Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 25 January 2008

Plants Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cartier, scurvy, etc

The statement "The foliage is rich in vitamin C; Native Americans and early European explorers used it to treat scurvy" from the FEIS gives the Silvics manual as its source. However, the latter says "the French explorer Cartier learned from the Indians how to use the tree's foliage to treat scurvy" which says it was just one European expedition (which as far as I know is the truth; Samuel de Champlain sought out this remedy but did not find it). Furthermore, it is not clear whether "Indians" is sufficiently specific, as one of the issues is whether Cartier was meeting the same group as de Champlain (St. Lawrence Iroquoians, Hurons or Iroquois). There is an extensive literature on this subject (just do a google scholar search for "Jacques Cartier scurvy"). Unfortunately, most of it is not online at all, or only available with a subscription. So I'm a little shaky on the subtleties ("has been widely asserted to be aneda" versus "was aneda" versus "probably was aneda" etc). But I do object to removing the link to aneda (which is the right article for lengthy discussions) or with watering down "Jacques Cartier" to "early European explorers". Kingdon (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae): A Review of its Pharmaceutical, Pharmacological and Clinical Properties.

Levine alledges that the study, located here is about Homeopathy. The study appears to be about natural medicine. Can someone review? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the same concerns; the article summary mentions in passing that T. occidentalis is used in homeopathy but doesn't give any indication that the article actually contains information about any such homeopathic uses. This could be a case of homeopathy riding on the coattails of herbal treatments which themselves may or may not have some basis in fact. Unfortunately I don't have access to the original article so can't verify one way or the other. MrDarwin (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. I guess without the full article text, we can't say for sure. -- Levine2112 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, I have access to the full article after all. I have only skimmed it but it does not appear to discuss any homeopathic uses of Thuja occidentalis; the uses and clinical studies the article reviews are all non-homeopathic. As I have stressed elsewhere, "herbal remedies" and "alternative medicine" are not synonymous with "homeopathy" and great care must be taken to distinguish between them. MrDarwin (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is an important warning that it is hasty to say something says something unless you have actually read the thing yourself. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

EVCAM is not a reliable nor authoritative source. The reference should be removed. Jefffire (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Regardless, PubMed is. -- Levine2112 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, pubmed is a database. It contains both reliable and unreliable sources. Jefffire (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had found this holy grail with the book "Medicinal Plants of the World", written by two professors (one a botanist, the other a pharmaceutical biologist) and which has been favorably reviewed in the botanical literature--yes, it clearly and explicitly states for several species "X is used in homeopathic remedies", and no, it doesn't make any comments favorable to homeopathy--but when I tried adding that reference to the Thuja occidentalis article, even that was shot down by User:ScienceApologist as having been published by a "fringe publishing press". I have to conclude that there are no possible sources that he and the other editors will consider reliable. MrDarwin (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, MrDarwin, this is the closest I've seen to a decent rational for inclusion. However, Timber Press is realy quite parochial and doesn't do much to establish the prominence of the homeopathic remedies of interest. In this instance, I'm not trying to disparage Timber Press, but rather I'm trying to make it clear that we need something a bit more mainstream so that we can nail down the prominence of this connected idea to the subject of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Timber Press and have no comment about it. Could you tell us about how many plants would have "X is used in homeopathic remedies" added to them due to the acceptance of such notation in Timber Press, so we can evaluate the notability of any individual mention? For instance, if Timber Press lists, say, 500 plants as used in Homeopathy, it's not in any way a reliable source for establishing notability. Additionally, I assume there is a massive amount of other information in the Timber Press work that is not incorporated into this article - to ignore however many paragraphs of information but put one sentence about homeopathy in reeks of undue weight. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The publisher is a secondary issue; the book was written by a botanist and a pharmaceutical biologist, both of whom are university professors, and has been favorably reviewed in the botanical literature. It is not a pro-homeopathic reference and I don't know what could possibly be more "mainstream". The book discusses several hundred plant species, individually and in great detail, and for several (I don't know the exact number) states that they are used in homeopathy. Yes, it does contain a massive amount of information. What's especially ironic is that I did include some of the non-homeopathic information from the book, and would have added more had not the line on homeopathy, and subsequently the reference supporting it, been almost immediately deleted by ScienceApologist. Ironically, his edits left some of the other material that I had added from the book, but now unreferenced. There are plenty of other books that contain this kind of information but it is clearly a waste of my time to make the attempt as it seems increasingly clear that any and all are likely to be dismissed, sight unseen, as "unreliable", "fringe", "POV", "not mainstream", etc. MrDarwin (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as we are not providing undue weight to the homeopathic uses (IE, our ratio of mention of homeopathy to text is the same as the source materials ratio), and this source does not mean we are adding Homeopathic references to hundreds of different plants, then I see no substantial problem. I am concerned, however, that this source mentions that nearly every plant is used by Homeopaths - in which case, it does not speak to the notability of homeopathy to the plant. Could you comment on the number of plants that do have mention of homeopathy, and the ratio of homeopathic mention to rest-of-text? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, please re-read what I wrote. The book discusses hundreds of plants and their medicinal uses. Within that context, it discusses homeopathic uses for only some of them. I don't know the exact number, but from skimming through the book it's clearly a small percentage of them. It most certainly does not mention or even imply that "nearly every plant is used by Homeopaths". I would also note that the authors consider homeopathy significant enough to merit a separate section discussing it (in a chapter discussing various other kinds of uses, e.g., Chinese traditional medicine), where they make clear that there is no clinical support for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments. MrDarwin (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What percentage do you think it engages in such discussion about? Of those, what percentage of the discussion is about Homeopathy vs. other uses? PouponOnToast (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MrDarwin: Based on the recent comments, edits and justifications of these editors on this and other plant pages and their own talk pages, any source that discusses homeopathy in a neutral or positive light is considered fringe. With that in mind, no reliable source can be found to justify inclusion of homeopathy statements on the plant pages. So if follows that the purge of[REDACTED] being undertaken this past week while IAR, is necessary to save Misplaced Pages from that same fate (fringe). Anthon01 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the contributor. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I've done, commented on the editors edits claiming all who speak of homeopathy in anything but negative terms are considered fringe. Anthon01 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss this on your talk page, but your statement of 16:01 25 Jan was not acceptable. "Based on the recent comments, edits and justifications of these editors..." PouponOnToast (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) My comments are based on recent edits that have occurred over the past week. I think the community needs to know what is going on here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the contributor. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What content? Anthon01 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on homeopathy

Template:RFCsci

Reason: A large debate with no consensus has errupted over the mention of this plant's usage in preparation of homeopathic remedies. While nearly all editors agree (from what I can see) that homeopathy is pseudoscience and quackery, the dispute over whether or not to include a neutrally-worded, sourced statement regarding this species' use continues. Proponents of such a statement have provided several references that they believe meet WP:RS (specifically the ref's included in this edit and diff) that other editors have regarded as unreliable diff (see Talk:Thuja and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants#Thuja and homeopathy for such discussion). Opponents to inclusion of these statements cite WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE frequently as their reasons for removing said information diff. Input from outside, uninvolved parties would be greatly appreciated for some perspective. --Rkitko 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding one additional citation for consideration. This citation from Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded journals in the world, published by Oxford University Press, has likewise been rejected. It specifically discusses over 30 homeopathic remedies used to treat Rheumatoid Arthritis.(listed in the methods section) The conclusions of the study are not pertinent. A randomized controlled trial of homeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis

Statements by involved editors

1. Support inclusion - I suppose I'm involved as a participant in the plant project, but I haven't been directly involved in the argument. Anyways, it seems very obvious to me that information about homeopathic use should be included. The sources are clearly sufficient to show that people in significant enough numbers are or were using the plant as a homeopathic "remedy". Whether or not this has any scientific significance is irrelevant- it's simply a cultural element that should be included in the article. I have mentioned that several plant articles, such as Ailanthus altissima, give extensive treatments on use in Chinese medicine, which in many cases is equally dubious from a scientific view, but is regardless important to mention because literally millions of people still buy into it. Another good example would be ginseng- its purported medical effects have not been demonstrated scientifically, but it would be a simple matter of censorship to remove references to its use as a medicinal root. The references supplied are most certainly reliable, and I believe that only someone with an agenda could deny that. DJLayton4 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: The fact that homeopathy is pseudoscience is only relevant to establishing that we need to consider fringe guidelines. The exclusion of the idea is not done because it the idea is pseudoscience. The reason that traditional Chinese medicine is reasonable to include in many articles is because we have mainstream, independent sources that indicate it is prominent to the plant itself. Indeed, in traditional Chinese medicine, substantial amounts of the substances are employed: enough to make TCM practioners in many cases some of the major consumers of the substances and, in the case of endangered plants, problematically so. This is in stark contrast to homeopathy which use vanishingly small amounts of the substance and so, peculiarly, the prominence of the homeopathic use of the plant cannot be done by evaluating the content of the remedy. However, even though this is the case, all that is needed to establish the prominence of homeopathy to this or any other plant is a mainstream independent source which asserts the prominence of homeopathic preparations that involve the plant. Unfortunately, the closest we've come as of yet was a reference book from a (relatively) small publishing press in Portland, Oregon that does not establish prominence. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Timber Press is a highly-regarded (and not so small) publisher that specializes in horticultural and botanical books, but what is more relevant is that the book was written by two university professors who are scientists (a botanist and a botanist, pharmaceutical biologist), it is decidedly not pro-homeopathy, and the book has been favorably reviewed in the botanical literature. I am at a complete loss as to what ScienceApologist would possibly accept as a "maintstream independent source". ScienceApologist, have you even seen this book? MrDarwin (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: It seems to me that SceinceApologist is not a plant person, which is fine of course. But honestly, anyone with plants some how factoring into their professional lives, study or hobby can confirm that Timber Press is most certainly not a fringe publisher. Probably the world's most respected horticulturalist, Michael Dirr from the University of Georgia, has published numerous titles with them. Simply browsing their website can demonstrate the number and quality of their books. They also have a .uk website, despite being an American company, and I don't think that many "fringe" publishers would have such a broad customer base. DJLayton4 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   There is nothing wrong with using this book as a source for the plant. However, the prominence of homeopathic uses of Thuja occidentalis is not well-asserted by a book that has as minimal an impact parameter as this. I liken homeopathic inclusion here to a bemused scientist who reports, for example, that there are billboards on the side of the road that say "Big Bang? You can't be serious. -- God." What people are advocating here would be akin to using that anecdotal inclusion to insist that the Big Bang page include the POV that God disputes the theory. We cannot simply reference a parochial paper from the Astrophysical Journal written by a pre-eminent astrophysicist simply because he thinks this billboard is amusing. It is quite irrelevant that the paper is an excellent discussion of the cosmological issues; it simply does not serve to assert the prominence of this particular billboard campaign to the subject of the big bang. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Need a reliable mainstream independent source asserting the prominence of homeopathic remedies to the subject of this article before inclusion can be made. I have explained the rationale for this here and here. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Absolutely absurd. First you reasonably ask for a reference. Several are provided and you ultimately decide they're not worthy by saying the publishing company is fringe. I provide evidence to the contrary that Timber Press is frequently used for academic books by top scientists in botany, which you of course respond to by claiming it's too small (above). Have you taken a look at the publishing source of the journal you also said was "fringe" (Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine)? Bloody Oxford University Press. I and others have noted that such sources are completely reliable and not fringe and that this attempt to "move the goalposts" when excellent references have been provided is beyond frustrating. What's more is you've been continually edit warring on this article by removing referenced information before consensus was reached regarding the content. --Rkitko 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Absurd. According to your comments here, and on other plant pages the final determination that a source is not a RS is if it mentions homeopathy in a positive or neutral light. If so, those sources are label fringe. There is no good reason to apply IAR here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   There definitely is a good reason to not apply IAR. WP:DE. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Support inclusion Despite comments by the opponents to such statements, I believe the information is carefully worded, well-sourced, and presented without pushing any POV. This crusade against mentioning homeopathic uses that are well-sourced must stop. --Rkitko 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support inclusion, cautiously One of the stated goals of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants is to "describe botanical properties, distribution, multiplication, usage (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information" (emphasis added). Commentary on homeopathic uses is relevant in the context of medicinal, ethnobotanical, cultural, and other uses. Homeopathy is widely accepted and its use of plants and plant names is relevant to thousands, and possibly millions, of people. It may be a pseudoscience, but it is a widespread and significant one. I have no doubt that some homeopathic users will come to Misplaced Pages looking for information on a plant name that they have encountered through a homeopathic "remedy" (if I can personalize the issue a bit, my sister-in-law has no idea what Arnica is outside of homeopathy, and could not begin to tell me what it did or how or why it supposedly worked). By including a mention of the homeopathic uses of plants in the various species articles, users will be guided via a link to the Misplaced Pages article on homeopathy, where they can find out more about that subject (including that there is no medical or scientific support for it). What I am not arguing for is the inclusion of homeopathic uses without the inclusion of other uses. On the other hand, a blanket policy that any mention of homeopathic uses of plant species, in any context, must be expunged is an extreme POV and tantamount to censorship. Numerous non-homeopathic botanical references manage to mention homeopathic uses of plants without endorsing them, and I don't understand why Misplaced Pages articles about plant species can't do likewise. I could add several more as I have a good library at my disposal, but after the removal of the "Medicinal Plants of the World" it seems a rather pointless use of my time as I suspect none of them would be deemed acceptable. MrDarwin (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   A clever argument, but one that doesn't take into account that someone who is interested in Arnica because they are into homeopathy is likely to already have researched homeopathy and doesn't need a link to get them over to that page. This rationale is specious at best and special pleading at worst. On the other hand, if someone is researching a plant for a school project, it hardly makes sense for them to waste their time learning about homeopathy. Remember the principle of one-way linking. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements by RfC respondents

• Undue weight applies. Your poll is irrelevant - editors cannot "vote" to ignore NPOV. If the plant's primary use is in homeopathy, and/or it is a primary herb used in homeopathy, and there are multiple RS to V this, then it becomes a content discussion. Otherwise, it is a case of multiple editors not understanding NPOV and thinking they can somehow argue Special Pleading. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. Darwin alleges that there is a source that discusses such, but it is not clear what exactly that source says. I have asked him for clarification above. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps it is just MrDarwin who does not comprehend NPOV. KillerChihuahua 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Please comment on the content, not the contributor PouponOnToast (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Was that addressed to me? KillerChihuahua 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  With regret. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, that would be funny if it weren't so sad. I have made no personal remarks whatsoever. I stated there is a lack of understanding of NPOV, which is crystal clear from the fact that this Rfc even exists; you brought up MrDarwin; I comment that perhaps he is the only one - which is in the nature of a statement for confirmation, with a modifier of perhaps - and you lecture me on NPA? This is beyond odd. I am done with this rather bizarre tangent. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  No lecture intended. I agree that the existance of an RFC (laughable) on this topic demonstrates that there is a misunderstanding of NPOV. I don't think attributing it to MrDarwin is productive - which is not to say it is either right or wrong. Merely not productive. What is productive is understanding what the source he suggests actually says. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been given a similar lecture by this editor. Anthon01 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion no plausible arguments have been put forth against inclusion. There are reliable sources that state it is used. The fear that mentioning these would somehow make it seem that Misplaced Pages 'endorses' homeopathy is absurd. That's my response; please do not clutter up this RfC by arguing about it. If you've already commented on this RfC, please respect that process and do not continue to add excessive, repetitive verbiage. Dlabtot (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, and it isn't binding and this certainly isn't part of some plot by the alliance of evil scientists to censor all homeopathy. We need to agree to accept that some editors have a higher standard for establishing the required prominence of a thing. Jefffire (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed plant articles
• Unknown-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles