Talk:Prunus mandshurica

Proven to be effective?

The source given is a TCM book, but in order to prove the claim, the citation would have to be of a scientific study or meta-analysis.--Frglz (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See WP:MEDRS, which calls for secondary sources. I'll ask someone I know who's familiar with this stuff to take a look. HalfGig talk 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The reference currently in the article footnotes this to "Wang, J. H. (Ed.) (1994), Xin Bian Chang Rong Zhong Yao Zhou Ce {Manual of Commonly Used Chinese Medicinal Herbs), Beijing, Jin Dun Press". Will look more. HalfGig talk 23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require an editor to interpret a primary research study. In fact, HalfGig should not cite a primary research study for this information, as this would require Him/her to evaluate the study. The source appears to be fine. --AfadsBad (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Reference of Traditional Chinese Medicine

• Article states "In traditional Chinese medicine the kernels are used to treat coughs, pneumonia, asthma, bronchitis, sore throat, and intestinal problems." Source: Xinrong, Yang (2003). Encyclopedic Reference of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p. 26. ISBN 3-540-42846-1.
  • Source page is visible here. Source says "Apricot Kernel: The ripe seed of Prunus mandshurica (Maxim) Koehne, of Prunus sibirica L. or Prunus armeniaca L. (Rosaceae). Effect: Relieving cough and asthma and moistening the intestines to relax the bowels. Indication: Cough with asthma, constipation due to dryness."
  • On the plus side: Published by Springer, which is a well-respected medical publisher. Author is Yang Xinrong, who appears to have a respectable Google footprint of involvement with TCM.
  • Negatives: Just being published by Springer is no guarantee of WP:MEDRS fitness, they publish lots of non-RS sources too. Cannot detect any academic credentials at all for Yang, and a PubMed search shows no results for that author. Generally we expect that an author of a source deserving respect should have at least a few things published and listed in PubMed. The institution Yang is associated with, the "Center of Information for Traditional Chinese Medicine" in Germany, has no Google footprint outside of this one encyclopedia. The encyclopedia itself lists no sources for any of its claims.
  • WP:V problem: First of all the article content appears to have a WP:V problem, as the source cited doen't appear to support the content exactly. The content says pneumonia, bronchitis and sore throat but the source doesn't support these.
  • WP:RS problem: I don't find this encyclopedia to be a reliable source for anything other than the views of Yang. I don't find any support for the idea that this source is authoritative within TCM.
  • WP:MEDRS problem: This source does not meet with WP:MEDRS and cannot be used to source biomedical claims. The fact that the source doesn't cite any references at all would disqualify it.

Zad68 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Healing Power of Chinese Herbs and Medicinal Recipes

• Article states "[The kernels] have been shown to be effective in expelling parasitic worms in cases of ancylostomiasis, ascariasis, and enterobiasis." Source: Russo, Ethan B.; Hou, Joseph (2005). The Healing Power of Chinese Herbs and Medicinal Recipes. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press. pp. 364–365. ISBN 0-7890-2202-8.

This doesn't look like the kind of source that complies with WP:MEDRS. It does cite sources but I can't verify them. The publisher doesn't look like an academic press. It may be useful to source what TCM claims but would not use it for plain, unattributed statements of fact. Zad68 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, since you're way more familiar with this area, can you reword the article? HalfGig talk 03:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I did with this edit. As both the Yang and the Russo sources corroborated each other for the TCM uses, I used both. Hope you find it helpful! Zad68 03:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. HalfGig talk 10:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Petioles are parts of the leaf, sepals and petals of the flowers

An article should be written with the idea that there is a reader. Random, disorganized strings of facts are not readable. This is some kind of tree, its leaf blade is like this, the flower like that, the tree grows in this type of soil, and has this compound, by the way, another part of its leaf is like this, and some parts of its flowers like that. Describe the tree, then its parts, the leaf or the flower, but don't just smatter facts throughout.

This is what this template is about. And, no, I don't work for you. Someone else can fix it, you don't have to either. But the template also notifies qualified editors who know plant anatomy about this article until someone with he skills can fix it.

Why would anyone write the description of a plant like this? It serves no purpose and was not easier or faster to write this way. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the {{Organize section}} with {{Copy edit-section}}, which is a more appropriate template. {{Organize section}} makes reference to the overall section layout and not the copyediting of the section itself. Also, the {{Copy edit-section}} will put this article into an appropriate category to attract the attention of copyeditors; I don't see that {{Organize section}} does this.

While I agree the section could use copyediting, I really wish this request were made with less finger-pointing. Zad68 14:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Take this personal battle somewhere else
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The template was added with an edit summary about the disorganization, it was removed with a command to rewrite it. I get a little tired of hearing about unreadable and incorrect articles on Wikipedia's main page. Editing to correct bad science requires too much wasted effort. Thank you for correcting the template to one that will categorize it for interested editors. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC) @AFAD...And I get tired of people doing nothing but whine and complain without helping. Take a lesson from Zad68, ctritique, explain why, help improve. But all you do is run around whining about how things are messed up without helping. I was fixing your concerns but you keep whining and you've spent more time complaining than it'd take you or I to fix it. So, I'm not playing your game anymore. HalfGig talk 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC) And I have no interest in your point-scoring by putting sloppy, unreadable, badly sourced, improperly cited slapped together articles on the main page, then fighting and arguing with editors who point out problems instead of taking 21 extra seconds to write a coherent and readable article to begin with. You are the one who decided to keep a badly organized article on Wikipedia, after slapping it together to begin with, then start an edit war rather than taking responsibility for putting such a piece of slapped together disorganized "description" up in the first place. And here you are discussing it. If I attempt to fiix it I will just get more Randy-from-Boise arguments, like Cwmhriaeth returning her made up information about C4 photosynthesis to an article simply because she couldn't understand the source. Your initial response says it all, you don't want your bad work identified, and you, like so many other contestants, would rather fight than fix it, maybe for the same reason as Cwmhriaeth, you don't understand what you are reading. In that case, the template categorized the article so someone who does understand the parts of a leaf and the parts of a flower and wants to fix it and is willing to fight you off to do so, can. Some of us who use the internet get tired of seeing these badly written, disorganized articles that only show how little en.Wikipedia cares about what it puts out. The template at least shows we know it needs work. (AfadsBad (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC))

OK I had a go at a bit of copyediting and reorganizing. I looked at how some botany FAs do it, and tried to organize it in a similar way, take a look at Ficus aurea for the example I used. I did what I could with the limited amount of content available, it will probably be easier to find a more natural organization once the content fills out a bit. Keep in mind this article is only a week old. Are my changes enough to at least remove the section tag? Zad68 20:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you describe the tree, then the leaves, including their petiole, then the flowers, then include the comment about soils, rather than tree, part of the leaves, soils, another part of the leaves, then flowers. I read, I think we were describing the leaves, but, all of a sudden we describe where the tree grows, return to leaves in a brand new paragraph, then move onto flowers. Just organized so that it doesn't jar the reader, that's all. The general, or the whole, then parts, but not some part of one part, then back to the tree, then the rest of the part.

Also, describe the petiole, then the blade in the same way, its overall shape, the shape of the base and the tip, the marginal ornamentation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC))

OK thanks, that approach sounds reasonable. I (or someone else) will give it a go, but I won't be able to get to it today, at least not until later. (and I really appreciate the article-focused, constructive tone used in this suggestion!) Zad68 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have often spotted editors doing nothing but clean up, copy edit, make minor fixes, so I am sure someone will get to it, now that you've properly flagged it for attention. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Phloretin

I notice that this article again says that Prunus mandshurica is a source of the "antibiotic" phloretin. Perhaps editors may find it helpful to examine the article on phloretin itself, where you'll see that the compound in question does not fall into any of the standard groups of compounds commonly called "antibiotic" (that is, it's not a penicillin, a cephalosporin, a tetracycline, etc.). Rather, phloretin is one of the chalconoids, many of which have antibacterial and/or antifungal characteristics. Indeed, the article on phloretin nowhere describes it as an antibiotic. You'll also note that phloretin does not appear on Wikipedia's reasonably comprehensive list of antibiotics. Further, if you google "phloretin", possibly concatenating the word "antibiotic", you'll find that the papers that pop up do not describe phloretin as an antibiotic, but as an antibacterial or antimicrobial (for example, googling "phloretin" and "antibiotic" gave me the following results as the top papers/abstracts: http://www.bioinformation.net/004/010000042010.pdf , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17466326 , http://iai.asm.org/content/79/12/4819.full , and so on). I do recognise that the reference that has been used in this article describes phloretin as an antibiotic, but I strongly suspect that this is an editing or proofing oversight in the source. Note that the source of the reference is http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/trees/handbook.htm; you'll see that the editors of and contributors to the source are largely from the forestry and conservation departments at NDSU, and are not specialists in antibiotic development or use. For example, I notice that the NDSU source also seems to suggest that P. Virginiana (the chokecherry) is an antibiotic! Anyway, I think my point is that it might be less misleading to use the more general term "antimicrobial".

RomanSpa (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes RomanSpa it was put back to "antibiotic" because that's the word the source used, but after this fine explanation I'll be sure to support "antimicrobial". Zad68 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that is excellent reasoning. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)