Talk:Mandrake (plant)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles

Bible

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles

Godot quote

Sorry I haven't typeset the Godot quote so well, I will come back and redo it when I get a better idea of the house style for this sort of thing. Notjim

ok i think it is better now Notjim 16:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of mandrake in Pan's Labyrinth

I added its appearance in the article and IPSOS deleted it. The description of it in the movie is relevant as to the mythology and supposed uses of the plant. It is also not found on any other page in the mandrake disambiguation. Is there a reason for it not to appear on this page? Lnkinprk777 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia. In order for it not to be trivia, mandrake would have to be a main character or theme. This is not an "In popular culture" section, it's an "In literature" section. You will note that all the entries have to do with well established literature and authors. None of the authors represented are still living. Pop culture is simply not relevant to the article. IPSOS (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mandrake is in fact a driving plot element in the movie, as its discovery and destruction are instantly followed by the death of the mother. I would also point out that many of the entries under the "In literature" section are mere passing references and not main characters or themes. I've added an "In film" section to the article, which is certainly as valid as an "In literature" section. The scope of knowledge in this article should not be limited in a misguided attempt to seem "high-brow." Film is an established component of the Arts, a recognized driver of public discourse (see Birth of a Nation, Schindler's List, Seven Samurai, etc etc etc), and has a well-deserved place within Wikipedia. Pan's Labyrinth is a critically-acclaimed and award-winning film and certainly merits its mention here. Traoki 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake in popular culture

Why do you think that Mandrake in popular culture would need another chapter, why couldn't people just put their references to Harry Potter and such in this article? I find it foolish to have them separate since Mandrake isn't even that common in popular culture either. Even when it's mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia there's a link to this site, not the popular culture -one (in fact I myself found this by following a link from "Pan's Labyrinth", the movie).

Effects

For effect study http://www.erowid.org/plants/mandrake/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.34.101 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody want to write a section on the effects of this plant when consumed?

This is what messed up Syd Barrett(according to David Gilmour)

utter crap

Discussions on effects are totally bunk. What pseudoscientific BS.

Atropine, etc. block cholinergic transmission. Sedation due to lipophilic anticholinerics (scopolamine) are due to central inhibition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, enough mythology; what about the drugs?

I know they're in there. 24.158.40.160 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I think a picture showing how the roots resemble a human would be very helpful Thydzik 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I think the excerpt about Jesus and the mandrake root is irrelevant, especially since there is theological debate within that paragraph. If someone can describe the somatic effects of the Mandrake root and link to a relevant article, that would be better. 67.62.240.136 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't feel strongly enough to change it myself, the "unlikely event" statement seems rather editorial. Grepowell 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castlevania

I'm going to ask first in this case, since it's easy to overdo the "popular culture" references, but I think this might be suitable. The Mandragora in the DS game(s) appears as a small plant that, upon approach, pops out of the ground with a shrill shriek which can do heavy damage, in reference to the legend of the plant screaming as it's uprooted. Should I add that, or would it just get wiped as "fancruft"? Errick 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to add an in games section, Guild Wars also features mandragor, which appear as hideously deformed creatures which emerge from the ground and screech as they attack, and leave 'mandragor roots' as loot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.122.137 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Can somebody supply a reference for the Josephus quote? I can't find it. Thank you. Cut and Shoot 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also looking for this reference. I've got one of his books right here and I want to know where it is. Anyone yet?? Rivka 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Okay so I looked it up myself, however I have no idea how to add a reference, so I will tell you where it is. It is in Josephus' writing called "The wars of the Jews", Book VII, Chapter VI, Section 3, REALLY from (178) to (185). Rivka 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Interpretation needs references

The section about the Bible involves sweeping generalizations with no backup, when I have studied commentaries that specifically say other things and provide good reasoning. It needs citation for saying that most interpreters support that view.

Deep purple song

Would it be suitable to add a reference in the "In literature" section to the 1968 Deep Purple song ,Mandrake Root. Its lyrics are about sex and fertility etc. e.g. "feeding (the mandrake root) to my babe", "food of love".

Move non-botanical info to another page?

The Mandrake (plant) page is badly cluttered with references to popular culture, many (most? all?) of which are not actually references to the plant, but simply to the name "mandrake" or "mandragora". I notice someone proposed a "Mandrake in popular culture" page, but even on such a page, much of the material here would be irrelevant. As someone with horticultural and botanical interest in this plant, the mass of irrelevant material on this page is quite striking, and makes it difficult to see that, in fact, there is very little or no horticultural and botanical information on it.

We really need to create two new pages, "Mandrake (plant) in popular culture" and "Mandrake (the name) in popular culture". This raises another issue, to wit that the material on the Bible and Josephus isn't quite what one calls "popular culture". Maybe "Mandrake in literature and history" would do.

I should add that I grow two species of Mandragora, in case that adds some weight to my remarks.

PS: I've added two references to books, but I haven't correlated them with the existing text so there're just stuck on at the end of External References.

Floozybackloves (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that plants of the genus Mandragora do have some mythology attached. However, I feel that the subheadings <<The Old Testament>> and <<Spells and Witchcraft>> are rather unencyclopedic. Shall I move those two headings (which themselves need a bit of pruning, really) to a <<Religion and Folklore>> section? I'll copy-paste the other literary references to the Talk page and delete the video-game stuff. Sepia officinalis (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

datura in Brewing?

67.170.151.136 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Has anyone ever heard that the English used to add a small amount of datura to ale in the 16th and 17th cntury? The story goes that when the Jamestown colonists tried this, the whole town had a week-long psychotic episode because the new world species had higher concentrations of atropine.[reply]

Questionable photo

The photo depicting a mandrake root doesn't look like a mandrake at all, and it's the same image that appears on mandrakeseeds.com as a photograph of a mayapple root, where it is mentioned as a root commonly mistaken for mandrake. Can someone provide a graphic for this article that is indisputably a mandrake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.83 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was:

Mandrake (plant) merged to Mandragora officinarum
Mandrake moved to Mandrake (disambiguation)
Mandrake redirected to Mandragora officinarum

(NAC, if it matters) No such user (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake (plant) → Mandrake
Mandrake → Mandrake (disambiguation)

– Primary meaning's the plant. According to this, "Mandrake (plant)" has been viewed 16703 times in the last 30 days, while according to this, "Mandrake" has been viewed a mere 1378 times in the last 30 days. What of the other stuff on the dab page? The band has 195 views, the comic book character 4300, the play 1437, the album 669, Leon 276, TV series 763, Mandrake Press 154, Mandrake of Oxford 160 and Tom 396. That's a total of 8350 views for the non-plants: less than half as many hits as "Mandrake (plant)". --Relisted. Number 5 7 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support plants being fundamental to existence. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having a hard time taking a stance on the move because I feel there is a fundamental problem with the article scope (although I'm not sure that a roughly 2:1 edge in page views is enough to call this article the primary topic). This article purportedly covers the entire genus Mandragora, but most historical use of the term "mandrake" is entirely related to Mandragora officinarum, the only species which occurs in Europe, not the entire genus (although an unrelated North American plant, Podophyllum peltatum is also sometimes referred to as mandrake which might be a problem with the current title "mandrake (plant)"). Most of the content in this article is about mandrake in culture, and cultural references are heavily weighted down with legends about mandrake that are factually incorrect. When it comes to appearances of "mandrake" in contemporary pop culture that are entirely inspired by the legends (e.g. Harry Potter), I'm not really sure that there is much relevance to the real, non-legendary plant. I'd be inclined to split the genus Mandragora into a separate article, leave this article to cover mandrake in culture (with link to genus, species and the North American mandrake). Another option might be merging mandrake (plant) and Mandragora officinarum. Note that page vies in the last 30 days are 1090 for Mandragora (which is quite high for a redirect), and 1433 for Mandragora officinarum. Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support moving the disambiguation page as per the proposal and redirecting mandrake to Mandragora officinarum? The problem I am trying to solve—and which I believe the page view stats show to be real—is that "mandrake" is not particularly ambiguous. It usually refers to a plant (mainly Mandragora officinarum) whose root has a long history in lore and legend. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can support that.Plantdrew (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed move, as per Plantdrew's comments. "Mandrake (plant)" would be best as a redirect to Mandragora officinarum with the content of the two merged. A hatnote could be used to say that the term "mandrake" is sometimes used for the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew hasn't opposed the move. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew has proposed a more complex action instead of the simple move; that's what I support. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support I support the basic move proposed: moving the dab page to "mandrake (disambiguation)" and using the base title "mandrake" for the plant. The small amount of content in this article on the genus Mandragora should appear in an article titled "Mandragora". The bulk of the content in this article should be merged into Mandragora officinarum, with a redirect from "mandrake" to the species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and also support a merge of at least the material Mandrake (plant) and Mandragora officinarum if not the titles per User:Peter coxhead's comments above (the material is about M. officinarum only). (Podophyllum peltatum is really not an issue; it's a mayapple, not a mandrake, to most everyone out there -- a hatnote will do.) In short, "mandrake" either be an article about the plant or should redirect to an article about the plant. — AjaxSmack 15:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Red Slash 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

For any post-move discussion, please go to Talk:Mandragora officinarum#Merges and moves. No such user (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what??

No such user, what happened? Why is the article on the plant not at Mandrake, like most of us actually agreed it should be? Red Slash 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reading was that the participants preferred the article to be at the scientific name, with Mandrake redirecting there; it was Plantdrew's proposal, to which Peter and AjaxSmack agreed, and the proposer did not object. While, personally, I slightly prefer the original proposal as well, the consensus got the other way round. As far as I know, plant naming conventions permit both. No such user (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a move request at Talk:Mandragora officinarum re this discussion. — AjaxSmack 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]