Talk:Aconitum carmichaelii

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aconitum carmichaelii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303222641/http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/detail?lang=en&channelid=1288&searchword=herb_id=D00448 to http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/detail?lang=en&channelid=1288&searchword=herb_id=D00448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use in TCM[edit]

@Zefr: I would say this is cultural information, not biomedical information. It's information about how the plant is traditionally used in a certain culture, not about its actual biological effects. In this way it's similar to the second example at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical v. general information (The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015.), which the policy says does not require medical sources.

As for the WP:UNDUE concern, I think NPOV actually points in the direction of including this information. Currently the article covers the plant's use in British culture but is missing information about its use in Chinese culture (probably because of our WP:Systemic bias). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned not only the cultural significance under UNDUE (only 26 people surveyed), but also the low quality and verifiability of the journal, which is not indexed in Medline, raising questions about verifiability and peer-review. Specifically for Aconitum carmichaelii found among only 16 samples, stronger evidence seems needed. Zefr (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I'll re-add the information with citations to three other sources that are already cited or linked in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]