protect against free radicals and macular degeneration. It's not even disputed by any reputable institution that antioxidants like beta carotene, etc are important to protest against DNA damage from oxidative stress. And Goji berries have a very high level of antioxidants as well as vitamin C and melatonin. Obviously there are health benefits in those fruits. The issue is that previous article was making it seem like there are no scientific studies showing that Goji berries increase antioxidants in blood and protect against oxidative stress. And all claims (not some) are wrong. Despite as of 2022, there are a number of studies showing that they do have health benefits. Not all of them are scams or exaggerated claims. It's not disputed that Goji berries have high antioxidants levels And studies have shown concrete benefits to them. I recently added in 2 studies and mentioned the Berries have high antioxidants levels as they were completely absent in previous Article. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry#benefits 49.195.2.162 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There's actually a large number of modern studies (so Many to list) showing conclusively the benefits of antioxidants against free radicals and macular degeneration. To make sweeping premature claims that the Natural antioxidants in Goji berries, have absolutely zero health benefits is just illogical and outdated. Example - A newly released 2022 study found that consuming a handful of dried goji berries five times a week, can "increase the density of 'sunblock' pigments" in the eyes. The researchers from the University of California (Davis), explained that the antioxidants found in Goji berries, lutein and zeaxanthin can filter out harmful blue light and hence “provide antioxidant protection” and prevent some eye disease, specifically macular degeneration, in middle-aged people. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2022/01/23/goji-berries-protect-ageing-eyes/ 49.195.2.162 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS refs are required. Those don't appear to meet that criteria. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal that's false. The studies are reliable and uses decent methodology. A 90-day double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled study in 150 older adults, found that goji berry supplementing had helped increase blood antioxidant levels, protects from hypopigmentation, and helped to soften fatty protein deposits behind the retina. It found that antixoxidants didn't increase in placebo or control groups. But risen in groups taking goji berries and it protects against macular hypopigmentation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21169874/

Another randomized controlled study with 114 subjects who had early macular degeneration, found that daily goji berry supplements had improved the density of macular pigment.

A 2018 professional study also concluded that extracts of L. barbarum (Goji berries) had shown "potent free radical scavenging activity" and protected against DNA damage caused by free radicals. It suggested that suggested that L. barbarum extracts could be used as dietary supplements to reduce the harmful effects of oxidative stress in athletes after intensive exercise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/ 49.195.2.162 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Single studies simply do not pass that bar. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually well designed studies can be an exception especially if you ensure readers know about the methodology being used. I seen many articles citing single studies so it's allowable. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says. Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited - if you have seen content that doesn't meet our policies that is a reason to fix that content, not to add more noncompliant stuff. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also a volunteer here. There's nothing wrong in getting a second opinion or village pump if I believe the study is solid yet cannot be agreed by the usual editors on these talk pages. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No original research

@MrOllie I don't want an edit war so am addressing this here. I removed original research claiming that as of 2018, there have been zero clinical studies showing any benefits in Goji berries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068098575

Because it is wrong as , the given sources does not say that at all. Secondly the given sources are like from 2007 and are heavily outdated and cannot support that statement at all. It is original research to go make a claim when none of the Given sources are actually saying those exact words.

Lastly it is also a false claim. In 2018, there have been well designed clinical studies confirming benefits from Goji.

A 2018 study concluded that extracts of L. barbarum (Goji berries) had shown "potent free radical scavenging activity" and protected against DNA damage caused by free radicals. It suggested that suggested that L. barbarum extracts could be used as dietary supplements to reduce the harmful effects of oxidative stress in athletes after intensive exercise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/

Also we know that Goji has vitamin A and C which is good for iron absorption and eye health. Clinical studies on vitamin C literally recommend that children and adults have a minimum intake of these vitamins because they are very helpful to the body. There are many clinical studies showing that Goji is high in vitamin C so the statement that Goji berries components haven't been confirmed as helpful, is not Just original research but false information. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 'zero clinical studies showing any benefits', it says 'no clinical effectiveness of such extracts has been confirmed' - please don't move the goalposts and then declare victory. - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't move goal post? You should really take your own advice as that is what you are doing.

Give me a source that says (AS OF 2018) no clinical benefits have been found. None of the sources says that as of 2018, no clinical benefits had been found.

None of the sources are even from 2018 let alone actually say that entire statement. Show me a source that specifically mention 2018. It is original research to say something that the sources are not saying 2018. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's original research to use sources back from 2007, and claim the sources themselves are saying - (as of 2018), no studies confirmed effectiveness of extracts in goji). The sources doesn't even say 2018 anywhere because none of them are from 2018. It's obviously original research to make that statement. Also it is outdated information to say (no clinical effectiveness of such extracts has been confirmed') as one 2018 research found compound in goji helped protect against free radicals and DNA damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/

So if you think it is not original research and or the 2018 study is wrong, then we Just cannot agree on talk and so I am fine to take this to further channels. As Don't want to waste my time arguing with someone who seems invested in defending an original research and claiming that proper randomised controlled studies are not permitted on Wikipedia, despite I know that's wrong. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? there needs to be a Nutrition chapter

For a food article, there need to be mention that Goji berries have high levels of antioxidants, vitamin C and A, as well as iron and fiber. Why is such information forbidden?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068113113

It's not even disputed by anyone that Goji berries have high levels of antioxidants and vitamin C, etc. Removing the information because WebMD is apparently banned for Wikipedia. Is arbitrary and questionable.

I also like to ask for an exception as it is highly unlikely that WebMD will lie about this. No reason at all. Other websites also say the same thing. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry#benefits

They are reliable sources that have no reason to lie about the obvious facts that Goji berries have lots of iron, vitamin C and A, etc. And my edit should be included back in. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is really no substitute for reading WP:MEDRS. We have sourcing requirements that must be complied with. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WebMD and Healthline are not reliable sources, especially for nutrition analysis, as they are written by bloggers and are not peer-reviewed or subjected to editorial scrutiny. From where would they obtain such detailed analytical nutrition information? For Wikipedia food and nutrition articles, we rely on the USDA FoodData Central resource, which has only a preliminary, "label claim" nutrient analysis from a marketed dried goji berry product, i.e., not the usual rigorous, comprehensive nutrient analysis typical of USDA work, such as we have for raisin nutrition information here (see table). We don't have a nutrition section for goji because there is no reliable source available for that information. Zefr (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr Respectfully I don't think you are familiar with Healthline and WebMD. Typically the articles are written by people with actual medical professional credentials. Not just anybody. An example is this article - https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry It is written by by Rachael Link, MS, RD on September 8, 2020 and Medically reviewed by Amy Richter, RD, Nutrition. I believe University is what taught them these knowledge in which in turn, Universities gained it from scientific consensus and research. Also I highly doubt commercially sold dried goji berries in USDA database can cheat label claims as they're assessed by USDA (who don't just take their word), and the FDA is the one responsible for the majority food products and their labeling. The FDA guarantees that most prepared foods, such as packaged dried Goji berries are properly labeled. https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/aglaw/food-labeling

49.195.2.162 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also lastly the USDA database seems to validate WebMD and Healthline as sources that are correct. Indeed USDA also shows the berries are high in vitamin C, A, Fiber, Iron, etc. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients USDA shows that WebMD and Healthline are not at all wrong about those facts and are professional enough. WebMD even caters and are trusted by medical professionals and is a reputable massive corporation, so I highly disagree they are not reliable sources when it comes to these basic information that they likely sourced it from nutritional journals like every other licensed dietician and medical expert.49.195.2.162 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You won't find experienced medical editors here accepting WebMD or Healthline as reliable sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. You should read through MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS which apply to any topic concerning human health. The Healthline article says "Goji berries are tiny red fruits packed with antioxidants and powerful medicinal properties." - one needs to read no further: that kind of nonsense statement reveals ignorance about what is an "antioxidant" (dried goji berries may have provitamin A carotenoids and seed vitamin E, but likely no other dietary antioxidants) and there is no sufficient clinical evidence to support the supposed "medicinal properties" - a term reserved for prescription drugs. The individual studies you have tried to use are low-quality, preliminary research projects which do not meet MEDRS standards. WebMD says "people have used goji berries to try to treat many common health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, fever, and age-related eye problems," suggesting efficacy for these diseases, but there are no published reviews for such claims requiring the strongest evidence. Zefr (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Finding the nutritional values, isn't even rocket science. It's basic hard science where it's not hard for any food professionals to attain it. There's no credible motive for WebMD and Healthline to go fake the nutritional macronutrient profile of goji. Especially When it's likely labs have analysed it and published the information in journals which are referred to by professional dieticians and scientists. Even USDA database PROVES that they are indeed correct about this so don't know why this is even debatable. Since we cannot agree, I will take it to a noticeboard as the info is factual and the sources are perfectly acceptable. WebMD never said it cures Diabetes, etc but observing that some people believe it can help ease their conditions.

And I think you are just confusing medicine with food. A healthy diet isn't formally medicine, yet it still protects against many diseases. Eating enough fiber helps with diabetes as it slows the absorption of sugar. Eating enough anti-inflammatory natural antixoxidants, helps to reduce excess free radicals. Making sure you have enough vitamin C prevents scurvy.

Goji is simply a single holistic tool that allows diabetic people to reach a healthy diet that has properties that help maintain good sugar levels and ease oxidation damage etc. There is a nuance that certain healthy food can help prevent illnesses or worsening conditions that typically occur from unhealthy diets.

Controlled research with good methodology, shows people with macular degeneration and Diabetics who eat goji, also fare better than those who don't. So there's promise that they can play a key role in helping people.

Example is a systematic review which showed Goji Berry (Lycium barbarum) has the potential to be effective in the treatment of diabetes Mellitus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319200037_Goji_Berry_Lycium_Barbarum_in_the_treatment_of_diabetes_melitus_a_systematic_review 49.186.234.210 (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also it's a straw argument to say that WebMD is wrong for observing that people use Goji to help their diabetes. The thread was not about that but only about the importance on adding the minimal nutritional information of Goji. It is dubious to think that WebMD and Healthline are unable to know the nutritional info in Goji considering it's not a difficult soft science. Measuring the macronutrient profile of a food, is perhaps the easiest and most fool proof thing in food sciences. We are not arguing if vitamin C is helpful or not. We are arguing whether Goji has high level of vitamin C, etc and if WebMD is trustworthy on such info. Given that USDA database (a reliable source according to you) confirms and supports the information in WebMD about the nutritional values like high levels of vitamin A, fiber, antixoxidants, etc. I think it's obvious that WebMD is proven correct about that specific info, unless you're also claiming that USDA is now lying along with WebMD. Which is completely unlikely. 49.186.234.210 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeing you haven't replied back after a week. I added USDA database which btw is a very professional detailed analysis released in 2019. I highly doubt USDA will mislead the public about this and it is obvious they used professional science to get the exact analysis of amino acids. I correctly attributed the source as USDA and their information is reliable if it's published in their official database. I am willing to take the time to discuss if you disagree. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Inspecting the USDA report here, the analyses were not determined by USDA typical procedures, but rather are (stated under the column "Derived by") as a) "Based on another form of the food or similar food" (estimated water content), b) a "label claim", or c) "calculated", i.e., none of the values shown were actually measured by the USDA. The report is simply a reference from a commercial product, and therefore is not a reliable source and the data may be incorrect or misleading. Removing the table. Zefr (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am currently on my mobile phone so using the mobile browser and I didn't see that messages. But on my desktop, it shows that indeed. My apologies. However it writes "calculated from label by NDL staff; Calculated from label claim/serving (g or %RDI). Do you really think NDL staff would mislead the public by taking any analysis at face value. They obviously know who created the analysis and trusted them enough to publish it on their official database to the public. So I still think USDA database should be shown as they're reliable enough to be responsible here. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I found this Italian in-depth analysis. They seem competent enough to measure it and their findings that are published in journals closely match my other sources. It seems obvious they are correct unless you think there's a conspiracy within USDA and Italy to also lie about all this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy 49.195.81.81 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't revert and not reply back

I did put in a discussions to add in basic nutrition information. So many top sources like Italian scientists and USDA are saying the same thing. I wanted to add them in except I waited over 10 days and still nobody replied. That's stonewalling where you just revert edits and then tell others to wait for consensus. And Not reply back for over a week.

Yet I am correct. Italian in-depth analysis showed the Berries provide significant amounts of dietary fibre and zeaxanthin and can be declared on the label as a potential source of vitamins E and C. I don't believe they would lie.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

Secondly USDA doesn't just trust anyone. They likely reviewed the source and judged it as reliable enough to put it in their official database.. I already stated that reasoning on Talk but what I don't approve is being told to wait for discussion to end, yet I waited patiently for over a week just for a reply. That is wrong.

You need to explain and show proof that USDA is irresponsible. I don't believe they would publish data for Goji berries and not check the sources beforehand. They're not that incompetent. Additional Italian scientists also confirms much of what USDA is saying. Are they all lying?

Image with caption: "Oil extracted from the seeds of Lycium barbarum"

In March/April of 2013, I did a makeover of the nutrition info boxes for as many foods as I could. As I did this, I noticed what appeared to be a repetition of images of vials of extracts/oils. Most of these images were added in 2013 by one user User:Itineranttrader.

User contributions for Iterinanttrader

The first issue I have with these images is that they are pointless. It's virtually the same image of a vial with a slightly different color, but what I found unencylopedic, is that at the time, I was able to ascertain that the user had (and STILL has) at least one website where such vials of extracts and oils were sold. So to me, this is more of a quasi advertisement than it is a valuable addition to any of the articles thusly modified. It has a spammy quality to it.

I know, it took me ten years to post this, but in 2013 I saw that someone has started a discussion on the matter, so I lost interest and moved on.

Somehow this user was able to come along and promote his business in a very slick way. I hope someone with a proper gatekeeping stance will take this up. I'm tempted to just delete the image out of a trial page just to see what the response would be, but that doesn't sound like the best approach.

User:zefr I remember your diligence when it came to people making changes inappropriately. I'm hoping you get to see this and respond in some way.

An example website using the same image, with the same username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

49.195.81.81 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This was explained to you in the section you opened at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nutritional_information_(Healthline/USDA). - MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Not once did the other person even explain or give any opinion at all about the source on the Italian study that you deleted.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

Also I explained that USDA doesn't just trust anyone and they're speculating that USDA is irresponsible.. Obviously USDA doesn't just trust anyone and recognise the source as reliable enough to be published on their database that informs the public. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That cite has the same WP:MEDRS problems outlined above. You must read and understand this guideline and respect its requirements for high quality, secondary sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not medical science. Just normal hard food science. And not a particularly difficult science like ground breaking novel research. It's merely analysing the nutrition of goji berries using straightforward science. My source is published in Italian Journal of Food Science and it's silly to claim they're unable to even do such a basic task.

Fresh goji berries have 77.4 % moisture, 1.1 % fats, 2.5 % proteins, 15.3 % carbohydrates and 2.9 % fibre. In dried goji berries, 4.4 % fats, 10.2% proteins, 61.3 % carbohydrates and 11.4 % fibre were found. Similar results on dried goji were reported by ENDES et al.

49.195.81.81 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical information explicitly includes nutrition. MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours to stop sustained edit warring on this article. If you cannot come to agreement, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sim772 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sim772 (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)