Talk:Longan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I removed the following addition

In terms of science (i.e. nutrients or food composition), the Yang stuff may be a mere superstition.

The classification of Yin and Yang type of food is unrelated to science. It is purely an age-old Chinese classification method based on observations of how the majority of people react to the food. It is like classification of dry, moist and wet etc. Do you need a scientific definition for such common classifications? The Yin and Yang concept is not common to Westerner's knowledge, but still you don't need a scientific explanation for it nor is it a superstition. Labeling it as superstition is not NPOV. See my contribution in Chinese food therapy for more detailed explanation of the classifications. Kowloonese 06:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

this is a encyclopedia, not bedrock for Chinese superstitions. If you want to include the ying/yang stuff, include what it really means with respect to science so the world of people can understand what you are talking about. For food that is regional, one might mention superstitions strongly associated to it, but must say so as is. e.g. Chinese people believe this food is a Yang food according to Chinese "medicence". Xah Lee 08:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I don't understand why everything must be associated with science. Why don't you add a sentence to the Shakespere article that says "It is not clear exactly what his writings means with respect to science."? Since nobody owns any article in wikipedia, you can add whatever you want. I think the addition you make to this article is ridiculous and irrelevant. Kowloonese 20:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which revision of the article this discussion applied to, but in the current revision, the paragraph where the disputed sentences appear is given sufficient context that it's about Chinese medicine, so I think the concern is mostly addressed. As for "labeling it as superstition", it's certainly not appropriate to drag a debate about the scientific accuracy of Chinese medicine over to an article about fruit. 131.107.0.81 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euphoria longan

Would appreciate some mention of Euphoria longan and its status in taxonomy. A-giau 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not exceptionally nourishing

I took out the sentence about "nourishing" -- compared with litchis, oranges, and grapefruits, longans are not exceptionally nourishing. See http://www.timothyhowe.com/cgi-bin/compfoods.pl and compare litchi (that's how the FDA spells it) with anything else.

TH 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)