Talk:Ginger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Taste - Citation Needed between footnotes 5 and 6

The peculiar hot and pungent taste of ginger can be attributed to the acrid compound present in ginger called Gingerol. www.organicfacts.net/organic-oils/natural-essential-oils/health-benefits-of-ginger-root-oil.html (newbie doesn't know how to add citations and keep them in order...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.107.80 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

North/South Korea

In the article under Production Trends, the table Top Ten Ginger Producers — 2005 indicates production in North Korea. The map image, 2005ginger.PNG, however, indicates production in South Korea.

Averyjt 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Green Ginger Wine

Green Ginger wine isn't anything like ginger beer - I've removed the suggestion that it is, and tieded up the text round there.

Nick Atty 10:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin

There is a rival theory that the word ginger derives from Sanskrit word "Shrnga-vera". Please refer Megasthenes' "Indika" for more information.

- the article gives two different "ultimate" origins and one "original" etymology, mutually contradictory. All need citations. The Zanzibar one seems the least credible. Huttarl (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

A ginger plant

This article is about Zingiber officinale, however the picture is of Alpinia zerumbet. Are Alpinia zerumbet rhizomes even edible? Please delete this image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) .

How can you tell? It looks like ginger to me. And even if it were the wrong species, we wouldn't delete it, just remove it from this article. —Keenan Pepper 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can tell because Zingiber officinale and Alpinia zerumbet are different plants. The flowers of Zingiber officinale are yellow green and purple arising from a low dense spike, the flowers of Alpinia zerumbet are pink, yellow and red and hang down on a showy raceme.

This article is about Zingiber officinale, a specific member of the Zingiberaceae. The picture should be of what the article is about, Zingiber officinale, not of any other member of the Zingiberaceae, such as Alpinia zerumbet.

Here are some links to pictures and brief descriptions of both plants:

http://www.plantoftheweek.org/week281.shtml http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/koehler/INGWER.jpg http://www.plantoftheweek.org/week064.shtml http://www.virtualherbarium.org/gl/alpineazerumbet.JPG

I'm only asking that the picture be deleted from this article, not from Wikipedia--the article on Alpinia zerumbet would be a great location on Wikipedia for a picture of the inflorescence of Alpinia zerumbet. If there is a picture of one inflorescence in an article about Zingiber officinale it should be a picture of Zingiber officinale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) .

I'm confused. Which image are you talking about? —Keenan Pepper 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see the confusion. I'm talking about the picture of Alpinia zerumbet flowers labeled "Flowers of the ginger plant." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). I removed the image from this article (which you were welcome to do yourself, BTW) and made a comment at its talk page Commons:Image talk:Ginger-flower.jpg. —Keenan Pepper 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sushi

Which kind of ginger is served on the side with sushi? Is it myoga? --LostLeviathan 02:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• No, it's generally pickled ginger root sliced very thin -- jd

Disambiguation page eliminated

I've removed the disambiguation page which was previously Ginger and moved Ginger root to Ginger. The old disambig page is reproduced below:

Reason for getting rid of this page: It did not comply with disambiguation policy; the listed entries, with the exception of the Segway codename, were not actually disambiguating anything (did not point to relevant Wikipedia articles on the subjects in question). The Segway codename is not relevant enough to justify a disambig page, which is particularly true since the vast majority of the links to Ginger refer to the plant.--Eloquence* 04:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've added more entries and moved the page to Ginger (disambiguation). Please note that the above transclusion is automatically the current version; for the version as at Eloquence's comment, see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ginger_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=14390729 . --Zigger «º» 05:53, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Will ginger cause scarring?

Some Chinese herbal doctors believe that consuming ginger after an injury will accelerate the healing of the wounds. The fast healing have an undesirable side effect of forming a fiberous protrusion that looks like a smooth scar. I wonder if there are clinical studies of this effect. Kowloonese 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Powdered ginger vs root ginger

The comment:

"Powdered dry ginger is used to add spiciness to gingerbread and other recipes. It tastes quite different from fresh ginger, and neither can be substituted for the other."

is inaccurate. I know this because I've just made gingerbread using root ginger and it came out quite well. I've modified the paragraph.

What a moronic comment.218.14.48.247 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation, Medicinal Uses

Medicinal Uses section is an outright copy of this page: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsHerbs/Gingerch.html Chicbicyclist 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Only the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are, and although that's not how your supposed to do it, as it's just a section in question i'm going to go ahead and simply delete those paragraphs. the anti-inflammatory properties will be mentioned and cited. --He:ah? 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ginger

In an episode of Dr. Who, the Doctor asks, "Am I ginger?" referring to his hair color. This article currently contains no information on the use of the term "ginger" for color. Could anyone elaborate on that? --LostLeviathan 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From Ginger (disambiguation):

• Ginger is a reddish-brown or yellowish-brown colour. By extension, ginger can also refer to red hair. —Keenan Pepper 04:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Costus

Where do the Costus spiral gingers fit into this? I'm no biologist, but I stumbled across the genus as a nectar source for hermit hummingbirds. jimfbleak 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipecies

It says on the lower right that Wikispecies has information about ginger. I searched for ginger in Wikispecies, and here's what I got:

There is no page titled "Ginger". You can create this page. Results 1-3 of 3

   * Curcumorpha longiflora
     Relevance: 9.5% - -
   * Zingiberaceae
     Relevance: 7.6% - -

Scott Haley 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How to grow ginger

In answer to the question about how to grow ginger, check out Grow it:Ginger

Scott Haley 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleansing abilities section

The first paragraph about "Toxic Cleanse" really needs a source to substantiate this use. The tone of this section doesn't seem up to encyclopedic standards either. If this is a valid point, this should be rephrased.

Erockrph 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I can't find when this was introduced, but I'm removing it because it seems like a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. If some one wants to put it back in, cite your references please. imsoclever:talk 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Decent Research

If a study fails to demonstrate a significant difference between a placebo and the substance that it looks at, there is NO support for the effect of that particular substance. I.e. the claim in the sentence below that "ginger might be an effective treatment....because of the study..." is absolutely non-scientific rubbish.

Quote: One medical research study had results indicating that ginger might be an effective treatment for nausea caused by motion sickness or other illness,[3] The study however, failed to show a significant difference between ginger and a placebo. Varga Mila

Regarding research that has been done, ginger is listed on the appetite enhancers page, but I see nothing mentioned about this on the main page for ginger. Ginger is listed as a sialagogue, which may indirectly be or causally be involved in an increased appetite, but can someone clarify all of this and mention it on the main ginger page, also referring to research that may have been done on any of this?Mmortal03 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition section?

I feel this article lacks nutritional information about Ginger for Raw, Cooked and tea forms. It would be great if someone added it. I'll go poke around the web and see what i can find. 66.183.112.16 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already information on the nutritional value of ginger root in the second section, in tabular format. Adding information about ginger tea is somewhat dubious, and cooked ginger would be difficult to justify. In addition, the extra tables would both add considerable length to the page (if in table form) and clutter things up. In my mind, I don't think there's much need for more nutritional information. WLU (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Horticulture section unclear

The latter part of one paragraph refers to 'white and black' ginger preparation, implying that the first part specifies how to make it. Is there a missing sentance? It's certainly unclear.--Speedevil (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do ginger heads get bullied?

I myself have dark ginger hair and get bullied qui te a bit. Once on my school bus, I got spat because of the colour of my hair! Even some people reading this would still think that gingers are stupid and so on, but they are normal human beings who just want to be treated normally, like people with blonde, brown or black hair. I don't see what is wrong with gingers. Whoever makes fun of gingers or any person with any disability, they are just so stupid. I hope this message will wake some stupid and pathetic people up to see what pathetic loosers they are. This message is only for everyone's good. Peace out,dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.10.214 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the spice, please see Red hair for information on that issue. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert

In case it looks suspicious, I managed to revert it that quickly because I saw someone at my workplace vandalize this page. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi

Ginger is called adkar in Punjabi language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.28.98 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature of this cultivated plant....

To my knowledge, there are more than one cultivar. Could any botanists please add the info for this topic --58.38.43.252 (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

found this http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043125100

However I can't tell whether these names are approved or not--58.38.43.252 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Turmeric?

I recently added Turmeric to the list of similar species at the bottom of the article. This has been deleted by "WebHamster" on the grounds that it is "irrelevant". I would be interested to know why Turmeric is not relevant to a list of similar species to ginger. As anyone who has used fresh ginger, fresh galangal and fresh turmeric will know, they are clearly similar. It is not only that they are closely related plants but they are used in similar ways and have a very similar appearance - galangal looks like ginger but has a slightly waxier surface and turmeric looks like galangal with an orangey colour to it. They also have similar smells - fresh galangal having scent right between fresh ginger and fresh turmeric. It is certainly more similar to ginger than the listed myoga and more relevant than the listed wild ginger which is not even related. Shoebill2 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar species, not similar spices. Although fresh turmeric resembles ginger almost as much as galangal does, I believe that galangal is more closely related. Also turmeric is (AFAIK) rarely used in that form, but rather as the dried and ground powdered form. This is also a prose paragraph, more than a simple "see also" list of bare wls. and the turmeric entry didn't really state much beyond this. If you could expand this at all (maybe they're closer than I realise) I wouldn't object to seeing it re-added. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They are similar species - if you look at the taxonomy, it is in the same subfamily (Zingiberoideae) and the same tribe (Zingibereae) making it a more similar species than any of the ones mentioned in the article. Galangal is actually less closely related being in a different subfamily and tribe. You can see the taxonomy here: [1]. Turmeric does not seem to be used fresh as often as ginger so in that respect, galangal is more "like" ginger however, both ginger and turmeric are both regularly used in the dried powdered form so in that respect turmeric is more "similar" to ginger than galangal. Shoebill2 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This article uses American English

The first edit used American English,and it has been entirely in American English for several years. It is considered vandalism to repeatedly change it to British English. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Considered by whom? And why is your comment unsigned? And what sort of English is 'This articles'?218.14.48.247 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I apparently used three instead of four tildes when I signed it. Fixed the grammar; apparently I was in a hurry when I made the comment. One of the guidelines on spelling/vandalism at one point stated that it was vandalism, but I can no longer find it (the guidelines are constantly being revised; it may have been removed). Please see WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS#General_principles "Stability of articles". VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy info is needed....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Zingiberis+Rhizoma+taxonomy&btnG=Search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Zingiberis+Rhizoma+classification&btnG=Search --222.67.219.105 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Has this variety never been hybridized...????

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Zingiberis+Rhizoma+cultivars&btnG=Search --222.67.219.105 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

See Ref 2 in Turmeric for....

similar species--222.67.207.79 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Culinery usage - this para too detailed

"In South India, ginger is used in the production of a candy called Inji-murappa meaning ginger candy in Tamil. This candy is mostly sold by vendors to bus passengers in bus stops and in small tea shops as a locally produced item. Candied or crystallised ginger (ginger cured with sugar) is also common. Additionally, in Tamil Nadu, especially in the Tanjore belt, a variety of ginger which is less spicy (also known as mango ginger because of the raw mango-like flavor it renders) is used when tender to make fresh pickle with the combination of lemon juice or vinegar, salt, and tender green chili peppers. This kind of pickle was generally made before the invention of refrigeration and stored for a maximum of 4–5 days. The pickle gains a mature flavor when the juices cook the ginger over the first day. Ginger is also added as a flavoring in tea. Dried ginger (sukku சுக்கு) is used in tea or coffee and also in siddha medicine."

This is too detailed for this section. I thought it would suffice to say that ginger is candied and pickled and used for flavoring in teac and coffee. The siddha medicine belongs in the medicinal usage. Also, the ginger candy is not a speciality of south India (we eat it in Maharashtra too. It is called Alepak) so I am merging this paragraph with the overall India paragraph. --Kaveri (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to write the Chinese (simplified) translation of the term, because......

the translation has not been scientifically reviewed and the usages have caused chaoses in some chinese families to some extent. It's all about cause and effect --222.64.28.62 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=%E5%9C%A8%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98%3A+%E7%94%9F%E5%A7%9C+%E6%B1%89%E5%AD%97%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.28.62 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=%E5%9C%A8%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98%3A+%E7%94%9F%E5%A7%9C+%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=%E5%9C%A8%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98%3A+%E5%A7%9C+%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=zh-CN&q=%E5%9C%A8%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98%3A+%E5%A7%9C+%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.28.62 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mythbusters

There are a episode where they tested many methods against seasickness, almost all failed but placebo (!), ginger pills and medical pills (Dramamine?).

While placebo was effective at 50% (two test persons tough), ginger pills and medical pills was effective at 100% (the same two persons), but medical pills also give some side effects.

Cross-section image

I've added Wikimedia Commons image of a cross-section.

It's a slightly younger root, the resolution is a tiny bit lower, and the fibers are showing because my knife was evidently duller :) Anyway, I'm not sure if it's worth adding to this page or not. Maybe the current one should replace my image, but in the Commons.

Also, does that image really belong in the Chemistry section?

native to?

Does anyone know where ginger is native to?

How do you grow ginger?

 Does anyone know how to grow ginger?
  Is it as simple as sticking a piece of ginger into the ground?
  Is there a special time of the year when this should be done?
  Is watering necessary?
  Should the piece of ground where ginger is planted be exposed to the sun?
  Any hints on growing ginger would be appreciated.
 Thanks.

krachai

The article lists krachai in the paragraph "Another plant in the Zingiberaceae family, galangal, is used for similar purposes as ginger in Thai cuisine. Galangal is also called Thai ginger. Also referred to as galangal, fingerroot (Boesenbergia rotunda), or Chinese ginger or the Thai krachai, is used in cooking and medicine." According to Thai Food by David Thompson, grachai is a separate plant, referred to as "Wild Ginger". It is not the same as galangal. I have updated the page in the section on related items.

Subheading should be on medicine, not pseudoscience

Under the sub-heading "Uses", we read that there a section on "culinary uses" then read a section on "pseudoscientific uses". This is clearly absurd. There ought to be a sub-heading on ginger's nutritional benefits. After all, ginger has more iron than liver on a weight-to-weight basis (Source: Schwartz Herb and Spice Guide, ISBN 5-022-5903). It is also the only spice that is known to be able to treat travel sickness. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would changing it to "Traditional medicine" suffice then? I think the intent is to separate actual (i.e. scientifically researched) medical uses from non-proven folk medicine. This is valid in some cases as these sections are often heavily used by companies selling 'miracle' drugs. Plenty of which can be harmful to the health.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, came in specifically to make the same point about 'pseudoscience'. Here for instance is a page from an institution that has been aggregating scientific research on various herbs including ginger: http://www.plant-medicine.com/freepages/summary.asp?commonName=Ginger The assumption here seems to be that any natural product = 'pseudoscience' as though it were on a par with crystal healing. I do wish the geek boys who go round doing this to Wikipedia would at least check their facts. It's not only inaccurate, it's lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.13.104 (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The frustration expressed here may be valid, but we should be discussing how to improve the article, not commenting on other editors and needlessly hurling insults. The article has been around since June 2002, and the change to 'Pseudoscientific uses...' was only made in June of this year — anyone can simply edit it to have more agreeable terms. We shouldn't miss the point raised by ObsidianSoul that the section is '...often heavily used by companies selling "miracle" drugs.', which is one of the reasons the page is heavily patrolled. However, I think the use of the term "pseudoscience" is a bit charged when paired with "preliminary research", as this invites readers to erroneously equate the two. I would guess that everyone who has edited this talk section would agree that pseudoscience exists; and that some research on ginger is legitimate, and some is, indeed, pseudoscience. In some form or another, how about having a section on on legitimate research, and a separate section pseudoscience (how to title and organize them can be discussed). Hamamelis (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I do get what you're saying. Recently worked on an article on a plant heavily used in traditional medicine in various cultures. Most (not all) of its medical properties were confirmed by modern scientific research. The point is, I explicitly stated which uses were folk and which were confirmed by experimentation. A lot of the more common plants used in folk medicine don't do that because ninja editors from companies selling herbal drugs do insert dubious unsourced or unreliably sourced claims to promote their products. They know people usually turn to Wikipedia rather than scientific journals to check for accuracy on claims of medicinal properties of plants. I've come across a lot of that before where I don't even know where to start to fix them.

But yes, I agree. 'Psuedoscience' is inaccurate as well, as it implies it is false by default, when most of them might simply be unconfirmed. I've gone on ahead and rearranged the sections and the mishmash entries into 'Medical uses and research' and 'Folk medicine'. I've removed some of the more dubious claims (aphrodisiac); moved overdose, FDA classification, and contraindications to section with allergies; and merged some of the paragraphs of traditional use into the list of regional folk medicinal use.-- Obsidi♠n&nbtsp;Soul 17:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian - thanks, sorry I was grumpy, but it did look just plain wrong before. I really appreciate this fix, and think that 'folk medicine' is very sound. Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.13.104 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and no problem. :) I also encourage you to create an account. Details left in your talk page. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Please check this section. the reference says something else. 74.197.113.155 (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ginger rhizomes

We always called the single section of a ginger root (ginger rhizomes) a "knob of ginger". I cannot find this term in Wikipedia. Norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedun (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"crystallised" vs. "candied" ginger

Are these really the same thing (sounds like they are), so it's just a UK/Aus/Ire/etc. vs. USA vocabulary difference? Either way, the UK/Aus/Ire/etc. term "crystallised ginger" probably should be mentioned, but as I have no experience of "candied ginger" not sure about whether there might be some production process difference lending a different taste/texture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.47.210 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

References:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.47.210 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have some "uncrystalized candied ginger" that I bought at Trader Joe's. Unlike crystalized ginger, the candied ginger is not covered with sugar crystals. There really is a significant difference between the two.JDZeff (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Iron content

In the section "medical properties and research" it says "ginger for its weight contains more iron than liver" but from a quick google search it looks like ginger has 0.6mg per 100g, whereas beef liver has 6mg per 100g. what do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.168.241 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I appended this -> {{cn|Who makes this claim?}} (a citation needed tag) to the sentence you referenced. You can also append them yourself to unsourced information when you see something you find dubious, etc. Hamamelis (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a book on herbs and spices that makes this claim. I can add the complete reference when I have found the complete reference for my book. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I believe this statement needs a citation:

"Ginger has also been historically used to treat inflammation, which several scientific studies support,"

132.3.37.68 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The source at the end of the sentence is the citation, I think. It leads to this page with this paragraph:

"Ginger extract has long been used in traditional medical practices to reduce inflammation. And there is some evidence that ginger may help reduce pain from osteoarthritis (OA). In a study of 261 people with OA of the knee, those who took a ginger extract twice daily had less pain and needed fewer pain-killing medications than those who received placebo. But another study found that ginger was no better than ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil) or placebo in reducing symptoms of OA. It may take several weeks to see any effect."

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Citations

Citations 9, 10 and eleven all lead to the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.160.156 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The document referenced by footnote 40 is no longer available at the link provided, and I'm unable to find it. Otterthay (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Serving size for ground ginger

I just reviewed and revised both nutrition information boxes (fresh root and ground). Both of these used a serving size of 100 g. Because most of the nutrition information boxes conventionally use 100 g as a benchmark serving size, I think it's appropriate for the fresh ginger root info. But the figures on ground ginger are distorted.

Information on the ratio of fresh to ground vary, but a very common ratio is that of 4:1, i.e. if a recipe calls for 1 tsp. of fresh ginger, then substitute 1/4 tsp. of ground ginger. I realize that any ratio given in a culinary context has to do with imparting an equivalent amount of ginger flavor, but I don't know of a better way to establish a proper ratio.

So my questions are:

Would it be better to scale down the serving size of ground ginger down to 25 g?

Is is best to leave it at 100g? Chango369w (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Below is an example of how the nutritional figures compare with ground ginger scaled down to precisely 25 grams (13.89 tsp., talk about finicky!) Because of the way the USDA's website functions, there is quite a bit of flexibility with specifying the serving size.

Ginger root (raw)

Nutritional value per 100 g
Energy	333 kJ (80 kcal)
Carbohydrates	17.77 g
Sugars	1.7 g
Dietary fiber	2 g
Fat	0.75 g
Protein	1.82 g
Vitamins and minerals Vitamins Quantity %DV† Thiamine (B1) 2% 0.025 mg Riboflavin (B2) 3% 0.034 mg Niacin (B3) 5% 0.75 mg Pantothenic acid (B5) 4% 0.203 mg Vitamin B6 9% 0.16 mg Folate (B9) 3% 11 μg Vitamin C 6% 5 mg Vitamin E 2% 0.26 mg Minerals Quantity %DV† Calcium 1% 16 mg Iron 3% 0.6 mg Magnesium 10% 43 mg Manganese 10% 0.229 mg Phosphorus 3% 34 mg Potassium 14% 415 mg Sodium 1% 13 mg Zinc 3% 0.34 mg
Link to USDA Database entry
†Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

Ginger root (ground)

Nutritional value per 25 g (~ 14 tsp.)
Energy	351 kJ (84 kcal)
Carbohydrates	17.91 g
Sugars	0.85 g
Dietary fiber	3.5 g
Fat	1.06 g
Protein	2.25 g
Vitamins and minerals Vitamins Quantity %DV† Thiamine (B1) 1% 0.012 mg Riboflavin (B2) 33% 0.43 mg Niacin (B3) 15% 2.405 mg Pantothenic acid (B5) 2% 0.119 mg Vitamin B6 9% 0.157 mg Folate (B9) 1% 3 μg Vitamin C 0% 0.2 mg Vitamin E 0% 0.0 mg Minerals Quantity %DV† Calcium 2% 29 mg Iron 28% 4.95 mg Magnesium 13% 54 mg Manganese 362% 8.326 mg Phosphorus 3% 42 mg Potassium 11% 330 mg Sodium 0% 7 mg Zinc 8% 0.91 mg
Link to USDA Database entry
†Percentages estimated using US recommendations for adults, except for potassium, which is estimated based on expert recommendation from the National Academies.

Overdose LD50 Validity

The citation for the LD50 and the "Ginger Jitters" is almost definitely not a valid reference. I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so I have no idea how things work around here, but something needs to be done about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.244.91 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mcewan (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Stem Ginger

The article does not mention Stem Ginger (common in the UK). Is it indeed made from the stem of the plant, or is it from the root? quota (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

other plants

Other plants are grown as ornamentals that are commonly called 'ginger', such as some Alpinia and Costus. They are not mentioned on the disambiguation page. I notice that this article mentions another species of Zingiber as well as "wild ginger" or Asarum canadense. I wonder if this article should be renamed something like "Ginger (herbal)" or else have the specificity of Zingiber officinale removed from the lede and the lede a bit more generalized. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Medline link is broken

Medline is referenced in remark #16: " "Ginger". MedlinePlus, US National Library of Medicine. 2015. Retrieved 23 December 2015.". but when clicking the link, we get to a "page not found". Baroch Oren --212.5.158.26 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The MedlinePlus link for ginger appears to be extinct, replaced with the same information by the NCCIH article, currently Reference 16. No. 18 from the Univ. of Maryland is also a good general source. --Zefr (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Here (2013) is a source of that "gin�gayu" mojibake. Needs some recovering... Meanwhile: WP:RFPP#Ginger. --Djadjko (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why this huge increase in Manganese content from raw to powdered form ?

I would expect 4-5 times increase, since powedered form does not contain much water. Also, is the USDA entry for powedered ginger mentions spices. So I suspect it is a mix of ginger and something else. It may not be pure powdered ginger. Only that would explain the huge difference in Manganese content.

• The above note on the increase in manganese content is an interesting observation. However , There seems to be very liitle (or no) material on the web explaining this . One possible explaination could be the transformation of substances in the drying process. For example , gingerols are converted into zingerols during drying . There also is an increase in riboflavin . Leningrad (talk)

Manganese is an element. I think that conversion to manganese from some other substance would require a nuclear reaction, unlikely to occur during basic pulverization and drying.

Confirming that USDA database has manganese content of 100 g raw ginger at 0.22 mg versus 33 mg for ginger spice. Has to be an error. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nutritional Value table ridiculous

The first Nutritional Value table shows nutrient content for 100 grams. No one eats 100 grams of dried, powdered ginger, i.e., the spice. A more reasonable amount would be one teaspoon, which weighs 1.8 grams. Then the table would show clearly that the nutrient contribution of a serving of ginger spice is negligible. There is also the fact that the USDA ginger spice manganese content is wrong, but no means of correcting short of getting USDA to revise nutrient content table. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Cathry (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Decided to remove the spice nutrient content table, leaving only the raw root nutrient content table. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dysmenorrhea

Reference abstract states: "The meta-analysis of these data showed a significant effect of ginger in reducing PVAS in subjects having primary dysmenorrhea (risk ratio, -1.85; 95% CI of -2.87, -0.84, P = 0.0003). Six RCTs out of 7 exhibited low to moderate of risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Collectively these RCTs provide suggestive evidence for the effectiveness of 750-2000 mg ginger powder during the first 3-4 days of menstrual cycle for primary dysmenorrhea."

Better to say "There is suggestive evidence that ginger powder is effective for reducing pain related to primary dysmenorrhea.[21]" 23.243.221.77 (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Effect+of+ginger+%28Zingiber+officinale%29+on+heavy+menstrual+bleeding%3A+a+placebo-controlled%2C+randomized+clinical+trial reproduced in http://doctormurray.com/ginger-effective-in-relieving-heavy-menstrual-bleeding/ supports efficacy in menorrhagia.23.243.221.77 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a fair summary given the evidence; however the source is not great - I have replaced it with a stronger one. The new sources you cite fail WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical use?

I think it's very misleading, ethically wrong, and against the founding principles of Wikipedia, to have articles that once contained valuable medical knowledge turned into this. Editing is restricted to the main site to prevent vandalism? What a joke. To say ginger causes heart burn, and has no proven scientific medical use is an outright lie. When I was a boy in 3rd grade I can remember teachers telling us not to trust Wikipedia. This was mostly due to the fact that it made research entirely to easy. The information when checked was always correct and conclusive. I learned more because of the freedom I enjoyed from instantaneous knowledge than from anywhere else. Medical information became an obsession. To see all the pages I once gained so much valuable information reduced to this rubbish is Terribly disheartening. I now know from personal conversation, that Wikipedia is a valued source by educators at all levels of education. But with the sudden change, bending, distorting, withholding, and altering the truth I do not believe they have the right to. Among the many publications concluding the positive health benefits of ginger, (supposedly non existent if you take Wikipedia's non editable page as fact.) this is one of many readily available. I chose it because i consistently use ginger for the medical application of acid reflux, for myself and others.

http://www.europeanreview.org/article/10145

S. Lazzini, W. Polinelli, A. Riva, P. Morazzoni, E. Bombardelli The effect of ginger (Zingiber officinalis) and artichoke (Cynara cardunculus) extract supplementation on gastric motility: a pilot randomized study in healthy volunteers

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Year: 2016 Vol. 20 - N. 1 Pages: 146-149 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complexmind202 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Your personal views are not useful; your cited source is not WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is built on what good sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Intro paragraph 2 sentence "Although ginger no longer grows wild.." needs this text to be removed or qualified. Google checks and common sense suggest wild ginger is likely in some form. It is typically very hard to establish a negative statement of this kind to a reasonable standard of reliability. Certainly the line would need to be referenced to remain in any edited form. Geotheory (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a citation needed template. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Geotheory: There is evidence for it still growing wild, such as here and in the Kew reference I added. --Zefr (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

The "Regional uses" section lists both ginger snaps and ginger biscuits, but both links lead to the same page. Can someone with the correct permissions delete one of them? (The page in question is titled "Ginger snaps" so I think it would be most consistent to delete "biscuits", but make your own judgements and etc.). 142.104.35.102 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions to the "Production" and "Medicinal use and research" sections

Are my drafted additions to the "Production" and "Medicinal use and research" sections okay? Here is a link to my sandbox, which includes by planned edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Katiekuhl1/sandbox For "Production," I plan to add info about how the risky cultivation of ginger in India has led to the development of a class of "ginger kings" as well as a set of farmers turned bankrupt. For "Medicinal use and research" I plan to add info about ginger's effects on metabolic syndrome-related complications including hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and hypertension. Katiekuhl1 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Katiekuhl1, your enthusiasm is welcomed, but I want to caution you about the strength of sources you rely on for possible changes in medical content. This tutorial on WP:MEDRS is a general guide to indicate to new medical editors that systematic reviews and meta-analysis of completed high-quality clinical trials are the type of sources needed to support content for the encyclopedia. I've reviewed your sandbox references, none of which qualifies. We do not cite studies from animal research (your sandbox refs 7-10), preliminary clinical research (3,5) or alternative medicine (4). Reference 2 does not appear to be a review of completed, high-quality clinical research, leading to the conclusion you have no acceptable sources. By reviewing the history of the Ginger article, one can see there has been considerable review and editing over the past year, with adherence to MEDRS-standard sources. Checking recently catalogued reviews, there are no new quality sources to add as of this date. --Zefr (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, Thanks for the info. I was wondering how you can tell the quality of a systematic review, because I had thought mine sufficed but any advice would be greatly appreciated. Also, I did look at the material about adding new medical content to Wikipedia, but when I looked at the NCCIH page that is cited multiple times, it itself cites articles that are not all systematic reviews. Because of this, and because I made it clear in my entry that some findings only pertained to one study, and because I was not prescriptive in my writing, I thought that the sources might be appropriate. This is just my reasoning, but thank you for your response! Katiekuhl1 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerning quality of a systematic review, one can check the impact factor of the journal in which it was published, using a source like this. Generally, IFs under 3 are suspect for weaker quality. One can also check on PubMed, where reviews may be listed with the number of times the article has been cited (more is better assurance). For using NCCIH (a division of the NIH), it is a trusted government source per WP:MEDSCI. Two other ways to evaluate reviews and general sources are 1) here, Why MEDRS?, and 2) here, a brief MEDRS tutorial. --Zefr (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can editors even read?

Again a wiki article where the editors state conclusions not contained in the sources and somewhat contradicted by the sources. In the "Medicinal Use" section there is a statement that ginger is not recommended for any clinical use for treating nausea. But clearly recommendation for clinical use is not included in the scope of these sources. The sources are just reviews of various other studies. Therefore the wiki statement is unsupported by the sources listed. The statement in the wiki is also misleading as the final sentence of the abstract of one of the studies indicates that ginger was preferred to placebo. In other words, there was a positive observed effect noted for ginger. Again while this is not a recommendation for clinical use, a review of just a few somewhat unrelated studies would never properly result in a positive recommendation anyway. No recommendation would ever be expected from such a study anyway. The wiki statement is so obtuse and unsupported on that point that it can be seen as intentionally false and misleading.104.181.247.245 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding article. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

However, do not change any information related to medical matters unless you have read WP:MEDRS and understand the need to follow its guidance. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the statement based on your comment. I agree the cited sources do not support the assertion that ginger is "not recommended for clinical use for treating nausea", in any other sense other than that the sources do not appear to present a conclusion in either direction. The other statements that evidence is inconsistent for the various healing properties of ginger should be sufficient to make the point. Perhaps these sources can be added to support those other statements. This edit is in accordance with my (hopefully correct) understanding of WP:MEDRS. Osmanthus22 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I have another similar comment. I dont think the following statement "and there is no evidence for it having analgesic properties." is in accordance with the cited source "Terry R, Posadzki P, Watson LK, et al. (2011). "The use of ginger (Zingiber officinale) for the treatment of pain: A systematic review of clinical trials". Pain Medicine. 12 (12): 1808–18." This paper concludes with the following statement "Due to a paucity of well-conducted trials, evidence of the efficacy of Z. officinale to treat pain remains insufficient. However, the available data provide tentative support for the anti-inflammatory role of Z. officinale constituents, which may reduce the subjective experience of pain in some conditions such as osteoarthritis. Further rigorous trials therefore seem to be warranted."

I don’t know if this source is from a reputable journal (Pain Medicine), because medicine is not my field but if this paper is considered sufficiently authoritative I would suggest the above phrase is changed to "there is insufficient evidence for it having analgesic properties due to the lack of well conducted trials. Available data provides some evidence for its anti-inflammatory role,and it may reduce the subjective experience of pain in osteoarthritis." KreyszigB (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, make the change, I say. "There is no evidence..." is a patently false reading of the source. Osmanthus22 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation 45 at "dymesorrhea" does not state that "ginger is not effective for treating dymesorrhea." This is actually the review's finding for vitamin E, not ginger.

There was very limited evidence of effectiveness for fenugreek (MD −1.71 points, 95% CI −2.35 to −1.07; one RCT, 101 women), fish oil (MD 1.11 points, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77; one RCT, 120 women), fish oil plus vitamin B1 (MD −1.21 points, 95% CI −1.79 to −0.63; one RCT, 120 women), ginger (MD −1.55 points, 95% CI −2.43 to −0.68; three RCTs, 266 women; OR 5.44, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.46; one RCT, 69 women), valerian (MD −0.76 points, 95% CI −1.44 to −0.08; one RCT, 100 women), vitamin B1 alone (MD −2.70 points, 95% CI −3.32 to −2.08; one RCT, 120 women), zataria (OR 6.66, 95% CI 2.66 to 16.72; one RCT, 99 women), and zinc sulphate (MD −0.95 points, 95% CI −1.54 to −0.36; one RCT, 99 women).

— Porjai Pattanittum et al., "Dietary supplements for dysmenorrhoea", Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (March 22, 2016)

A quick NIH search turned up "Efficacy of Oral Ginger (Zingiber officinale) for Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" published in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine on 2016 May 5. This review supports Cochrane's finding but offers greater detail.

That said, the available ginger/dysmenorrhea research is not of high quality. Some of the studies cited in the reviews border on anecdotal. It may be more accurate to say "although researchers have examined the effect of ginger on dysmenorrhea, more rigorous trials and further research into Ginger's safety are required." KristleLC (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Dessert not desert 2600:1008:B013:6AC8:361F:6DE4:546A:D488 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Zefr (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Systematic reviews and the basic types of Ginger?

On the current wiki page, it really doesn't have any clear distinct info on the actual variety of ginger out there https://www.producebluebook.com/know-your-commodity/ginger-root/ OR the positive effects reported by systematic reviews. I feel such info should be added in due to its direct relevance and importance. Also the current page has so much filler info on exports and Indian farming. I get this is an encyclopedia but it just seems disportionate to me to add in so much about one country yet very little to zero info about other countries or farming styles. Regardless I want to add in such info about research from sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/ and possibly include other country's ginger farming styles and varieties. Thanks. TheUntamedBig (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have seen them but in the "research" section on the article, four systematic reviews are already cited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy I noticed it. It was the primary reason why I made this thread as I had noticed the research section mentioned virtually zero positive benefits. That just seems unlikely. Despite my link, which is also a systematic review mentioned that studies had found positive benefits from the natural compounds that is more than a Placebo effect. TheUntamedBig (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The paper you listed which is actually cited on the article PMID: 31935866 is not a reliable source but it even admits "only 43 clinical trials (39.4%) met the criterion of having a high quality of evidence". It was published in the controversial MDPI journal Nutrients. The journal is often removed from Wikipedia articles as it has a bad history of promoting quackery. You will also notice the same Asian names authoring articles on nutrition in that journal claiming practically every food has anti-inflammatory properties. It is always the same groups of researchers and they always end their papers claiming more clinical trials are needed before any firm conclusion can be given yet they often make sensationalist claims in their abstracts. Various reviews indicate that ginger may be beneficial for nausea relief [2], [3], [4], but the Wikipedia article already mentions there is inconsistent data on this. I agree the section could do with updating but we need high-quality reviews, not from the journal Nutrients. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It promotes quackery? Seems like a normal scientific journal to me and those Korean authors, as you pointed out mentioned that some studies were not quality and hence they seem responsible to me. Also many of the studies listed don't have any Asian names and published in medical journals. Ie. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21818642/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31225678/ But some of the study authors do mention the need for more high quality studies. And am not at all surprised that natural sliced Ginger root, which cannot be commercialised solely by Big Pharmacy, lacks a lot of high quality studies on it. I think it's appropriate to mention context that more high quality research is needed but it's no skin off my nose. I just use it to treat my motion sickness and it works for me. So I looked up on Healthline that seems to be fair in explaining the research indepth. But noticed alot of what it writes, is missing on Wikipedia and warrants a mention. Ie,

According to a review of 12 studies that included a total of 1,278 pregnant women, 1.1–1.5 grams of ginger can significantly reduce symptoms of nausea. However, this review concluded that ginger had no effect on vomiting episodes (8Trusted Source).

A 2019 literature review concluded that ginger supplementation significantly reduced body weight, the waist-hip ratio, and the hip ratio in people with overweight or obesity (10Trusted Source). A 2016 study of 80 women with obesity found that ginger could also help reduce body mass index (BMI) and blood insulin levels. High blood insulin levels are associated with obesity.

More recent studies have also concluded that ginger is more effective than a placebo and equally as effective as drugs such as mefenamic acid and acetaminophen/caffeine/ibuprofen (Novafen) (25, 26, 27Trusted Source). While these findings are promising, higher quality studies with larger numbers of study participants are still needed (27Trusted Source).

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/11-proven-benefits-of-ginger#7.-May-significantly-reduce-menstrual-pain

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ginger-for-nausea#effectiveness TheUntamedBig (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheUntamedBig: the relevant question to answer is "do the sources meet with the requirements of WP:MEDRS?" It's not the policy of Wikipedia to reproduce medical information unless it comes from high quality sources. If in doubt, Zefr is usually a good editor to ask. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MDPI's Nutrients is not a reliable journal per many discussions at Wikipedia. Healthline is not a reliable source either for most medical content. Most of the authors on the website are not experts and they often challenge scientific consensus, for example they have a crazy article on their website claiming that saturated fat and heart disease is a myth and you can eat as much saturated fat as possible without any CVD risk. We need high-quality reviews if they are going to be added to the article not primary studies or unreliable websites like Healthline. More research needs to be done on ginger and its health effects. Much of the material you have cited is inconclusive and calling for more controlled trials. There is nothing concrete here but some of the material you mention (such as decreasing body weight) is already cited on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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): Katiekuhl1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Lokamir, Arimechan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkd10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

It states that ginger can cause a rash but no mention of rash in source given (source 2) 86.25.102.75 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Of the universe (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"evidence that consuming ginger or its extracts has any effect on human health"

"Although used in traditional medicine and as a dietary supplement, there is no good evidence that consuming ginger or its extracts has any effect on human health or as a treatment for diseases." This statement is not supported by the citations! if you follow them you find the following statements:

"Research shows that ginger may be helpful for mild nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy." and "A small amount of research suggests that ginger dietary supplements might be helpful for menstrual cramps."

Can I suggest that someone more qualified than myself in this area revises this bold statement. KreyszigB (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Both sentences affirm that "there is no good evidence", which would be supplied by a WP:MEDRS source (which doesn't exist). Zefr (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

"Although used in traditional medicine and as a dietary supplement, there is no good evidence that consuming ginger or its extracts has any effect on human health or as a treatment for diseases.[2][6]"

.gov site which is good evidence that it has a positive effect. Having all the minerals, protein, and vitamins that is listed on the wiki is effects on human health. I don't have time to make accounts and do 10 edits just to post this so please someone change that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616534/ 173.191.65.83 (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 18:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind of medicine

In several sections of the article, it mentions that Ginger is used as a "main ingredient in traditional medicines", but nowhere does it say how it was used, or which symptoms it was historically used to treat. Most other herbs have this information listed in their articles, so it seems like an omission here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.48.19 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 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): Shaywoodard, Cassie22smith (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SienaTCM, Cam Coe27, Em09gatt, Mr13maye.

— Assignment last updated by Cam Coe27 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Inconclusive effects on human health

This review reaches no new conclusions (confirms a possible antiemetic effect) about consuming ginger and human health. As the authors state, the evidence is poor due to low study quality. The source only adds to the conclusion in the Research section that evidence for ginger having any health effect is inconsistent. The statement added with the source by Atchoum - A 2022 umbrella review published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition summarize the scientific findings about ginger - is useless. Zefr (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The article in the German Wikipedia says that the German ministry of health recommends it for nausea . This is a well-known fact, but this articles makes everye effort to suppreess it. Here is an e-mail I sent to the Indian Ministry of Commerce: "India is the world's biggest ginger exporter. The English-language Wikipedia article "Ginger" omits the medicinal properties of ginger. People don't know it's useful against nausea and arthritis. I corrected the Wikipedia article once already, but my correction was reverted, presumably by pharmacy companies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banderswipe (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ministries are not reliable sources for science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, see Big pharma conspiracy theories. And Wikipedia articles are not sources for Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And corporate shills are not good sources of information either Banderswipe (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Trading insults is not productive. Is there a source for the claim that meets the standards of WP:MEDRS is the only relevant question. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Erratum Noted, Needing Revision

There is an incorrect statement which requires revision in the Wikipedia article on the herb Ginger (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ginger).

In the article, the assertion is made "Although used in traditional medicine and as a dietary supplement, there is no good evidence that consuming ginger or its extracts has any effect on human health or as a treatment for diseases.". It is my opinion that this statement is overly broad, and at its core, incorrect.

I substantiate my assertion based on the following three articles:

Herbs at a Glance: Ginger National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health - Health Information - Ginger - https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/ginger - Retrieved 7/8/2023

Ginger on Human Health: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of 109 Randomized Controlled Trials https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7019938/ - Retrieved 7/8/2023

Bioactive Compounds and Bioactivities of Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616534/ - Retrieved 7/8/2023

Based on this evidence, I request that an editor appropriately revise the allegedly incorrect statement made previously F.M. 'Doc' Waterman (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

A note on how ginger is consumed

It seems to me that some editors are concerned about the safety of ginger. I just want to provide some information that I know.

I think how ginger is consumed varies greatly among different cuisines. For example in Europe, there is gingerbread. In Indonesia there’s ginger candy (Ting Ting Jahe). In China, people consume it almost every day. However, they only have a SMALL amount of it each time (no more than a spoonful I think), mostly when shredded (e.g. with steamed fish) or minced (e.g. as dipping sauce of white cut chicken). In stir-fry (chao) dishes, ginger is sliced and put into a wok with heated oil before other ingredients are added, but the slices are usually NOT consumed, they are added just for the flavour. Sometimes ginger is used to make soup as well, but again, it’s added for the flavour (or fragrance) only and is not consumed. And I think very few Chinese will consider ginger as a “medicine”. It’s treated as a food, and maybe sometimes as a functional food (e.g. when someone says “I’m bloated.”, a friend may say “have some ginger egg soup and see if it helps.”), but no one will take ginger as a “dietary supplement”. So no Chinese will consider ginger “unsafe” IMHO. They just won’t think about it’s “safety”. They have it in every meal from childhood. Thus for them (and probably most Asian as well?) perhaps it’s very strange when someone described ginger as “safety has not been demonstrated”… --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your interest in sharing "some information that [you] know," but please keep in mind that we cannot use that information in any direct way. Doing so would represent original research, which we as Wikipedia editors are prohibited from engaging in here. It would be better if you can share a published, reliable source that makes the same or similar observations. General Ization ^Talk 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you would be interested in this:

Talk:Ginger#Erratum Noted, Needing Revision

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Cultigen or not?

I find it unlikely that the plant does not exist in the wild. If it does, then not a cultigen. Have those that claim it's a cultigen exhaustively surveyed the millions of acres of maritime jungle along the coasts of Maritime SE Asia? I doubt it. I have no doubt that even a cursory check of these forests would reveal plenty of zinziber types. 2001:8003:1D9E:9400:AC0B:3D17:197F:513D (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what cultigen means. And the article goes by what the sources say. If there are sources that dispute it, please cite them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)