Jump to content

Talk:Ginkgo biloba/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ginkgopsida

All my references are at work, but I've never seen the spelling "Ginkgoopsida". A total pedant could claim that because the root word is not Greek or Latin, the vowel shouldn't elide, but common practice among botanists has been to elide, especially when the alternative results in a double vowel. Yes, it is Ginkgoaceae, not Ginkgaceae, but note Magnoliopsida, not Magnoliaopsida.--Curtis Clark 14:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ginkgoopsida is correct (e.g. ITIS, Gymnosperm Database, USDA Plants Database); as you correctly point out, Ginkgo is not Greek or Latin; the root is Ginkgo, unlike Magnolia, which is a Latinised derivative of the root name [Pierre] Magnol, Magnoli-. So it is correct for Magnolia to drop its final -a (so thus, Magnoliaceae not Magnoliaaceae), but not for Ginkgo to drop its final -o. - MPF 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Someone who is more of a pedant that I am! If the ICBN regulated names above the family level, Reccomendation 60G Note 1 ("In forming some other apparently irregular compounds, classical usage is commonly followed.") would suggest Ginkgopsida. I'll make the trek to my Biology office tomorrow and see if I can document some uses, so I can at least list both spellings.--Curtis Clark 20:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Internal organization considered not harmful

There is really no need to remove the subheads in the plant description, as MPF did. The arrangement is standard among botanists, and it makes the information more easily accessible in the table of contents. It seems especially strange to leave reproduction with a subhead, while removing the rest.--Curtis Clark 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

And I apologise for reverting the rest of your changes--because of the removed subject headers, the diff wasn't especially useful. I think I'll revert back to your version and re-insert the subheads.--Curtis Clark 15:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fruit?

There seems to be an inconsitency in the article. The introduction says that the tree does not produce fruit, yet two pictures in the article refer to "fruit". Are they really seeds that just look like fruit? Deli nk 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The fleshy outer layer of the seed (the sarcotesta) makes them seem fruit-like.--Curtis Clark 15:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


deletion

I removed "An overdose of the pulp could cause poisoning because the pulp produces hydrogen cyanide as a side product" from Cultivation and Uses; in its context, it appears to refer to the sarcotesta, which is unpalatable and not ordinarily eaten. I'm not sure whether that or the gametophyte was the intended meaning of "pulp".--Curtis Clark 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Resistance to mutation

I've been reading a lot about Ginkgo trees having a high tolerance to radiation poisoning, in addition to its' other high tolerances. Is this true, and if it is true- how can that be true?

Wouldn't any living thing have the same problem with nuclear radiation? But I've read something about old ginkgo trees living near the Hiroshima ground zero, healthy and unmutated.

redundancy department of redundancy

Under the "side effects" section, it used to read:

"If any side effects are experienced consumption should be halted immediately. Ginkgo supplements are usually taken in the range of 40–200 mg per day. If the side effects continue usage should be stopped completely."

The first and third sentences are pretty redundant, so I'm deleting one.

Since when exactly is ginkgophyta an existing division? As far as I know (and I´m damn shure about it) Ginkgo is part of the division Spermatophyta, subdivision Coniferophytina, class Ginkgoopsida. The article states different, and I´d like to know why it does (perhaps I can learn a fair bit).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.149.95 (talk • contribs)

Different classifications. Many textbooks of the 1970s–1990s treated the major groups of seed plants as separate divisions.--Curtis Clark 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

bad user editing

someone put loserpants at the end of the leaves section i cant find it please fix it thnx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.36.88 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Overzealous nonsense

...in the Medical section is really over the top. There NEEDS to be a refrence to all these medical claims. It reads like some 19th. century snakeoil panacea.--Deglr6328 05:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Exp Neurol. 2003 Nov;184(1):510-20. Prevention of age-related spatial memory deficits in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease by chronic Ginkgo biloba treatment., Stackman et al. The study showed differences in spatial memory retention in Tg2576 mice given ginkgo extracts in water for six months versus those given plain water.

The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2001), 4: 131-134 Cambridge University Press. Neuropsychological changes after 30-day Ginkgo biloba administration in healthy participants, Con Stough, Jodi Clarke, Jenny Lloyd, and Pradeep J. Nathan, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Placebo controlled double-blind study showed "significant improvements" in subjects given Ginkgo biloba extract. Carlaclaws 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Medical section" still is very poorly referenced. I've just removed a statement purporting that Ginkgo is a sexual stimulant, and which didn't cite any sources or give any details about which part of the plants (leaves, seeds??) may bring about this effect. I'm fairly sure that some of the biological effects of the Ginkgo terpenes have been studied. I'll try to find out more, and include any info and references I can find. Malljaja 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant editors

Okay, I give up. Since only a handful of Wikipedia editors seem to know what "habit" means in this context, and all the rest routinely change it to "habitat", which makes no sense in the context, I've changed it to "morphology". I wonder what people will change that to?--Curtis Clark 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Various Observations

Given that Gingko (EunHang) is a very popular commercial product in Japan, China and Korea, it seems reasonable to as that citation be provided as to its being thought extinct and subsequently discovered in a couple of limited valleys. Gingko is very widespread in Korea and to a lesser degree in Japan - when was it rediscovered? Introduced to other countries? Cultivated? I have not deleted the pertinent sentences, but they are particularly suspect.

Additionally, in Romanization schemes, Korean and Japanese put 'ng' before 'k' so Gingko is the preferred romanization in these countries - see a Japanese Yen banknote; as 'Gingko' also means 'bank' it is printed on the currency in romanized form. This leads me to question the 'misspelling' etymology of the word as well, given that EunHang is Korean for both the plant/tree and 'bank' and the Japanese spell bank 'Gingko' then it is unlikely to be a western misspelling.

Eh? I've never seen ngk in romanized Japanese; it's nk. —Tamfang 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, Gingko is a common food in Asia, eaten in the autumn, it's nut soft and fruitlike. It is eaten cooked to remove the bitter toxins (much like cashew and other nuts) but hardly poisonous if eaten raw (it's bitterness limits such consumption, so poisonings are rarely, if ever reported..

All I really wanted to know is when it first appears in the fossil record...

Food vs. medicine

Ginkgo is a tree, a food, and an herbal medicine. But exactly how are these related? The herbal form is a "leaf extract" -- extracted how? When did this start? Is this a traditional Eastern practice -- for how long? How did they do the extraction? Does eating the seed as a food have some of the same potential benefits, or are the chemicals in the leaves absent from the seed? Is the food only a potential danger to children, as implied by the article now, or is it just a matter that adults would have to eat proportionally more to have a bad effect? -69.87.199.55 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"The tinctures and capsules of ginkgo biloba that you buy in stores contain extracts of leaves of the tree that is widely planted in cities and parks in North America. But I'm sorry to tell you that leaves you collect from these trees won't do you any good. In fact, they're more likely to irritate your stomach than to provide any of the positive effects you might expect. The extraction process used to make the popular herbal remedy removes the irritants and concentrates the beneficial components. However, if you have a female ginkgo tree, you can eat the nuts it produces. Ginkgo nuts are often used in Asian cooking. They have no medicinal properties, but are tasty when cooked. To get to the nut, you have to go through a pulpy layer of a persimmon-like fruit that is rather smelly (which is why female ginkgo trees and their nuts are not popular here). The nuts themselves resemble chickpeas and taste like chestnuts. To prepare them for eating, you first must peel or blanch them and then boil or roast them. In Asian cuisines they are added to soups, stir fry's, and desserts. If your tree is not female (not producing fruit), you can buy dried or canned ginkgo nuts in most Asian groceries. One ounce provides 97 calories, one gram of fat, no cholesterol, four milligrams of sodium and no fiber." [1]

These factoids would seem to belong in the article in some form:

  • biloba translates as "two-lobed", referring to the split-in-the-middle character of its fan-shaped leaf blades.
  • The Chinese have used Ginkgo for thousands of years for various ailments.
  • Ginkgo Biloba was first introduced to Europe in the 1700's
  • The Chinese have used Ginkgo Biloba to relief asthma, lung congestion, and have also used Ginkgo Biloba to increase sexual energy, regulate blood flow, and promote general longevity.
  • Ginkgo biloba leaf extract is the most widely sold phytomedicine in Europe
  • The standardized preparation of Ginkgo biloba extract is EGb 761.
  • The standardized ginkgo biloba extract (GBE) requires a 50:1 ratio of leaves to extract, and extraction of GBE from the leaves is a very long process.
  • Standardized preparations contain 24 percent ginkgo flavonoid glycosides, 6 percent terpene lactones, and no more than 5 parts per million ginkgolic acids.
  • Ginkgo Flavonglycosides: Quercetin, Kaempferol, Isorhamnetin
  • Ginkgo Terpene Lactones: Bilobalide, Ginkgolide A, B, & C
  • Some supplements include whole ground Ginkgo biloba leaf
  • A review of five heterogenous randomized controlled trials concluded that extracts of ginkgo biloba are moderately effective in treating tinnitus.
  • During the past 20 years, an estimated 2 billion daily doses (120 mg) of ginkgo have been sold.
  • The unprocessed ginkgo leaf contains ginkgolic acids that are toxic.
  • An initial period of six to 12 weeks is recommended to assess the effectiveness of ginkgo, although results have been seen as early as four weeks.
  • The monthly cost for the usual daily dose of 120 mg is approximately $15 to $20.

-69.87.199.55 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything eat it?

I was told that no wild animal eats the leaves of the ginkgo plant. If this is true I think that is very interesting. If not, listing the animals that do eat it would be good. Thanks a lot.

what did it taste like?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.55.127 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article?

OK, is it time to split into 2 articles - one focussing on genus + extinct species + fossil record + evolution, the other on the species. If so what do we call them?

What do we reckon folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Option 1

Option 2

  1. .If there are multiple species (even extinct ones) then it should be Ginkgo and Ginkgo biloba. Hesperian 10:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, as the article stands, it's unclear whether certain information applies to the genus (including species past and present) or just G. biloba --Melburnian (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. Similar to Aldrovanda and Aldrovanda vesiculosa. --Rkitko (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Ginkgo could have a hatnote pointing to the species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Agree. As per the prevailing sentiment, and ignoring for a minute that it's going to be a little tough fleshing out the genus section. As far as I can see, a useful starting point is the clumsily named prehistory section, but circumscribing a genus solely on fossil records is tenuous, so it'll need some dedicated work. Malljaja (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Agree as per everyone else ;) DJLayton4 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(calling it evolution would be what we've done in some other genus articles with the same issues I think).... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Logistics question

  • OK, I'll leave this open for another day or two, but thought of one more thing - presuming this article to date had been 99% based on the species, would it be prudent to move page history and talk page history from Ginkgo to Ginkgo biloba and then sprout a new genus article from the newly-created redirect page? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Agree totally, for the reason given.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes DJLayton4 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yes. The article was started (and has largely continued) on the topic of "ginkgo" in the sense of the common name (=G. biloba) rather than the genus Ginkgo. Melburnian (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK moved

OK, now moved. I have to disappear for a few hours. Anyone want to start on the (not insignificant) job of the redirects? Most, but not all, will go to G. biloba....I can do later if everyone else is busy Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba (5 votes) is April Plant Collaboration

Nominated March 14th, 2008; Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Rkitko (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (I can do some work on cultivar lists and/or articles)
  4. EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • a living fossil, lots of paleontology and chinese medicine and horticulture all to boot. As it is a species, a lot more circumscribed and may be a lot more doable first off
  • Since there are fossil species in this genus, the article will need to cover them as well, since it is the genus article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I guess the first port-of-call will be to decide what information goes where and split off G. biloba...with living and fossil lsited and briefly described at a genus page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate text

The entire Prehistory section is duplicated word for word in the article on the plant's genus, Ginkgo. Do we really need to have two identical copies saying the exact same thing in different places? 75.210.111.166 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. This is the result of a quick split of the two articles not long ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Add this photo to the culinary section. Badagnani (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a better photo, showing four different foods made from Ginkgo (including ginkgo "nuts" and can). Unfortunately, it's a photographic slide (from the days when my camera wasn't digital), and I currently don't have access to a slide scanner. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's no hurry, but scanning of slides is something that most universities or photo shops should be able to do fairly easily (though probably not for free, unless you know someone). Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

nutty morphology

I edited out use of the words "fruit" and "nut" since this only confuses the issue. Since Ginkgo is a gymnosperm it has no fruit. Nuts are a particular kind of fruit and thus inappropriate. The fleshy "thing" in this case is a modified cone with one ovule, and the hard "thing" in the center is the seed.

The fleshy "thing" is part of the seed coat, the sarcotesta. The hard part inside is the next layer of the seed coat, the sclerotesta.--Curtis Clark 14:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
But Ginkgo isn't a conifer, so it can't be called a "cone", either . . . - MPF 01:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not a botanist, but wouldn't that make them a berry... --UltraMagnus (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Berries are fruits. It's neither a fruit nor a cone; it's a seed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Female ginkgo fruit smells like feces

I would like to add to the text that the female ginkgo fruit smells like feces, which it most definitely does, but my edit was taken out. How can anyone say that this odor is the smell of "rancid butter" but not feces? Ridiculous! Everyone knows it smells like feces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.148.218 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My previous addition here seems to have been eaten by a server glitch, but I opined that having feces that smell like Ginkgo seeds would be a reason for medical alarm, and that although I don't have a big sample size of human feces (and most of that was quite unwelcome), I have yet to encounter feces of humans, dogs, cats, rats, mice, gerbils, cotton rats, rabbits, deer, wapiti, cows, horses, sheep, iguanas, cockatiels, seagulls, or parakeets that smells more like Ginkgo seeds than rancid butter does (which I have also unfortunately smelled). I added that I have smelled many hundreds of Ginkgo seeds (albeit from only three trees), since I used to use them for lab. It all smells to me like original research, --Curtis Clark 03:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
To me, rotting ginkgo seeds do smell just like dog poop, albeit poop of dogs who I suspect are fed canned (not dry) dog food. It is without question city dog poop, not suburban or rural dog poop. Dunno if that helps... --Una Smith (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

In the opening sentence of the article it states "The Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba; in Chinese '銀杏', pinyin romanization, yín xìng), frequently misspelled as "Gingko"," Could someone clarify the fact "Ginkgo" is apparently a wrong spelling of "ginkgo" - total contradiction Stuart McN (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct Latin spelling is Ginkgo, whereas Gingko (where g and k have swapped) is a frequent misspelling--so the first sentence is correct, although it's easy to miss the small switch in these two letters. Malljaja (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My bad, sorry - didn't notice the two letters had been swapped Stuart McN (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about the spelling is bewildering. Sorry for bringing it up again. How did the spelling "ginkgo" ever originate? It is strange, IMHO. Could it be a typo from the beginning? There is no language that I'm aware of in Japan, Korea or China, that has the phonological sequence /gink/ in any word or syllable. Ging-ko is a compound word made of two monosyllabic words. See the Chinese spelling provided above. The first part would be GIN or GING in various Chinese dialects, ending in a dental or velar nasal and meaning 'silver'. Further, the sequence /kg/ would be extremely unusual in any language. So really no place for "gink". As for the other part, both /ko/ and /go/ are permitted phonological sequences. Someone knowledgeable in historical Sinotibetan linguistics can likely solve this. In conclusion, either of "gingko, ginko, gingo, ginggo" are phonological possibilities, one or two of which are probably correct in this context, while the recommended form with the swapped -kg- seems quite surprising. Okjhum (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up, I found out something new. I hope I can clarify, and prompt you to expand the article. The species was first described by Carl Linnaeus as Ginkgo biloba in 1771, and so it is the 'correct' name for the species according to rules of binomial nomenclature. I found this ref that states the Linnaeus adopted this spelling from Engelbert Kaempfer, who made a linguistic error in 1712!, and this is how we became stuck with it. The other spellings are often seen on products (extracts) from the species, they would appear to also be correct. All these facts could be included in the article, expanding and clarifying the mention of the spelling. cygnis insignis 08:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I should have looked further, I see it is already there, but this ref is probably useful too. cygnis insignis 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldest tree

In the description it reads "One of the oldest Ginkgo trees is in Shanghai, within the Yuyuan Garden; it is four centuries old." But four centuries is only 400 years, while the text (in the description section and elsewhere) clearly says there are trees > 1000 years old or older. So I think the reference to the 400-year old tree should be removed. Your thoughts? Jalwikip (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cultural matters

Qoute, "Because of its status in Buddhism and Confucianism, the Ginkgo is also widely planted in Korea and parts of Japan". But this article does not have any information about that status, or other cultural significance. Needs adding. Tobermory (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Glossopteris as a remote ancestor ?

Rosetta (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that it's an ancestor, although it's one of a range of related taxa as a result of bearing seeds. The Glossopteridales (an order, not just the one genus) have been hypothesized as related to several other seed plant groups, including the angiosperms. There isn't any really robust analysis of fossil seed plant relationships on which to base anything at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting original research. But speculative. Maybe better placed in amentoflavone article, with source?

The following original research speculation now appears in the article:

The presence of amentoflavone in Gingko biloba leaves would indicate a potential for interactions with many medications through the strong inhibition of CYP3A4 and CYP2C9; however, there is a lack of any empirical evidence supporting this. It is possible that the concentration of amentoflavone found even in commercial Gingko biloba extracts is too low to be pharmacologically active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Medical interactions?

Hello. I've been reading up on Ginkgo, and I plan to begin taking it as a supplement. Does it interact with medications such as SSRI's or other antidepressants, for instance, wellbutrin or the atypical antipsychotic seroquel?--Neur0tikX .talk 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I haven't found any information on Seroquel (quetiapine) interactions with gingko.

There are a few known interactions with antidepressants. The page currently states that "should also not be used by people who are taking certain types of antidepressants (MAOIs and SSRIs[26][27])", which are based upon animal testing.

In contrast, there have been numerous studies examining the use of ginkgo biloba to offset the side-effects of SSRIs, in particular as related to sexual dysfunction. The studies vary in results, but more importantly I have been unable to find any references to adverse side-effects combining SSRIs and ginkgo in any of these studies. As a result, I think stating that SSRIs should not be used with ginkgo is exaggerated and incorrect.

There is also a single documented case of an 80 year old patient on both Ginkgo and trazedone (a benzodiazepine) going into a benzodiazepine overdose coma. The involvement of Ginkgo is theorized, as the patient was never on ginkgo with any other benzodiazepine or on trazedone without ginkgo. She has been nonresponsive to another breed of benzodiazepine, while ginkgo and trazedone caused a marked improvement prior to her overdose. The number of search results linking Ginkgo to comas is abnormally high for a single case in which Ginkgo was suspected of involvement without any actual evidence. See the full article on this incident. This may merit mention that Ginkgo should not be combined with benzodiazepines. -- Anonymous - 12:25, 1 May 2008

Trazedone isn't a benzodiazepine. -- Anonymous - 12 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.219.185 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Really good book

Ginkgo Biloba (Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Industrial Profiles) ISBN:9057024888--79.238.242.179 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirm placename =- MacAbee BC

The fossilized ginkgo leaf shown in 'the MacAbee' BC confuses me. I am from that province and am not aware of any such place name. Nor was I able to find one through google maps. Is it perhaps misspelled? Perhaps I've missed something? If someone could confirm that or correct it as the case may be, that would be grand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.180.6 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's this - the McAbee fossil beds in Cache Creek, British Columbia. Other sources could be found to confirm the correct spelling. --Rkitko (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes the leaf is from the Cashe Creek fossil sites, informally called the "Tranquile beds" and "MacAbee"--Kevmin (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The official spelling is "McAbee." go see:
Read, P. B., and R. Hebda (2007) Geological Setting and Paleontology of the Fossiliferous Eocene Beds near McAbee, Southwestern, British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Province of British Columbia.
and Fossil Management in British Columbia - McAbee Fossil Beds, Land Tenures Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Paul H. (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting again: Fork medical use

There's so much about medical usage already, and possibly more to come. Won't you also feel it's time to outsource that topic ? From the view of an average botanically / culturally interested visitor, all the phytochemical stuff just clutters the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.37.51 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

conservation status

I'm a little confused. How can something widely cultivated for profit be deemed "endangered"? - knoodelhed 17:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The conservation status only refers to wild populations, not cultivated - MPF 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Could this be noted as Endangered in China? Is it even endangered everywhere it naturally occurs?
It is endangered everywhere it naturally occurs (which is almost nowhere). --Una Smith (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It would greatly improve this article were the reasoning for its "endangered" status explained there & not on the talk page. I came here for the same reason that knoodelhed had, since it doesn't make sense to me that the tree is commonly sold -- I planted one in my yard 14 years ago -- yet considered "endangered". -- llywrch (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I am here for the same reasons. The word "conservation" occurs only once in the article, and that is in the title to the illustration. Why is it endangered in the wild - humans chopping it down? If you know, please, as Llywrch notes, do NOT answer here (only?), but introduce the information into the article perhaps under the Distribution and habitat section? This section could imo be expanded to include information regarding its climatic tolerance (not just soil eg acidity requirements) --LookingGlass (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Causes cancer in rats

Here is a primary source. "We conclude that Ginkgo biloba extract caused cancers of the thyroid gland in male and female rats and male mice and cancers of the liver in male and female mice." NTP TR 578, March 2013, page 6, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/TR578_508.pdf (pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.155.103 (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I verified this and it is correct. (in case anyone was in doubt because the comment is anonymouse!) It seems to me that this information should be inserted into the article. Which I've done. LookingGlass (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
While verifiable, this appears to be a primary source; for WP:WEIGHT purposes, and per WP:MEDRS, we should wait until this material is covered ina secondary source before including. Yobol (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yobol PLEASE check the source and provenance PRIOR to deletion of other people's work. I accept your views but please discuss them with the editor concerned prior to taking it upon yourself to simply delete! If you had checked the "primary source" you would see that it is the research of a UK governmental advisory body ie the form of my edit is STATEMENT+REFERENCE. This is the classic manner of making a statement in an article and I cannot see that ANY stament in ANY article on Wiki that does not follow this structure. The concept that peer-reviewed, expert research needs somehow to be commented upon by a third-party (even if it is merely a low quality blog or pop-science publication) before it can be admitted to wiki seems absurdly upside down. I cannot believe nor can I see that any of the wiki guidance intends such a thing. Even the advisory notes you quote do not suggest it. The idea that a scientific paper, that forms the basis on which UK government, both centrally and within QUANGOS, generates policy and adises the public, needs some form of lower quality commentatory to validate it seems simply nonsensical. The fact that the paper as available is a draft, which may be your concern though you have not stated it as such, seems inconsequential. However, sadly there are a small thankfully number of editors on wiki who share your view, so I fully expect you to revert my undo and declare an editing war, for no positive rational whatsoever. I will therefore bow out and leave you to your empoverished stake. LookingGlass (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You appear to not have read WP:MEDRS: "When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight.". Yobol (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

non-biloba species should be moved to the page for Gingko genus

At the end of the paleontology section (which should probably be renamed paleobotany; what do i know?) there are a few images of reconstructions of four gingko species including G. biloba itself, namely G. apodes, G yimaensis, and G. adiantoides. They all have the same citation:

^ Jump up to: a b c d Approximate reconstructions by B. M. Begović Bego and Z. Zhou, 2010/2011. Source: B.M. Begović Bego, (2011). Nature's Miracle Ginkgo biloba, Book 1, Vols. 1–2, pp. 60–61.

I propose moving this to the Gingko genus article page. 198.151.130.136 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative but not misspelled

Current dictionaries like Merriam-Webster still define Gingko as an alternative spelling not an incorrect spelling. No reason that edit should have been reverted. I understand that Ginkgos is the same as Ginkgoes and I am fine with that reversion. Do not revert without giving a reason though. --User:Asphaltbuffet 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Every other text I've seen treats it as a misspelling. Merriam-Webster is very much an exception here, and I don't see what justification they can possibly have for legitimising it. - MPF 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You can also verify it at the Encyclopædia Britannica and the American Heritage® Dictionary. - Asphalt Buffet 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Find me one even half-way authoritative botanical publication that accepts it as an alternative spelling, and I might reconsider - though I doubt it, as I just checked over a dozen and couldn't find any that cited it so (yes, I can list them if you really want). Sorry, but dictionaries often have a very poor understanding of science topics; I don't consider them authoritative on matters like this. - MPF 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gingko is an old variant spelling; I don't agree that it is a mis-spelling. Here are some instances of "Gingko", available free online from Google Books:

  • Arboretum Et Fruticetum Britannicum (1838)
  • The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, 1875, page 815
  • A. G. Nathorst in Botaniska Notiser (1875), concerning Heer's fossils
  • Records of the Geological Survey of India, vol X (1876), page 196, also concerning Heer's fossils

--Una Smith (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But those are all 19th century uses. By modern standards, "Gingko" is a misspelling. By the ICBN rules for names of plants (which did not exist in the 19th century), it is a misspelling and is to be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Only as a genus, not as a common name, which is of course unregulated.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For the ICBN part of my comment, yes. But it is still a misspelling for the 20th century, just as "parret" would be considered a misspelling for "parrot", despite Shakespeare's use of that form four centuries ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Another way to handle it would be similar to the way used at Pika. There is a fine line between undue weight and making the encyclopedia prescriptive, and it's sometimes worth some care in wording.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I notice a controversy between the phrase "his y was misread as a g, and the misspelling stuck" and the source you are refering to with footnote (15). Check that text, especially paragraphe " In a manuscript volume nowadays called Collectanea Japonica (British Library, Sloane Collection, 3062) we find several pages with the numbers referring to the Chinese characters in the Kinmôzui. Here the readings of the Chinese characters are given in Latin letters. The pronounciation of the 34th character is explained as "Ginnan" and wrongly as "Ginkgo" instead of the more appropiate spelling as "Ginkjo" or "Ginkio" (fig.2). This note shows that the incorrect spelling in Kaempfer's Flora Japanica (5th book of the Amoenitates Exoticae) is not a result of a simple misprint or misunderstanding by the typesetter in Lemgo. It was Kaempfer himself who made a small mistake with long-lasting consequences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.62.129 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is notoriously permissive in its descriptivist editorial policy. Calling gingko a “variant but correct” spelling is like calling possessive it’s an acceptable variant. Any day now I expect to see a new edition of Merriam-Webster endorse the latter on descriptivist grounds. Yes, language changes and evolves, but that doesn’t mean every common error has to be accepted just because lots of people make it. —Dodiad (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Text contradicts itself

There is no good evidence supporting the use of Ginkgo for treating high blood pressure,[45] tinnitus,[46] post-stroke recovery,[47] peripheral arterial disease,[48] macular degeneration,[49] or altitude sickness.[50]

Ginkgo may have undesirable effects, especially for individuals with blood circulation disorders and those taking anticoagulants such as aspirin or warfarin

Additional side effects include increased risk of bleeding, gastrointestinal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, dizziness, heart palpitations, and restlessness.

Ginkgo should be used with caution when combined with other herbs known to increase bleeding (e.g. garlic, ginseng, ginger).

According to a systemic review, the effects of ginkgo on pregnant women may include increased bleeding time, and should be avoided during lactation due to inadequate safety evidence.

I also add this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16801106

GBE clearly inhibits platelet aggregation. So claims that it has zero medical use are plain bullshit. Pulsatile tinnitus is caused by altered blood flood for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.175.253 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality, WP:MEDRS

Recent edits have been additing and editing content in a way not compliant with WP:MEDRS and have been re-instated without discussion.[ Biomedical content should comply with our guidance and sources summarized accurately to maintain neutrality. The page markup has also been broken. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You link to a review on Ginkgo Biloba for stroke and summarise it in three words 'has no effect'. But that is not what the authors said. They said there 'appears promising but not sufficient to warrant clinical routine use'. They highlighted study shortcomings in most previous studies and said 'the potential benefit needs to be investigated in large, rigorous trials'. Your summary is inaccurate. Raiden10 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
From the "Author's Conclusions" of the three Cochrane reviews:
Tinnitus: "The limited evidence did not demonstrate that Ginkgo biloba was effective for tinnitus which is a primary complaint."
Post ischemic stroke: "There was no convincing evidence from trials of sufficient methodological quality to support the routine use of Ginkgo biloba extract to promote recovery after stroke."
PAD: "Overall, there is no evidence that Ginkgo biloba has a clinically significant benefit for patients with peripheral arterial disease."
"Not effective" seems to a very reasonable summary of these three effects. We, of course, do not cherry pick "positive" sentences out of the articles we use to go against the conclusions of the articles. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't. If the authors believed Ginkgo Biloba was not effective, they could have said so. Saying "there is not sufficient evidence to conclude an effect" is not the same as saying "there is no effect". Raiden10 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Reading over the conclusions again, I think "not effective" is a reasonable paraphrase of those conclusions. I'm not sure what you're arguing about here, we don't use the phrase "there is no effect" to describe the conditions in question. Yobol (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Raiden10: It is when we are translating medical literature into general text for a lay audience using neutral language. The context in SBM is a default assumption of "no effect" unless proven otherwise; in lieu of any evidence that Gingko is effective, we are obliged to make the upshot of a "no evidence" conclusion plain. (FWIW, I'd not argue with the formulation: "There is no good evidence that Gingko is effective for treating x, y or z".) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"There is no good evidence that Gingko is effective for treating x, y or z" would be a more accurate summary.
Also, some more points: (1) I linked to a study showing Ginkgo Biloba had a negative effect on Lipofuscin. This has now gone, why I don't know. (2) The study [40] concluding some effect in treating Alzheimers has had an addendum added that renders it nonsensical. Reference [39] links to the GEM study that concluded that 240mg EGB761 did not reduce risk of Dementia onset in ~79 year olds. [39] is about prevention in elderly people, whereas study [40] talked about treatment in elderly people with Dementia. [40] is not in a position to be refuted by [39] as they are studying different populations - those with and without dementia, respectively. Raiden10 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, there was a section referring to the study saying Ginkgo Biloba caused cancer in rats and mice. It would be worth having back in the article, although it should be pointed out that the (1) doses were extremely high and (2) the extract used was extremely unusual and did not meet various requirements/conventions (ginkgolic acids, biflavones, ~250% the usual dose of Terpene Lactones) such as those satisfied by the standardised EGB 761 extract that is manufactured in Germany, extracts which have been found be safe and to produce no ill effect at high doses, and indeed has been included in hundreds of studies. There is a 2013 article (that I had previously linked to) that says all of this in detail.Raiden10 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't use primary sources, especially ones in the biomedical space, as set out in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there actually are reports that Ginkgo biloba has positive cognitive effects: [1] , let's remind ourselves that the world is full of hobbyist "skeptics" who self-appoint themselves as majors in various disinformation campaigns on behalf of what they perceive as "real science". This article is far worse than "cherry picked", and obviously the neutrality of the article needs to be disputed. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ginkgo biloba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba#Medicinal uses

Ok I don't know what the issue is, but these are either links to actual papers or press releases written by the paper authors which were published simultaneously with the papers because the actual papers are either paywalled or not accessible:

Wang, Chen, and Wang (July 23, 2013). "A ginkgo biloba extract promotes proliferation of endogenous neural stem cells". eurekalert.org. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-07/nrr-agb072313.php

Doré, Saleem, Zhuang, and Biswal (October 9, 2008). "Mouse studies suggest daily dose of ginkgo may prevent brain cell damage after a stroke". .eurekalert.org. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/jhmi-mss100708.php

Ercoli, Small et al. (November 11, 2003). "UCLA Researchers Find Gingko Biloba May Help Improve Memory". sciencedaily.com. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031111070042.htm

Papadopoulos, Pretner, Amri, Li, Brown, Lin, Makariou et al. (February 23, 2006). "Ginkgo Biloba Extract: More than Just for Memory? Animal Studies at Georgetown Find Ginkgo Biloba May Have Preventive Effects For Cancerous Human Brain and Breast Tumors". georgetown.edu. http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=13079

Lovera et al. (April 28, 2005). "OHSU Study Finds Ginkgo Beneficial For MS Symptoms". sciencedaily.com. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050428093022.htm

I am aware of the meta study and its claim that no benefits were found however the article itself is paywalled and there is no way to check what actual papers where or were not examined nor what their methodology was.

I do agree to possibly renaming the section to something like: Possible medical uses and health effects F. Pacifica 23:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpacifica (talk • contribs)

F. Pacifica 23:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There are other serious problems:

1. The section has now been named "Research" instead of "Health effects". Excuse me, but there are health effects that have been shown in published papers which I cited.

2. There is a 2008 study which *did* find benefit for stroke patients yet someone removed the info and reverted back to the text "There is no good evidence supporting the use of Ginkgo for treating... post-stroke recovery..."

Excuse me but there *is* evidence supporting Ginkgo's benefit for stroke recovery. Did the person who duly removed my edits bother to read the citation - Doré, Saleem, Zhuang, and Biswal (October 9, 2008). "Mouse studies suggest daily dose of ginkgo may prevent brain cell damage after a stroke"; eurekalert.org; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/jhmi-mss100708.php - before summarily deleting it? F. Pacifica 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpacifica (talk • contribs)



This section needs serious revision to bring it up to snuff per MEDRS. It mentions research that is dubious, and a new study needs to be included which debunks its use. It is reported on here:

Tests that measured attention, memory, langauge and other thinking abilities found no difference in the rate of decline in these abilities between the two groups over the next six years on average, the researchers report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study is the largest of its kind, and is consistent with the results of earlier, smaller studies.

Of course the JAMA article should be used, but this secondary source justifies using the primary one:

Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


I'd also like to point out that ginkgo has been researched as an aid to prevent altitude sickness (AMS/HACE, not HAPE) for quite a while, and the results are mixed. A typical positive result: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278351. Here's a discussion of a study by the famous altitude doctor Peter Hackett: http://www.everestnews.com/stories024/peterh.htm
One of the reasons for mixed results may be that the various preparations of ginkgo vary too much. That's the conclusion of this 2009 review of two nearly identical studies (one study found ginkgo to help with AMS, the other did not; the studies were nearly identical except for the brand of ginkgo extract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364166 This may explain some of the other mixed results of ginkgo for treating dementia and other problems. 71.140.203.118 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


The 2005 study by Zeng X1, Liu M, Yang Y, Li Y, Asplund K. claimed "...no convincing evidence from trials of sufficient methodological quality to support the routine use of Ginkgo biloba extract to promote recovery after stroke." however there is a 2008 study by Doré, Saleem, Zhuang, and Biswal which found "Our results suggest that some element or elements in ginkgo actually protect brain cells during stroke." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpacifica (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This section is clearly and implausibly biased. That is demonstrated by consulting the external link to the University of Maryland Medical Centre [2]. UMMC is much more positive about the health benefits and is probably a better source of information than the latest author of this section. This article now needs a thorough revision for OBJECTIVITY. It shows only an overhwelmingly negative attitude towards the health benefits of this herb. Since there is just as much research to show positive benefits, the article needs to be REWRITTEN urgently. It does not indicate the current state of knowledge, but only one extreme opinion or viewpoint. That negative opinion and viewpoint needs to be stated and respected, but so does its opposite, and all the grey areas in between. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Busterbarker2008: Firstly, the link you gave doesn't remotely meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. Secondly, if you read it, all the "positive" information is qualified with words like "may", "small study" and "preliminary study", whereas the "negative" information is like "In 2008, a well-designed study with more than 3,000 elderly people found that ginkgo was no better than placebo in preventing dementia or Alzheimer disease." No, the section isn't clearly biased. It reflects correctly the weight of reliable medical sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:Much of the negative commentary in this section fails to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS which specifically cautions against providing undue weight to single studies: 'Primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed with intent to "debunk", contradict, or counter conclusions made by reliable secondary sources.' This section seems unduly weighted by cherry-picked primary sources. This section seems biased as it does not reflect the research and experience which has led enormous numbers of doctors worldwide to daily prescribe this herb, particularly, as has often been published, in Germany. This is too important and too widely-prescribed a medicine to fall prey to a single, personal viewpoint on Wikipedia, which is dedicated to providing broad, objective coverage.

All material, positive or negative, not meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS should be removed; on that we can agree. If there are studies with positive outcomes meeting these standards, then of course they should be cited. I can only say that I haven't seen any. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12020739
  2. ^ http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb/ginkgo-biloba

I keep reading that it was once considered extinct

Nowhere is it explained exactly when that was. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Uses of various preparations

There's a whole folklore (Chinese and western) associated with Ginkgo biloba preparations and extracts, not including culinary uses.

  • Clinical
  • dietary supplement for cognitive and memory enhancement
  • traditional Chinese medicine & herbal remedy
  • Research

We have sections for Clinical and Research uses of one standardized extract EGb 761. But there are plenty of other less refined extracts, including simple dried/powdered leaf preparations used as herbal remedies for diverse health conditions like asthma, etc in China and elsewhere. Then there's the faddish use of GBE not as any kind of remedy, but for cognitive and/or memory enhancement. This isn't about medicine, it's about folklore. Should we add a section for these? We mention the latter under Research, but there's no academic or medical research going on for these uses.Sbalfour (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We can say that it is used in "folk medicine" but any medical claims must be supported to the standards of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ginkgo biloba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

origin of name possibiltiy?

is it possible that "ginkgo" was meant to be written as "ginkyo", but the y was mistaken for a g (perhaps due to messy writing)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D79:2010:AC87:1867:927F:3969 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ginkgo biloba. 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 03:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Checked as dead; will remove ref. --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Extreme Bias in this article

A glance at this page from the University of Maryland Medical Center,

http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb/ginkgo-biloba

which includes numerous supporting publications, gives an entirely different picture of ginkgo biloba, one that emphasizes its value in medicine. The Wikipedia article, however, is relentlessly negative. Without taking sides, it is clear that the Wikipedia article needs to have a balanced viewpoint. That is completely lacking in the current version and that is why I will mark this article as biased until it has a NPOV.Busterbarker2008 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The University of Maryland Medical Center is not WP:MEDRS; if we stick to good sources all will be well. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Busterbarker2008: if there are good source, i.e. ones that comply with WP:MEDRS, that show the effectiveness of ginkgo extracts, then they should, of course, be included in the article. However, even the source you give above provides very little evidence to support the use of ginkgo. "In 2008, a well-designed study with more than 3,000 elderly people found that ginkgo was no better than placebo in preventing dementia or Alzheimer disease." The positive evidence that is presented is preceded by "Some studies suggest ...", "Two studies ... found ...", "One preliminary study found ...", etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The University of Maryland Medical Center page is adequate to show that the Wikipedia article is woefully one-sided. Our goal is neutrality, and the NPOV must stand until this article has attained neutrality.Busterbarker2008 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense tag removed. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag restored as it will continue to be until this article has a NPOV. "Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."Busterbarker2008 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, learn to indent your comments using colons ::::: like those, at the beginning of each post, in line with everybody else. Second, read WP:MEDRS which, from your posts here, you have not, yet. Third, read WP:NPOV because again, you can't have read, because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Then, when you understand, remove the tag from the article, or I will. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Correction re the below: Well, might have been too fast on the trigger here - I just realized the original notice was placed nearly three weeks ago. That ought to be considered sufficient time for making a case and/or receiving input. In that light, best disregard below :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Roxy the dog, please note that the above editor is well within policy by placing the tag and asking for discussion. To quote the template documentation [2]:
When to use: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. - and: This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved; it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given; in the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
At this point, the editor contests that NPOV exists, has stated their case, and is asking for discussion. While I agree re the MEDS documentation situation on this topic, you cannot deny them that right. At the very least the tag has to be allowed to remain until it is clear that no case is being made or that no input from ohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ginkgo_biloba&action=edit&section=7thers is following (which I suggest means at least a couple of days).--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact is that this article is relentlessly negative in its viewpoint. Let's look by contrast at the viewpoint of the Mayo Clinic, which according to Wikipedia, is the no. 1 hospital in the USA. This page
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ginkgo/evidence/hrb-20059541]
indicates a view of ginkgo that would be confusing to anyone who read (and trusted) Wikipedia. That alone is sufficient to show that the Wikipedia article is highly biased. Whatever the anti-gingko authors of this article may think of this herbal drug, and whatever the truth may be, the fact is that its use is recommended by major hospitals in the USA and throughout the world. It is one of the world's most widely used and prescribed herbal drugs. That Wikipedia's article does not even hint at this reality shows that it is completely out of step with the mainstream. This is a problem in neutrality that cannot be allowed to stand. I am reverting to the NPOV tag. This article needs to be fixed. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Busterbarker2008: all medical information in the English Wikipedia must be based on WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which the Mayo Clinic web page is not (also note that even it says that for the great majority of suggested uses there is "unclear scientific evidence"). If there are reliable secondary sources, such as Cochrane reviews, that show effectiveness then the information will certainly be included. It's not a "point of view" to insist on high quality evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems, Mr Coxhead, that you are only using MEDRS sources which agree with your skewed, biased viewpoint. Mainstream medical opinion differs from your viewpoint, and this needs to be reflected in this article. That the Mayo Clinic's opinion carries overwhelming weight is merely an indication that your sourcing is suspect. I competely sympathathize with your passion for debunking ginkgo. However, the main Wikipedia article is not the place to do it. You can present your viewpoint here, as long as you balance it with other viewpoints, thereby attaining the neutrality we desire.Busterbarker2008 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The section on Health reflects good balance and is neutrally stated for the current literature. Busterbarker2008 is placing undue weight on summaries by Mayo and U Maryland, both of which reflect the general scientific view that studies to date have been inconclusive or negative and that more research is needed. WP:MEDASSESS differentiates evidence quality for any medical topic. For ginkgo, this April 2017 listing of PubMed abstracts shows the article is up to date both with clinical topics covered and conclusions that no definitive effects have been confirmed. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The MayoClinic entries on dietary supplements are not written by Mayo healthcare professionals. Note at end identifies the contract company. And as pointed out by Peter Coxhead and others, even the few indications given a "B" ranking all end with recommendation that more research is needed. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ginkgo biloba. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Health benefits according to UMM

-Ginkgo is widely used in Europe for treating dementia. At first, doctors thought it helped because it improves blood flow to the brain. Now research suggests it may protect nerve cells that are damaged in Alzheimer disease. Several studies show that ginkgo has a positive effect on memory and thinking in people with Alzheimer disease or vascular dementia.

Studies suggest that ginkgo may help people with Alzheimer disease:

Improve thinking, learning, and memory (cognitive function) Have an easier time performing daily activities Improve social behavior Have fewer feelings of depression Several studies have found that ginkgo may work as well as some prescription Alzheimer disease medications to delay the symptoms of dementia. It has not been tested against all of the drugs prescribed to treat Alzheimer disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.244.88 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ginkgo_biloba/Archive_1&oldid=1142762110"