Talk:Sarsaparilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Sarsaparilla is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to all non-alcoholic beverages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

We rememeber "Sas Shops" in South Yorkshire (England) in the 1950's - where flat (non cabonated) sarsaparilla was sold.

Contents

[edit] The Smurfs

Shouldn't there be a line about the Smurfs and their fictional consumption of Sarsaparilla leaves?

  • I assume you're being facetious
  • Why not? I think it is indeed worth mentioning in a "trivia" section.

[edit] Spam

Canned some possible spam (Check the appropriate diff) about Fitzpatricks. If I'm being stupid, just revert.

-- N3X15 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree or Vine?

This article seems to be for both sarsaparilla and sasparilla. I know there is a tree called sasparilla, which this article mentions. Yet the entry for sasparilla re-directs here. I am also confused whether or not the drink "sasparilla" is called such because it uses the bark or root of the sasparilla tree, or if they indeed use the sarsaparilla vine. I thought it was the former, but perhaps it is the latter. I'm not sure. In any case, the word sasparilla should direct to the actual sasparilla tree entry, not the one for the sarsaparilla vine. The sasparilla tree could have a link back to this page, perhaps. 147.155.2.163 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So is sasparilla the same thing as root beer, or not? Tom129.93.17.139 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sass also redirects here, but doesn't appear in the text. When you redirect, please make sure the term you're redirecting from is explained somewhere.--87.162.20.209 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vio?

The majority of this article appears to be verbatim text from a book; while it is attributed I'm not seeing any assertion that the copyright holder has granted Wikipedia rights to use it, nor any fair-use rationale. Either way, I think this requires an explanation and even if there is no copyright violation, the article needs extensive cleanup and wikification. I know nothing about the subject, so I'll leave it to others.

To be on the safe side, I've removed the apparent copyvio text from the article, for the reasons stated above. Smalljim 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

sorry for the hack up.... didn't know how to make the layout because I'm new. But did find some stuff out with sources.RYNORT 08:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Sandbox is for... Pierce Phillips (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soft drink

What is the flavor of the root, as found in the soft drink called sarsaparilla? Badagnani (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the soft drink sarsaparilla does not contain any sarsaparilla. Why, then, is it called sarsaparilla? Badagnani (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It may have that name for a reason similar to the naming of the beverage egg cream (which contains neither eggs nor cream); perhaps it tastes like sarsaparilla, or it once contained sarsaparilla. B7T (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the soft drink article, sarsaparilla was indeed added to some early soda fountain beverages. B7T (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical use as medical treatment

First of all, you can't state that something either cures or treats something without medical evidence that it's true. You need to be careful to state that it was used to treat that because they THOUGHT it treated it, but not state that it actually worked without modern medical evidence. Second of all, you need more reliable sources than a random website on herbs. Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to use the word 'treat' even if it efficacy is doubtful or non-existent. Far Canal (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nathan, regardless of whether or not it is technically correct to use the word 'treat', it does tend to leave the impression on the reader that it is indeed a valid and correct treatment. There are other ways to phrase it that carefully state that it was used as what was considered a valid treatment without actually saying it does (or does not) work. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)