Talk:Cinnamon

Middle Ages: Venetian Monopoly on Spice Trade

The section on cinnamon in the Middle Ages makes some very interesting assertions about the Venetian monopoly on the European spice trade, and how disruption of that monopoly drove exploration. Unfortunately, these two sentences cite no references. Does anyone have anything at their fingertips to back this up? Jdickinson (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Daily value of calcium

The (unsourced) claim that a 100g referance amount of cinnamon contains 100% of the Daily Value of calcium is highly misleading. Nobody is going to eat 100g of cinnamon in a day. If you did you would become extremely ill according to the toxicity section which recommends a maximum of 0.1g per day. SpinningSpark 08:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The source for the table of nutrients and description in the text is the USDA FoodData Central displayed at the bottom of the table. Use of a 100 gram reference amount is standard in science and in Wikipedia nutrition sections to allow comparisons among foods. I made this edit to repair the USDA URL for the nutrition table and add clarification in the nutrition discussion. Zefr (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, putting the source inline would be far better than instructions in the visible text of how to find it. More importantly, the source does not use language like "a rich source", it does not say that is 100% of the daily amount (it might be, but its not relevant and some kind of WP:SYNTH with another source is going on here), and nobody is likely to eat 2.6g in one go. A teaspoon might go into a pie or casserole, but it won't all be eaten by one person. You wouldn't put a teaspoonful in one cup of cinnamon coffee. So I still say this is misleading and improperly cited. SpinningSpark 17:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Daily Value (or Reference Dietary Intake) is a linked source for whether food nutrient contents are "rich" (20% or more of DV), "moderate" (10-19% DV) or "low" (less than 10% DV) per designated serving. The table displays this clearly for calcium and other nutrients. Rather than complaining, be an editor and try to make it better. Zefr (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd make it better by deleting it. SpinningSpark 22:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The current text is "In a 100-gram (3.5 oz) reference amount, ground cinnamon is a rich source". This does seem to be a misleading use of "rich", given that 100 g is an implausible amount of ground cinnamon to eat. I tend to agree with Spinningspark; just delete the sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the amounts of "TDI cinnamon at 50 kg body weight (bw)" in Toxicity table are wrong, because the Min > Max. Maybe Min values should be in mg/bw instead of g/bw? --Breny47 (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

tapped in to say this too ‐‐ Toxicity > Coumarin's table induced a lot of confused squinting-at, lol

‐ nagao_0 ~2026-33648-66 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkopcza (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sienasaint13 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reinstating paragraphs about Cinnamon/Cassia mentions in the Hebrew Bible

I noticed that way back in this 2017 edit an editor removed a paragraph under the History section which cited mentions in the Hebrew Bible and Talmud as "non-history myths". That same revision kept a paragraph recounting how the ancient Greeks believed this and other spices were guarded by winged serpents, that it was said to be used by the phoenix to build its nest, and that cassia's source land was believed to be where the god Dionysus resides. This paragraph is still included with slight rewording (for example, "cinnamon birds" instead of "phoenix").

In what way does such information involve less myth and more history than references made in some other, non-Greek ancient literature?

I tried reinstating it and another editor swiftly removed it, saying it probably needs consensus and secondary sourcing (it originally just provided verse numbers as citations). I tried reinstating it again, this time providing linked citations both to the Hebrew sources and to English sources which include the common elucidations of these mentions as being references to cinnamon and cassia.

It was removed again by the same editor saying "these are not the secondary sources needed to establish mention on this spice in this context is important", and requesting a consensus again.

Well, how do we reach a consensus? I for one cannot see in what world mentions of ancient Greeks' mythological beliefs, within the same context of Cinnamon -> History, are more important and noteworthy in comparison. ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The recent edits did not provide WP:SECONDARY sources discussing that cinnamon in the biblical context is relevant or WP:DUE here. Something like The Bible is very much a WP:PRIMARY source. Perhaps @Zefr remembers more about their edits nearly 10 years ago, but I'm not seeing anything provided here that would get consensus for inclusion. See Honey#Religious_significance for an example of the types of sources that are used for content like this. KoA (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

None of the section removed in the 2017 Special:Diff/767909717 was actual history, but rather offtopic myths from non-WP:RS sources and vague Pliny references.

The Special:Diff/1371076101 revert today was valid because there are no reliable history sources to justify including it. Zefr (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the removed material is too detailed and does not meet WP:DUE. On the other hand, the occurrence of the Hebrew words for cinnamon and cassia in the Old Testament does seem to me to be as relevant to establishing the historical use of the spices – see also the Etymology section. So I think it's ok to include a short section on mentions in the Hebrew bible. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The removed paragraph cites both "practical" high-importance (to then's society) uses of cinnamon (and cassia) as part of the holy anointing oil and of the incense at the temple (the incense being at least during the late Second Temple period, as that specific reference comes from the Talmud), and also the different allusions to it that establish it was viewed as a prized, coveted substance by the biblical society.

Greek writers having associated cinnamon with mythical creatures is also worthy of a mention in my opinion, as it establishes cultural aspects of the spice in ancient Greece. But it cannot be that one of them is worthy while the other is not.

Is the issue that you want an academic secondary source (beyond the referenced English translations where they repeatedly used the terms "cinnamon" and "cassia") which discusses their ceremonial use? ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Zefr and KoA must answer for themselves, but as I noted above, I'm happy with content concerning the occurrence of the Hebrew terms for cinnamon and cassia based on the primary source. Reliable secondary sources would enable more detail to be supported. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I searched around and most secondary sources that discuss these specific details are unsurprisingly religious institutions, so their merit from an academic standpoint might be questionable.

But I did manage to find this paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/abs/on-the-beginnings-of-south-asian-spice-trade-with-the-mediterranean-region-a-review/57B7230DFD38F6B035420F1D11A93210

The paper comes to the conclusion that cinnamon was detected in early Iron Age Phoenician vessels discovered in many sites around Israel, indicating widespread spice trade with South Asia earlier than previously thought. It also specifically includes the following section regarding references made in the Hebrew Bible:

Potentially Far Eastern spices are alluded to in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew qinman/qinnamon is mentioned three times (Exodus 30:23; Proverbs 7:17; Song of Songs 4:14), alongside other precious fragrant spices. In Exodus, it is one of the ingredients prescribed by God to Moses for the holy anointing oil in the tabernacle. The identification of this substance as one of the Cinnamomum species of South Asia is widely accepted (Olck 1899; Moldenke and Moldenke 1952:76; Zohary 1982:202; Casson 1984; Keel 1994:180; Brown 1995:42; Amigues 1996; Goyon 1996:653; Amar 2002:123, 125: nn. 538, 539; Jacob 2011:11–2; Hurowitz 2012:241). Conversely, as mentioned, De Romanis (1996) and Crone (2004) suggest that this is a yet unidentified African or Arabian plant.

Hebrew qeẓiot (in plural) and qeẓiah (singular, as a personal name) is usually taken to refer to C. cassia (Zohary 1982:203). They appear respectively in Psalms 45:9 and Job 42:14 and are translated as “cassia” in the Vulgate (Kraus 1993; Brown 1995:71–2; Amar 2002:104, n. 369; Wilson 2007:476). Hebrew qiddah (Exodus 30:24; Ezekiel 27:19) is usually also identified with cassia (cf. Zohary 1982:203; Ammar 2002:104–5).15 In Ezekiel, it is listed among the merchandise passing through Phoenician Tyre.

In the framework of this paper, it is impossible to consider the extremely complex issue of the dates of composition, transmission, and redaction of all these biblical texts. Generally speaking, though several of them may include “early” (10th–8th century) references, they cannot be evoked to demonstrate the presence of Asian spices in the Levant before the late Iron Age (8th/7th centuries BCE) and most of these texts were extensively edited in exilic and post-exilic times (6th/5th centuries BCE).16

I believe this is good enough as a secondary source. Regarding the spices' inclusion in the ketoret at the Temple in Jerusalem, the source for that comes from the Talmud – which isn't quoted in the paper. Nonetheless, this information is included in the Wikipedia article about the ketoret. ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Reading only the abstract, the key information would be: i) Iron Age (11th–late 10th century BCE); ii) Phoenician clay flasks; iii) archaeological evidence of sustainable trade; iv) flasks contained cinnamon; v) originated in South/Southeast Asia. What else would you want to say about 'history'? Zefr (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading, but it sounds to me like you are still being dismissive for some reason. Yes, we can include that information if it helps establish the spice trade point and we can include information about its biblical references as this paper is a non-primary source which discusses these very references, even if briefly, and also establishes that the botanical identifications with cinnamon and cassia is widespread. ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Identification is a regular problem with plants mentioned in ancient literature, but the source that has been identified above supports the inclusion of the occurrences of the relevant terms in the Hebrew bible. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

At least when it comes to Biblical mention, that seems to be passing mention in the source. That was the issue previously where the idea that simply being mentioned in the Bible (or any other religious text) does not mean it warrants inclusion in encyclopedic articles. Usually a secondary source needs to point out that it was noteworthy or WP:DUE for some reason. Compare that to what Zefr pointed out above on key points in the source. I guess I'm just not seeing sourcing saying the Biblical details are a major detail for this article compared to what Zefr pointed out.

Now if we were in a more specific article such as one on annointing oil used in the Bible, then something like the first paragraph might be a good fit there. It doesn't really seem to make a case for itself here though. KoA (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that the entire History section is not about, say, cinnamon's evolutionary history, but about its cultural and/or trade history. There are currently several paragraphs that tell the reader what this or that Greek or Roman writer had to say about cinnamon and cassia and what mythical creatures they believed guard them.

So I repeat what I said earlier: I cannot see in what world these are important enough to be worthy of a mention while information stemming from the literary/historical (because it can be both depending on the context) work which is the Hebrew Bible is not – and not even after a proper academic paper has been provided as a secondary reference (even if the paper isn't specifically about that), which was the point of contention earlier. ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

A fact-based history section would rely on archeological evidence rather than myths from any source, including Greek and biblical fables. A rewrite (or removal) of the first paragraphs down to Pliny is in order. Zefr (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's not what the section currently is, at least not exactly, as it gives significant weight to cultural aspects as exemplified in literary works and/or anecdotal mentions. Maybe the History section can be divided into sub-sections so one of them can provide place even to what you define as fables.

But then the question is whether that's the standard form across other Wikipedia articles about spices/ingredients. And if not then does what you define as fables just get silenced and removed from the record elsewhere too? ThisNameIsAvailableToo (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)