Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2330f5e2ac4d434

Jump to content

Talk:Mandrake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Encyclopedia of Shamanism

[edit]

Re: , @Peter coxhead, where are you seeing the source as unreliable? The publisher—Rosen Publishing—is established and we imply that such educational presses have editorial process. The entry is on the genus (convert the page in the URL to "PA283"). What other "mandrake root" would it be referencing? czar 20:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

An encyclopedia of shamanism is hardly a reliable source of biochemical information. Nowhere in the referenced part of the book is it made clear what exactly is meant by "mandrake". Is the genus Mandragora meant? Or the species Mandragora officinalis? The text "There are six species of Mandragora of Solanaceae" doesn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of use of botanical nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
There's no such species as Mandragora officinalis, you prannet.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.39.145 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unclear caption

[edit]

Is the caption of The so-called "female" and "male" mandrakes, from a 1583 illustration meant to be factual (that these two types of berries are correctly identified and would still be called this today) or dismissive of an outdated 16th century viewpoint? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The latter. I thought the "so-called" made it clear, but maybe not. Can you suggest a different wording? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Something like A 1583 illustration of a mandrake, incorrectly identifying [whatever we would call them today] as "male" and "female" berries? And if it's no longer considered an accurate representation, moving the image out of the lead section and into "folklore". --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure we'd call them anything today. Isn't the whole article really about folklore? The scientific stuff is at Mandragora and the species articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
The first and lengthy paragraph is purely botanical, so it's easy to read the caption in the same voice. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Magic

[edit]

“For 30 days, water it with cow's milk in which three bats have been drowned.” - As if milk stayed liquid for so long! 129.143.130.37 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't say you need to use the same milk for 30 days, so I'm not sure what you're talking about? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply