Talk:Thuja occidentalis/Archive 1

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

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 discuss 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 discuss 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 wikipedia being undertaken this past week while IAR, is necessary to save Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) 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[1] 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support inclusion, cautiously One of the stated goals of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
ScienceApologist, is the principle of one-way linking a Wiki policy or did you just make it up and put it on your user page?Number48 (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. There are three issues here - (1) whether this is notable enough to warrant mention in this article, (2) if it is notable enough, how we can address it in a manner that's consistent with NPOV, and (3) if we can find a reliable source.
    (1) WP:PLANTS seeks to includes "uses" among its goals for inclusion of information in the article. But we don't include every use, only ones that we, as editors, consider notable. As I mentioned at WT:PLANTS, we don't mention the OKC Memorial "Survivor Tree" in the American elm article, despite the fact that it's an extremely significant use of a tree. Is the homeopathic "use" of T. occidentalis notable enough for mention? It strikes me as non-notable fringe trivia. Napoleon is one of the leaders you can play in Civilization IV. That's notable enough for mention in the Civ IV article, but not in the Napoleon article. I see no evidence that this is a notable "use".
Guetarda, the Napoleon analogy is apt; I had used "The Sulphuric Acid article should mention the ingredients water and sulphur, and the Sulpher article should mention sulphuric acid because it's a main application, but the Water article should not even mention sulphuric acid." However, please note that the article on Napoleon probably does mention the leader choic in Civ. But Civ is substantially more popular than homeopathy (maybe). Pete St.John (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. (2) Asserting that T. occidentalis is "used" in homeopathic "remedies" is embrace of a pretty wacky fringe POV. There is no way that we can endorse "water memory" in Wikipedia. We can't assert that it exists. More importantly, saying that it is "used" in homeopathic rememdies embraces a fiction. The Fisher and Scott article mentions the existence of something called "Thuja occidentalis (30cH)" (among the 30 homeopathic "remedies" that they may or may not have used...they never bother to specify that in the paper...it's a secret) If I read it correctly, a 30CH preparation is a 60-fold dilution. A 1 molar solution has 6 x 1023 molecules of (something) per litre. Dilute is 23-fold and you have 6 molecules. Now dilute it another 37-fold. That's 6 molecules in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres, assuming you started with a 1 molar solution. If it were a 10 M solution, it would be 60 instead of 6. Yes, homeopaths claim that this is a "thuja" extract, but that isn't an assertion that Wikipedia can make.
    (3) Since it's pretty clear that T. occidentalis isn't present in any of these "remedies", can we find a reliable source for the assertion that it's used in these remedies? The Naser et al. paper doesn't address the use of T. occidentalis in homeopathy - it just makes a comment in passing that it is "used in homeopathy and evidence-based phytotherapy". They don't critically evaluate the statement, they don't talk about homeopathy - they talk about the actual biological activity of T. occidentalis extract. The paper isn't a peer reviewed reference to support the use of T. occidentalis in homeopathic remedies. By using the name Thuja occidentalis, the paper is also expressing an opinion about the placement of this species in the genus Thuja, right? At least the placement of T. occidentalis in the genus Thuja is uncontroversial. Peer review doesn't magically convey reliability for every statement in a paper - the basis of the paper is in the statements in which the authors (and reviewers) have something vested. The Fisher and Scott similarly has passing reference to something called "Thuja occidentalis (30cH)", but again, calling that a T. occidentalis "extract" is clearly incorrect.
    So as it stands, there are no reliable sources, and no discussion of whether this is a notable enough bit of trivia to include in this article. If we satisfy those two, then we need to think about an NPOV way to describe this assertion. Once we have a reliable source, we can think about how to report what they say, per NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Some lower dilution homeopathic preparations contain plant material in them. So a statement that says "Thuja is used as a starting material in making homeopathic preparations of Thuja, through a series of dilutions. In higher dilution preparations, no Thuja remains in the final product" would make that clear. Anthon01 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support inclusion. We are not making a scientific point here. Merely mentioning an multiply well-sourced fact. Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I support inclusion as well. The sentence which I thought would fly with everyone is: According to the American Cancer Society, "Some practitioners of homeopathy recommend use of very dilute thuja, in pill or liquid form, for treating" a variety of conditions, though "available scientific evidence does not support these claims".[1] Here, we have a reliable source stating the homeopathic use and responding with the lack of scientific evidence. I believe including this sentence would provide a victory for all here. 1) It includes a known use of Thuja - information which would be interesting knowledge for a potential Thuja researcher using this Wikipedia article. 2) It "weights" the information by grounding it with the scientific take on it. 3) It is succinct, thus not giving it to much undue weight. 4) It comes from a reliable source. What do we think? Is this an acceptable compromise which will satisfy all parties in some respect? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nope. ACS is not an authority on plants. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree that the minimum bar for a reliable sources need to be set so astronomically high so as that the only acceptable source for inclusion is from one that is an authority on plants. (BTW, many homeopathic sources are by the nature of their practice authorities on plants.) Regardless, let me ask you this, would a book specifically about the forestry of Minnesota (a land where the tree grows natively), published specifically for the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, satisfy your lofty requirement? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Very dilute, meaning not a single molecule in solution? So, the ACS is recommending water to treat cancer. Cool. Damn pharmaceutical industry has been ripping us off for years, I suppose. NOT. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    What are your responding to? ACS is not recommending homeopathy. Read it closer. Regardless, I am now asking if the bar which SA has set so unfairly high would be met by a book about Minnesota forestry mentioning the homeopathic use of Thuja. Would it? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently ScienceApologist is the only source on the matter, so I don't really see the point in arguing with him anymore. This reminds me of some user who claimed that Kudzu wasn't an invasive plant and that every source saying so was bias and unreliable. Ridiculous. One might be able to argue that it shouldn't be included for reasons of undue weight, but the pile of sources everyone has amassed are clearly adequate from a reliability standpoint. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion - The Natural History Museum botany department has undertaken a project called "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy"[2] [3] If a body such as the NHM has no problem with the notability of homeopathy to botany then why should Wikipedia.Number48 (talk) 09:37, 26 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)
And your point is what? Maybe you deserved it. 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)
  • 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 Wikipedia '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)
Why as the off-topic comment placed below my RfC response? I didn't say or imply this is a vote, I didn't say or imply it is binding and I certainly didn't say or imply that there exists a "plot by the alliance of evil scientists to censor all homeopathy". Please stop disrupting the RfC process with these pointless non sequiturs. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Adding a big bold support can be easily misinterpreted as vote. I was also referring to the differing standards of inclusion, and the general misinterpretation of why some editors are currently opposing the insertion. Jefffire (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Persisting in mischaracterizing my comments after I've specifically addressed your incorrect and false assumptions could only be considered disruption however. Please stop. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are literally tens of thousands of substances, plant and animal and inorganic, that could potentially have some mention of homeopathy in them. This would violate WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a tool to promote pseudoscience and nonsense. We could choose the 10 or 15 most prominent homeopathic remedies and include a note on their homeopathic use, TOGETHER with a prominent disclaimer stating that homeopathy is pure nonsense and pseudoscience and complete garbage.--17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)
    Comment: The disclaimer would violate WP:NDA - which admittedly is part of the MoS, not a policy as is NPOV. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    What I think Filll means to say is that we need to make sure people realize that the "use" of a substance in homeopathy usually does not mean any of the substance is present. It's like saying that intelligent design is not science, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, I appreciate the correction. In that case, may I suggest to Filll that he avoid use of the word "disclaimer" as I would imagine others would make the same error in understanding I made - that a separate disclaimer was intended, not that phrasing be carefully constructed so as to avoid inaccuracies, which seems to be what was meant. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Some lower dilution homeopathic preparations contain plant material in them. So a statement that says "Thuja is used as a starting material in making homeopathic preparations of Thuja, through a series of dilutions. In higher dilution preparations, no Thuja remains in the final product" would make that clear. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nitpicky, but since we haven't even established a threshhold for inclusion we can let this slide. Do we even have any sources about which remedies are the best-sellers in homeopathy for example? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not sure what you mean. "Nitpicky" and "Let that slide" Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    How high a bar are you setting for that source? Anthon01 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably higher than yours, but let's see the source first. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going on a wild goose chase. Set the standard and I will provide it. Otherwise I run the risk of you vetoing every source I provide. Anthon01 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Anthon01 that the minimum bar for a reliable sources need not be set so astronomically high so as that the only acceptable source for inclusion is from one that is an authority on plants. (BTW, many homeopathic sources are by the nature of their practice authorities on plants.) Regardless, let me ask you this, ScienceApologist, would a book specifically about the forestry of Minnesota (a land where the tree grows natively), published specifically for the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, satisfy your lofty requirement? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends. If the source intentionally includes homeopathy claims for the sake of homeopathy claims then no. If the source, however, asserts a prominence to homeopathy (e.g. "These damnable homeopaths are cutting down all our trees!") then yes. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What if it just mentions it as a factoid about Thuja. IOW, in a short paragraph about the uses of Thuja it reads, "It is also used in homeopathic practice." -- Levine2112 discuss 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's just a trivial factoid. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? If it is was so trivial, why was it included in this authoritative book? Is the trivia assertion just your opinion or is there a way to determine what is trivia and what is not? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion: There is a signifcant amount of homeopathic Thuja that is purchased today is in "low potencies," that is, in material doses, often from mother tincture to 12X. The fact that medical professionals who prescribe homeopathic Thuja in material doses and in beyond Avogadro's number doses, this information should be a part of this article. These are simple and accurate facts. How and why this plant is prescribed is an important part of an encyclopedia. Perhaps the solution is to not claim that it is "curative" for this or that but simply that it is "prescribed for" this or that. Dana Ullman Talk 03:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to vote

You cannot vote on NPOV. It is what it is, and discussing homeopathy is POV, since it is a fringe theory. Therefore, of all of the information on Thuja, giving undue weight to that fringe therapy, and it should not be discussed. In fact, I would posit that not a single molecule of Thuja extract ends up in a homeopathic solution; by the logic here, the article on glass should contain a homeopathy section, because glass, being the typical container for diluting homeopathic solutions, will contribute more molecules to the solution than any plant extract. Thus, I refuse to vote on removing NPOV from this article, irrespective of the Homeopathy believers herein. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, discussing homeopathy is not intrinsically POV, any more than discussing Oxymoron or Fallacy. Promoting homeopathy as science would be, IMO, POV. Your comment strikes me as not sincere. Pete St.John (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I am not a believer in homeopathy. I am however a believer in Wikipedia and that it should include, with due weight given, all interesting and relevant information which can be verified to a reliable source. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All? No. All notable? Yes. In the appropriate article, as NPOV#Undue is policy. This reminds me of the people who kept wanting to add the trivia that Richard Dawkins was portrayed in the SouthPark episode Go God Go. That belonged in the SouthPark or episode article, certainlynot in the Dawkins article. In this case, its even worse, because it isn't just trivia, its trivia about a fringe pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is not trivial. Or at least I don't recognize it as such. Please explain why you feel it is trivia - not why you think it is fringe or pseudoscientific - but why you think it is trivia. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are we even having this damned argument? Are NPOV and undue weight abstrusely written? Are WP:V and WP:RS? No, none are abstruse. KC already explained the only parameters under which this tripe can be included. So sad that a number of editors either disliked her answer or simply failed to comprehend it. The human mind has much promise: sadly that promise is rarely attained. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me try. I could make an almost infinitely long article about Thuja. I could plot exactly where every living and previously living Thuja plant is growing, and list them all in a table. I could track down parameters of each plant, such as size, weight, age, color, etc. I could list every single person who has ever ingested Thuja. I could fill literally millions of pages with information about Thuja. But at some point, the information is not so interesting or useful.

Now lets suppose there are 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or 500,000 substances with articles on Wikipedia which are used in preparing Homeopathic medications. Should they all have a section on their homeopathic use? What about use in remedies made hundreds if not thousands of years ago by medicine men? One could quickly clog Wikipedia with trivia and minutae of this sort, you have to admit.

But I do not want to be overly harsh, so I suggest a compromise. Look at the list of all homeopathic remedies. Pick the 10 or 15 most important or most popular. Peter Morrell can help you since he is a world expert. Then in each of those 10 or 15 articles, include a section on homeopathic use. And a brief discussion (not disclaimer sorry) about how homeopathy has zero scientific support and zero evidence for its value in the medical literature, to satisfy NPOV. And then you are done. DONE Get it? No tantrums. No fighting. No biching. No whining. DONE.--Filll (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think we might use the American Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers to decide what the most lucrative homeopathic remedies are. Perhaps we should start by writing the List of homeopathic remedies article that everyone agrees is a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, KC said that if thuja is "a primary herb used in homeopathy" then it could be included. Given that, now please do a Google Search for "thuja homeopathic" and behold the 40,000+ results. This is not some minor topic or herb used in homeopathy. This is used in remedies purported to treat a large amount of ailments. Prominence is all but obvious. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Google searches do not serve to establish prominence. reliable sources do. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fill, how about instead of 10 to 15, instead we shoot for the top 250? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
250?!?! Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is "not a believer in Homeopathy", you certainly are aggressively promoting it. Two hundred and fifty would be the number I would expect to get in some sort of homeopathic manual. Wikipedia is not a homeopathic manual. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aggressively promoting it. I am merely defending the right for homeopathic knowledge be included to Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're confused - the Homeopathy article is elsewhere. This is an article about a plant. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A plant with a homeopathic usage, but how would a researcher of this plant learn about this if we are actively suppressing such knowledge? Think about it from the reader's perspective. Why wouldn't we want a reader to know this information? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A homeopathy researcher would start with Homeopathy, and find lists of ingredients there (among other things, then go to the poison, which would link to the tree as a source. Presumably about zero percent of people who go to the tree, because they are curious about the tree, would be interested in the homeopathic application. We aren't suppressing the information, we prefer it in the appropriate articles. That said, if there were a List of Homeopathic Ingredients Article, which listed Thuja, I wouldn't mind a link to that list from the references section here. Pete St.John (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Zero percent" is your presumption. I agree that if we had a List of Homeopathic Ingredients, we should provide a link to that. But in lieu of that, a general researcher of Thuja, would have no way of learning its popular use as a homeopathic remedy. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Sources outside of homeopathy that care to mention homeopathic thuja?

  • Academic botany books
  • Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded Medical journals [4]
  • University of Marland Medical Center
  • Warts -- for warts of any location except plantar. [5]
  • Prostatitis - specifically if there is a forked stream of urine [6]
  • Belladonna -- for seizures that occur in individuals with a high fever [7]
  • Lupus - Thuja occidentalis - [8]
  • Lyme - [9]*
  • Whitman College - (Top ranked) Enviro studies dept.[10]
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - When the prostate is enlarged - [11]
Anthon01 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Um ALL plants have homeopathic usage, just about. Every single one. And it is WP:UNDUE weight for us to note that on every single plant article on Wikipedia. Then we would have to do it for every single mineral article on Wikipedia. And many chemical articles on Wikipedia. And on many animal articles on Wikipedia. And so on. So things would quickly get out of hand. The more appropriate answer is to pick a small handful of very notable homeopathic remedies and note it in their individual articles, ALONG with a description that says basically "according to science, homeopathy is crap". As ScienceApologist notes above, one might also someplace on Wikipedia have a list of few dozen common homeopathic remedies with links if you felt so inclined to compile one. But to pollute at will and egregiously every single plant, animal, mineral and chemical article on Wikipedia with advertising for a pseudoscience is just beyond the pale. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A shortlist of the most commonly used homeopathics is fine, and remedies mentioned in botanical sources. BTW, is there a remedy for potty mouth ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:UNDUE applies cross articles such as Filll is suggesting. Nor do I consider putting well-sourced information on articles to be "polluting". -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether you believe it or not, UNDUE applies to all articles with more than one "view". I'm not sure how many thousand articles that is, but it applies across them all. And whether well sourced information is relevant to an article matters - I can source the heck out of Dawkins being portrayed in Go God Go, but it still doesn't belong in the Dawkins article. I can source the heck out of Michael Jackson's kid being called "Blanket" but that doesn't belong in the Blanket article. I can source the heck out of Zappa naming one of his kids "Moon Unit" but again, that doesn't belong in the Moon article, nor the Unit article. Just because you can source something doesn't mean you can put it in inappropriate articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, UNDUE applies to minority viewpoints. That Thuja occ is used as a homeopathic remedy is not a minority viewpoint. It's actually widely used in several homeopathic remedies (as my research this week has led me to discover). That it is an effective remedy for this or that IS a minority viewpoint. We are not saying that. I fail to see the comparison with South Park. Sorry. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide source for Michael Jackson's kid being called "Blanket?" Just kidding.;-) You analogy doesn't apply as at least some of the sources provided are botany sources. Anthon01 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the use of plants in medicines has a millennia long tradition, and that alone justifies inclusion. Anthon01 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tendentitious, tortuous irrelevant argumentation.--Filll (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that UNDUE applies for all articles, but I also know that it's a gross exaggeration to say that every plant is used in homeopathy. Given the vast number of plant species in the world, the amount used in homeopathy is certainly well below 1%. Given that, I do not feel that mentioning homeopathic usage in this select less than 1% of articles is giving undue weight to the subject at all. I feel that people that don't know enough about plants are making false assumptions about the extent of species used in homeopathy. A much higher percentage of plants are utilised in Western scientific medicine than in homeopathy, and I would certianly mention these drugs in any plants article where relevant. Of course homeopathy is a pseudoscience, but it is notable enough and there are enough references to support its inclusions into select articles. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE belief with no scientific or medical support whatsoever. So to turn Wikipedia into some sort of document describing every single homeopathic remedy ever developed on planet earth is ludicrous. It is a backdoor way to promote pseudoscience. This will not fly. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider such a view highly non neutral. There is no reason why well sourced, third party information that does no give undue weight to a subject should be excluded from wikipedia. It seems that there is an obvious bias involved when you attempt to limit the number of times a pseudoscience is mentioned. If floras and other professional scientific species accounts (which are much less extensive than wikipedia articles I might add) can include such information, and given that no guidelines are broken, I see no reason why it should be hidden from the public here. FRINGE says: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight...However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." As I pointed out above, the weight is not undue. This is not to "promote" anything. Everyone involved in this argument (at least initially) thinks homeopathy is nothing but a pseudoscience. There is not a hidden agenda, other than to be a source of information. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all information is relevant or encyclopedic. Read the whole page before you start venting. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not all information is relevant. I and several other members of the plants project find this small piece of information to be notable, however. NOTABILITY states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is clearly fulfilled as far as I can see. How do you disagree with this? Saying I haven't read the page (which I have) or that I am "venting" (which is bordering on a personal attack), does not further your argument, but is rather an unconstructive ad hominem remark. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Much has been made about "turning Wikipedia into some sort of document describing every single homeopathic remedy ever developed on planet earth". If all this means is one brief sentence per article saying, where appropriate reliable sources can be found, "X is used in homeopathy", then that would almost be the definition of what a comprehensive encyclopedia should do. We are not talking here about overwhelming any given article with paragraph after paragraph about homeopathy. We are talking about the addition of a single unobtrusive sentence detailing a notable fact, as shown by reliable sources. I fail to see the problem.Number48 (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we add a one sentence mention on every plant article for its used in native American medicine, then one on how its present in the lead character of a movie's garden, then another for how its been planted by Slough local council, and so on until every article is nothing but exceedingly minor trivia. It is required that the prominence be established first to prevent silliness like that. Jefffire (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As expected, you completely ignore a major part of the whole argument. If as lofty a scientific body as the Natural History Museum (the appropriate reliable source above) considers homeopathy notable enough to botany to have its botany department carry out a project called "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy" then it is notable enough for botanical articles in Wiki. I doubt very much whether the NHM would run a project called "Plants planted by Slough council". I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this point. Number48 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire: Your argument is "it should be all or nothing." You think adding some means adding them all, so lets add none. Local council - NO. Native American - absolutely Yes - if a reliable source is provided, as the history of the plant is important, and it would make the article more interesting. Don't you think information like that that is easily available to the Pharmas should also be as easily available to the public? As for prominence for Thuja, I did that in all the links from mainstream sources I provided above. Anthon01 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fairly well established that my position is that only things which we can establish as prominent go in, if they cannot then they stay out. I'm fairly confident that once the push for near universal mentions goes away we'll be able to establish which plants warrant mentions of their homeopathic uses. Jefffire (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So Jefffire, do you accept that since it appears on the Natural History Museum's list of "plants and fungi used in homeopathy" and given all the other sources which support this uncontentious fact, we have established the botanical prominence sufficiently to warrant inclusion here.Number48 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what is your criteria for establishing prominence? Would you agree that we have done that with Thuja? Anthon01 (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
On the specifics of this case, I am currently undecided. The issue can wait until it is accepted that universal mentionings are inappropriate. Jefffire (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what Jefffire and many others are stating, if I am not mistaken, is that we need a system for doing this. Doing it willynilly is not reasonable, since we will end up with essentially the "all" option. We need to start with a list of the most important homeopathic remedies. Then agree on which of those are notable enough to get a sentence in their individual articles that their homeopathic use is notable. Then do it, of course noting for NPOV purposes that the remedies are diluted so far that there are no molecules of the plant or mineral or other substance left in the remedy after preparation.--Filll (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

Actually what Jefffire and many others are stating, if I am not mistaken, is that we need a system for doing this. Doing it willynilly is not reasonable, since we will end up with essentially the "all" solution. We need to start with a list of the most important homeopathic remedies. Then agree on which of those are notable enough to get a sentence in their individual articles that their homeopathic use is notable. Then do it, of course noting for NPOV purposes that the remedies are diluted so far that there are no molecules of the plant or mineral or other substance left in the remedy after preparation.--Filll (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We weren't missing the point since we had just asked for Jefffire's view on exactly that. My view is, appearance on the Natural History Museum database of plants used in homeopathy clearly makes the grade.Number48 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry you are missing the point. This has to be done in an organized coordinated fashion. Just finding one plant in one reference is willynilly.--Filll (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, the database lists far more than one plant. The general point being: clear reference in a scientifically respected botanical source = sufficient botanical prominence for inclusion in Wiki botanical articles.Number48 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one listing in a highly respected, botany-related uber-RS is not enough? Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that if we could develop a system it would be acceptable. Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


I am suggesting, and others above me also are suggesting, that we consider Wikipedia as a whole, not just one article like this one.--Filll (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And I am responding by suggesting that as a general rule: clear reference in a scientifically respected botanical source = sufficient botanical prominence for inclusion in Wiki botanical articles.Number48 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia plant pages or wikipedia as a whole? Meaning if we set an agreed upon standard for inclusion then that would work across the plant pages. Anthon01 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we follow the suggestions of ScienceApologist and others above, for all of Wikipedia, including plants. (1) We compile a list of all notable homeopathic remedies (2) We introduce one-way links. (3) We pick 10 or 15 of the most prominent (4) We put short one or two sentence notes in the articles of those prominent remedies, together with a statement saying that the remedy after preparation will be unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original substance and no scientific or medical evidence has ever been presented supporting its efficacy. (5) Then you are done. Otherwise, you will have a section in silver and copper and calcium and thousands of minerals and thousands of plants and thousands of animals etc. And it will be inappropriate and unencyclopedic. --Filll (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tossing out a couple of ?s and an objection: What happened to the idea of a Homeopathic plant list article? Is anyone getting that started? Has anyone considered a category (Plants used in homeopathy)? I disagree with Filll's standards for inclusion, above, because he's on the wrong end of the stick. To include a mention of homeopathy in a plant article, the plant should be notable for its use in homeopathy, not notable within homeopathy - the second would warrant an inclusion in the homeopathy article, not the plant article. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually KC has hit on an important point. I think for our list of 10 or 15 prominent remedies, they have to be BOTH; notable in homeopathy and notable as uses for the substance (whether plant, mineral, animal etc).--Filll (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to understand your desire to place a numerical figure on how many plants are allowed to be mentioned in conjunction with their use in homeopathy. There will be as many as are notable for their use in homeopathy while not giving undue weight. Restricting it to "10 or 15" is clearly non-neutral. It would be nearly the same as saying "I don't agree with creationism, so we can only mention X number of prominent creationist groups, regardless of how many are actually prominent". A list sounds like a fair starting point. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The exact number is obviously not important (I did not give an exact number; I said 10 to 15 but of course this is a rough order of magnitude which is not set in stone). To figure out exactly what should be done, a careful evaluation should be followed, as suggested above. And conclusions reached by consensus and according to the rules of Wikipedia.

The one thing that homeopathy supporters and promoters have to understand; Wikipedia is not the place to promote Homeopathy. Pro-science and allopathic medicine advocates will not just stand aside and let Homeopathy promoters run rampant on Wikipedia and write whatever nonsense they want to promote their profession or beliefs, which have no evidence.--Filll (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, absolutely no one taking part in the argument is a "homeopathy supporter". The people that opened the RfC are all good scientists from the plants project. Wikipedia is also not the place to push an anti-pseudoscience agenda to the point where you are being non neutral concerning its mere mention. I support your desire to make sure that Wikipedia does not give undue weight or false information concerning pseudoscience, but information about its existence must not be wiped away when it is relevant. The information which is wished to be included about homeopathy is well sourced in reliable, independent sources. No one likes being accused of something they're not, so please stop making these appeals to stop the non-existent (at least here) promoters of homeopathy and pseudoscience. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
DJLayton is spot on. Nobody has made any claims for homeopathy's legitimacy and virtually everyone involved has roundly condemned it. Nonetheless, it exists, and a quick google will demonstrate its prominence. It is totally antagonistic to Wiki's aims to censor factual information in the way that is being suggested here.Number48 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Read the responses above. Come on, lets be reasonable and not turn this into a war.--Filll (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the responses above. I feel that everyone is trying to be reasonable. If we don't understand, perhaps you should help us to understand your point rather than telling us that we aren't getting it. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Filll, above you wrote, "Pro-science and allopathic medicine advocates will not just stand aside and let Homeopathy promoters run rampant on Wikipedia and write whatever nonsense they want to promote their profession or beliefs, which have no evidence". If that was not meant to refer to people here then was the point of writing it. If it was meant to refer to people here then it is a false and insulting attack on the motives of the editors here who support inclusion but who have all made clear their lack of support for homeopathy's efficacy. It also falsely portrays the kind of content those editors are trying to include (i.e., "which have no evidence") because that content is the essentially neutral content that "substance X is used in homeopathy" - an uncontentious fact that an abundance of sources has been provided for. As such, it appears to be you who misunderstands the nature of the dispute here in two ways, you misunderstand who you are arguing with (i.e. not promoters of homeopathy), and you misunderstand what we are trying to say (i.e., we have all the evidence we need and more). Number48 (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I have stated my position several times. KillerChihuahua and ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin and several others have stated a similar position. I apologize if I offended anyone or appeared uncivil. I do not mean to use some uncivil phrase like "homeopathy promoters" or even possibly "homeopathy proponents" or "homeopathy supporters" since I have been informed that those are akin to the worst possible curses and invective and expletives. I see some who might fall in that category on these pages based on their previous statements, but it would be uncivil for me to identify them. I apologize but since we are tied into WP:NPA and WP:AGF knots, I have to speak very cryptically, and use increasingly vague and coded language.--Filll (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept that you didn't mean anything negative by your comments, but I disagree that anyone on this page could possibly be called any of those things you mention above. I do not support homeopathy, I do not intend to promote it, nor am I proponent of it. What I am is a proponent/supporter of including the information about Thuja occidentalis's use in homeopathy. Vast difference in meaning. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I do not mean to offend you or be uncivil. And I was not referring to you. I still maintain that what we suggested above is not a bad plan and compromise.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>:Oh, I wasn't offended, but I did want to correct you (if you were mistaken on my position) and engage in a bit of semantics ;-) Otherwise I just wanted to accurately describe my position if it had been forgotten. I appreciate the compromise offer and it is a good faith measure to moving toward consensus. I'm still mulling it over, but I'm still not wholly convinced this type of information in articles, properly sourced and of a certain notability as I believe this case represents, is a bad thing or violating NPOV policy. I see one main concern that the compromise addresses is the number of pages that would contain information such as we propose here, that including such information on a large number of pages would turn Wikipedia into a POV-pushing machine telling people which plants are curative in homeopathy remedies. I think that's a vast mischaracterization of what's going on here. I, in all good faith, assume the editors here would not violate the policies and guidelines we've rambled on here for days if consensus was reached that such information is notable, reliably sourced, and appropriate in the plant articles. I highly doubt anyone here would immediately go off to include that information in as many articles that they could find. So I see no reason to limit the number of articles that could include this type of information. Let me summarize: As long as information on how the plant is used in homeopathy is reliably sourced, notable with respect to the plant article, and stated in a NPOV fashion as proposed above several times (and I do believe such a statement, carefully worded, is NPOV), I see no problem with including that information. Let me qualify this by stating I understand your hesitation and desire to nip the problem in the bud; I wouldn't want someone running around adding information that wasn't notable or well-sourced. But I don't think that's a valid reason for derailing any mention of homeopathy on plant articles outside of an arbitrary number of articles. Hope this wasn't too long-winded. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Filll's point, we have no need to compile another list, because the Natural History Museum has already done that for us. So, I ask again, do you consider the NHM's database of "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy" to be a solid scientific source which clearly demonstrates botanical significance to a degree more than adequate for inclusion in Wiki?Number48 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the purpose of Wikipedia was to reproduce verbatim everything that was at the Natural History Museum website or any other list that might be found on the internet and deemed suitably notable. Intereting. I apologize if this is offensive or deemed uncivil in any way; it was not intended in that way.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only uncivil, if at all, because of the total refusal to answer the question which is a good faith attempt to identify the suitable source that has been requested above, and because of the clear mischaracterisation of the purpose of my proposal. So, I will restate: Wiki is an encyclopedia, as such it could do worse than reflect (not necessarily reproduce verbatim) what authoritative sources say. In my view the NHM's database of plants used in homeopathy is a reputable source of the highest order and therefore wholly suitable as a source for Wiki botanical articles. Do you agree?Number48 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so now my responding to questions and other assorted behavior that I perceive as WP:POINTy badgering is uncivil. Ok fair enough. Point taken. Then I will cease to be uncivil and recuse myself from this discussion. I apologize if this post was uncivil or offensive to anyone in any way and I apologize to anyone who was offended by this post.--Filll (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am simply asking if you think the NHM database fulfills the requirement for use as the list you requested for your compromise. Your refusal to answer that question is beginning to make it look like your suggested compromise was only a intended as a means of prolonging the discussion here indefinitely so that we could, in fact, never reach agreement. I mean, how else were we going to compile a list except by using a source such as the one I suggest. I am sorry if this sounds offensive or uncivil, but given your continued refusal to respond to good faith attempts to suggest a list that would satisfy the first stage of your compromise "offer" it is hard for me to read this any other way.Number48 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I clearly cannot discuss things with you without offending you or being perceived as uncivil. I am not here to fight. Please discuss this with the others above. I am done since my good faith attempt to broker a compromise was spat back in my face visciously. I do not mean to offend anyone in any way or insult anyone or be uncivil to anyone and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my post in any way.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A clear good faith attempt to meet the requirements of the first part of your "good faith attempt to broker a compromise" has been made, and yet you continually refuse to address it. Instead you attack the motives of the users who made that attempt and accuse us of trying to "run rampant on Wikipedia and write whatever nonsense [we] want". So, I ask again, have you any objection to the NHM source as the basis for a list of plants used in Homeopathy?Number48 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to continue. You can wait for others that you have clashed with to reappear on this page and deal with them. I am done. I apologize if this post offended you or was perceived as uncivil by you in any way. --Filll (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I note your refusal once again to respond to the issues raised and conclude your attempt at compromise was never genuine. Thanks for your input, but non-genuine input is input we could do without. I apologize if this post offended you or was perceived as uncivil by you in any way. Number48 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I for one will say that I am currently weakly inclined to think that it is personally, but I am abstaining from putting my editorial weight behind it. I'm doing this because there are so many subsidiary debates raging at the current time that the atmosphere has become distinctly sour, and not conducive to working this out in a meaningful way. I think people need a chance to cool off and consider the matter and move away from entrenched positions. Till then the page should stay frozen till a reasonable debate has a chance to happen. 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefffire (talk • contribs)

Mind the 3RR

Folks, please stick to the discussion and refrain from editing the certain material under discussion. WP:3RR applies and I have noted at least two editors have come very close to reverting over the 3RR, though I do believe the spirit of the policy has already been broken. Please cool it. Let's let the RfC process work and see if we get any more outside views. Thanks. Rkitko (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and as one of the editors on 3RR I apologise. However, I have already suggested a general rule that where a scientific body as lofty as the Natural History Museum (according to Wiki, "the museum is a world-renowned centre of research, specialising in taxonomy, identification and conservation), deems homeopathy notable enough to botany to undertake a project entitled "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy" then Wiki can easily follow that lead and include the botanical information they deem notable. This suggestion has simply been ignored and the response has been to attack the motives of myself and other editors trying to take this discussion forward. The other response has been to ignore the talk page completely, edit war until the article is locked (as happened at Thuja and has now happened here) and then move on to disrupt other articles on Wiki in an identical fashion.
It should also be noted that a question was asked on the Wiki Project Plants talk page.[12] But when the "Plant" editors almost unanimously supported inclusion of the homeopathic information, that discussion was ignored and the gang of anti-homeopathy editors have not changed their tune one iota. On the other side of the debate, those interested in including the homeopathic information have produced source after source only to have those sources ridiculed [13] and then rejected for ever more ridiculous reasons. For example, the Natural History Museum database was rejected because it had an easy to use search function! [14] Number48 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really because it had an easy to use search function? I see. I do not claim that Thuja should never have a notation about homeopathy in it. But I suggest that we consider very strongly the compromise which was detailed above.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is a scientific, peer-reviewed journal that supplies a checklist of all plants used in homeopathy, which amounts to 801 (used only for numerical purposes- I realise it is a homepathy journal, but the British Natural History Museum has a similar list here). Currently about 287,655 plants have been named and about 350,000 are estimated to exist. This means that about .2% of plants are used in homeopathy. I would estimate that about 10% of the 801 would be notable enough (i.e. discussed extensively and in enough depth in reliable, independent sources) and important enough to merit a mention without giving undue weight, which would mean that at most 80 articles out of 287,655+ (assuming we had an article for every plant, which we will someday!), or .02% of plant articles would mention homeopathy. I tend to have problems with maths, so someone might want to check those figures ;) At any rate, my proposition is simple. If mentioning homeopathy in a given plant article does not break any policies or guidelines, it ought to be included. In this case no one on the opposing side has really convinced me of why, given the policies and guidelines of this project, homeopathy should not be mentioned in this article. If someone is aware of such a reason, please make it known clearly and preferably cite the specific section of the given policy or guideline that it violates and say how. Now it seems to me that the biggest concern on the behalf of those who oppose inclusion is that a mention will be promoting or supporting homeopathy. I suggest for this article we write something like "Although largely considered to be scientifically implausible, Thuja occidentalis is used in homeopathic remedies..." with any other brief, relevant and verifiable details following. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support with ample latitude given for additional reliable sources if found to incorporate more than 80 (basically, I fear that limiting the number is unnecessary when we follow other guidelines and policies like notability). Essentially, I don't want editors to keep track of those 80 and then, if an 81st is incorporated, have this entire discussion all over again. I realize the proposal wasn't for a limit of 80, but was guessing a number for illustrative purposes. I thought this should be articulated in case anyone misunderstands the proposal. I would also support a <ref> after the "implausible," because while we all agree to that here, a reference for the average reader who doesn't really know the difference between homeopathy and herbal remedies would be nice. --Rkitko (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable to me. The difficulty might come in identifying the most prominent homeopathic uses, but surely we could agree a method for this - alternatively, even if we went for all 800 we would still only be dealing with a small fraction of plant articles.Number48 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely unacceptable. We have a standard for inclusion: WP:WEIGHT. Establishing the prominence of homeopathy with regards to these plants is the name of the game. The wording presented also is a lie: there is no thuja occidentalis used in homeopathic remedies because the remedies dilute the plant out of the solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Grateful if you point to the relevant section of WP:WEIGHT as requested. We could also deal with the wording issue by saying "X is used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies".Number48 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Here and here are good places to learn about how undue weight is applied across the board. Since there are a lot of things used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies that are more important than these plants, this proposed wording is highly misleading. If (and that's a conditional I maintain we have not met) we could justify discussing the preparation at all we would have to say something like: "Homeopaths claim to use X, but dilute the substance so that it is no longer present in their remedies." in order to comply with verifiability standards. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
These are just your views of things. What has been requested is the specific part of Wiki policy that says that we cannot include reliably sourced information that is deemed relevant by appropriate authorities. Number48 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been around long enough to know that this is the consensus of the community of editors who utilize this policy. You are free to ignore me at your own peril, but such ignorance belies a whole slew of other Wikipedia policies. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I accounted for WP:WEIGHT and made it very clear that their prominence should be established. Could you please show us a particular sentence or paragraph of the policy that is being violated here- we've all be looking at it ad nauseum, so just linking the tutorial doesn't help. I also believe that your proposed disclaimer is excessive. When we wikilink to creationism or other fringe theories, we don't point out a list of things that are wrong with the theory when doing so. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, creationists aren't creating potions for people to take with claims that the potion has stuff in it that it actually doesn't. Apples and oranges. Please read my tutorials. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As previously discussed. Some lower dilution homeopathic preparations contain plant material in them. So a statement that says "Thuja is used as a starting material in making homeopathic preparations of Thuja, through a series of dilutions. In higher dilution preparations, no Thuja remains in the final product" would make that clear.
Our job is not to protect people from themselves. Furthermore your tutorials are not policy, the policies themselves are. Please point out what is being broken. If you can't do that than you are clearly in violation of WP:NPOV by biasing this process with your own agenda. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to read my tutorials, that's your problem. Don't complain that you haven't been explained the issues though. I've been around long enough and dealing with controversial issues long enough to know that this is how they are dealt with. You can also read WP:FRINGE for more on such ideas. You seem to forget in your grandstanding about my supposed problems that our job as editors is to write a verifiable encyclopedia and since we cannot verify that homeopaths do what they say they do, we can't go around claiming that's what they're doing. You seem to think you are agenda-free. I have news for you, NPOV is explicit that this is not the case. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't provided evidence that this proposition violates anything. I've read your tutorials, I was simply saying that they are not policy. I've also read WP:FRINGE and most everything else that applies to this case. The information to be included is most certianly verifiable. WP:V states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which this does. We are not verifying the validity of homeopathy, we are verifying that the plant is used, somehow or another, in preparing homeopathic remedies. What is the problem? DJLayton4 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment -- 801 species, 1700 names. Hmmmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
Is there something wrong with the different numbers? Many common names refer to a single species. At least that's the way I understood the text of the abstract. Rkitko (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
But you didn't cough up the $30 to read it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No, and I won't. I'd much rather travel to my local large university library and photocopy it there. --Rkitko (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the study itself is available here: Plants and fungi used in homeopathy. --- Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you getting at anyway Jim? Does this question its validity in any way? If they were referring to scientific names it would make sense too, considering the amount of synonyms the average plant has DJLayton4 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking a question. 1,700 accepted names? I thought taxonomy had been tightened up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The abstract states, "In total, some 801 species and approximately 1700 names have been checked.", which says nothing about validity of the other names. All it is saying is that they were determining the accepted names from the synonyms. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


If you have a relevant point to make Jim, please make it. This kind of oblique humming and hawing is contributing very little.Number48 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely unacceptable. First of all, the journal, Homeopathy, is hardly a reliable source, even though someone tried to make it seem so through the use of the Science Direct website. But let's assume that the journal somehow is neutral. Who cares if the plant is used in Homeopathy. The theory is patently unscientific, and frankly, less than 0 molecules of Thuja are going to end up in solution. So, by stating that it is used in homeopathy, without writing another homeopathic article stating that it is Quackery, is a violation of NPOV. Let's move on people. This is a plant, let's stick with the science of plants. Now, if the Wikiproject wants to create a template for this cruft, which clearly states Homeopathy is Quack medicine, I think I could get behind placing a small note that it is used in a Quack medicine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, some lower dilution homeopathic preparations contain plant material in them. So a statement that says "Thuja is used as a starting material in making homeopathic preparations of Thuja, through a series of dilutions. In higher dilution preparations, no Thuja remains in the final product" would make that clear. Anthon01 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Since its simply a checklist and I was only demonstrating scale, I think the fact that it's a homeopathic journal is unimportant. If anything they would have overestimated the number, in which case the percentage used in homeopathy is still small. I'm not trying to endorse homeopathy for the tenth time- all I wanted to show here is the percentage of plants used (or discarded in the process). The plant is still used in the preparation even if there isn't any left in the end- we're not here to discuss the validity of homeopathy. Please cite a specific part of wikipedia policy that is being broken by this proposal. What part of WP:NPOV is violated? DJLayton4 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot verify that the plant is used in preparation. That's a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
you appear to be confused about the what verify means here, this applies to sources for statements. Most statements in wikipedia are not "verified" just the sources for the claims. Hardyplants (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We verify that the plants are used in homeopathy in this way [15] Number48 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true. We've provided numerous reliable sources, all of which you claim unjustifiably to not be reliable. Perhaps we should start another section listing the sources and asking for people's opinions on their reliability, because ScienceApologist seems to have been the only dissenter thus far. If there is consensus on that would you be satisfied? DJLayton4 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there are other dissenters. Orangemarlin, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't even need the journal article since we have the NHM database which also lists around 800 "plants and fungi used in homeopathy".Number48 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Comment I am at least glad that my suggestion, with slightly different numbers, is getting attention, finally. Thank you. I believe we should be discussing this with our homeopathy expert, Peter Morrell to help us pick the most notable homeopathic remedies. I also think that we have to remember that not just plant materials are used in homeopathic remedies. I am not sure where the number should be set; as you can imagine, 80 seems a bit high to me, particularly when this will be inflated by alternative names and then many other materials, animal and mineral, used in homeopathic remedies will also get a section in their articles. I also agree with the form of the cautionary note suggested above. Also, the average person is often confused between homeopathic and herbal remedies, as noted above.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Progress! I'm glad that adding a cautionary note helped a little bit. I agree that many people are confused about herbal vs. homeopathic remedies, but we can only caution so much before we are straying from the subject matter and giving undue weight to protecting the reader from himself. Wikipedia is not meant to be a doctor, and there is a disclaimer for this, so I don't think we have to worry to much about harming the reader. Is there anything else that you can suggest for inclusion? DJLayton4 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Here is a scientific, peer-reviewed journal that supplies a checklist of all plants used in homeopathy, which amounts to 801." Please check your link. It doesn't point to anything of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the checklist.[16] I assume from the authors of the journal article that this is what they were talking about anyway.Number48 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What Guettarda means is that the journal is as far from being a reliable source as mens room graffiti. Jefffire (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's already been noted that we don't need that article, we have a perfectly reasonable source in the NHM database. Number48 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
While there is the obvious problem (since homeopathy is fringe pseudoscience, you'd take a journal dedicated to it with a very large grain of salt), I was talking about the fact that the link does not point to any database of 801 homeopathic uses of plants. The article doesn't talk about a database on uses, it talks about a database on experiments. So I'm not sure what DJ is talking about. With regards to the linked checklist - how are these supposed to be linked? I don't see any connection between the two. Guettarda (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, for some reason it took me to the wrong place initially. I don't see how the list can be used as support for "use in homeopathy". It's a nomenclatural checklist. It doesn't support the assertion that T. occidentalis is "used" in homeopathic "remedies". Rather, we have a reference that it's entirely absent from the homeopathic "remedy" known as "Thuja". Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article abstract says, "The imminent publication of a new checklist of all plant species used in homeopathic medicine is described and discussed." And since the article is written by Humphries and Bharatan - the same people who compiled the NHM database the link is obvious. As already noted about five times though, we don't need the article because we have the database.Number48 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If the authors of the nhm list are involved in a publication as crappy as this, then I am no longer inclined to think of their contributions to the nhm as being reliable. Jefffire (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to check this. Jefffire, are you now saying that a booklet/database published by the Natural History Museum, is not an acceptable source for Wiki? Number48 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not if it's written by quacks. Jefffire (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict>That's one of the most biased claims I've heard yet. When two respectable botanists publish a checklist in a homeopathy journal, it says absolutely nothing about their views on homeopathy other than they did the research to show which plants are used. They are scholars providing information. You all seem to be nothing more than censors with an agenda to hide the existence of homeopathy from the public as much as possible. Consensus will never be reached if we all can't be rational and reasonable with regards to what makes a source reliable. If you are saying that botanists don't know botany, then we have big problems. DJLayton4 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey -- they're just looking for a 'reliable' source. And the standard for 'reliable' is simple - if it mentions 'homeopathy' in any way - it is not 'reliable'. Or at least that's the argument as I understand it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly an acceptable source for the article below. Why don't you discuss it over there? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Scienceapologist, I just wanted to check. Have you now given up the "search engine" argument against this source?Number48 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear you're just trying to disrupt things now with silliness like that. Please stop, or if you've nothing constuctive to add, please leave. Number48 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from any further personal attacks. This is your last warning. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion of homeopathic remedies list

Might I suggest we move the discussion of what to list as a homeopathic remedy (which is irrelevant to this page) to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Final appeal to reason

I think we've already seen this, but here is a publication by two pharmacologists doing a thorough review of Thuja occidentalis. The journal is Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine . You can read about the journal here. It is scientific and peer-reviewed, the best possible source according to WP:VER. They mention that the is "widely used in homeopathy" a few times throughout. Just like is planned for this article, that is all that they do. They don't go on to explain why homeopathy is wrong, they don't explain that homeopathy is a psuedoscience, they don't explain that there are no molecules of the stuff after the dilutions, etc. Now, this is a perfectly reliable scientific publication. It's published by Oxford University Press, not some fringe publisher. It is pure science, and there is no pseudoscience in it to speak of. If I'm wrong, please find a passage that violates the principals of science. Given this journal, we clearly don't have a problem with WP:FRINGE or WP:VER since it is from a third party, scientific, peer-reviewed journal. If everyone can't agree on that than I'm at a loss. If someone disagrees, please please give a specific reason why. Just saying "it violates WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV is meaningless unless you say what about it is being broken. DJLayton4 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad choice for a journal because a CAM journal has a definitive agenda that will cloud the neutral evaluation of the subject (see WP:REDFLAG). The people writing this article are practicing homeopaths and so are not reliable for establishing the prominence of homeopathy with respect to the plant properly. They would be reliable sources for describing what homeopaths believe on a homeopathic page, but the principle of one-way linking says that we should not be inserting their POV on this page unless we find that it is prominent in the study of this subject (which is the plant, not homeopathy). It is, simply, not a reliable source for this claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is your evidence for these claims? I see nothing suggesting they are "practising homeopaths" or that this journal has an agenda, other than to examine traditional medicene through the lens of science. DJLayton4 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co is a homeopathy manufacturing company out of Germany. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Where in Wikipedia policy can I find this 'principle of one-way linking' ? Dlabtot (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's only found in guidelines as referred to in WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not true. WP:FRINGE doesn't say anything about 'one-way linking'. Dlabtot (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. Don't be so literal. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)\
Making false statements such as this doesn't really achieve anything. Dlabtot (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've summarized my thoughts on the matter here. I don't expect to get involved in this discussion again for quite a long while. MrDarwin (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect no argument will suffice. I will mention that a CAM journal being used to source an obvious claim is adequate for the purposes we are stating. You don't need a RCTs to confirm that a plant is being used as a mother tincture to make a homeopathic preparation. IMO, the arguments for exclusion are just wililawyering in order to keep information about homeopathy out of WP. Anthon01 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe sources do not belong sourcing mainstream articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned you

If you will recall above, I tried to broker a compromise for you. I tried and tried. Except, you did not want a compromise. You wanted to do whatever you wanted to do, since you WP:OWNed Wikipedia. You wanted to put hundreds or thousands of mini homeopathy articles on Wikipedia and get your way.

So I said you can deal with me, or others like ScienceApologist. SA and I have had our problems, but he is basically correct. SA takes a very hardline.

Or you can deal with KillerChihuahua. KC takes a very very hardline. And many others. But ooh no, you didn't want to cooperate with me. You wanted to bully me and get your own way. No compromise. No way, not for you. So much for WP:AGF.

So aren't you glad you spat back my offer to be helpful and try to forget a compromise back in my face?

It saddens me, but I tried. You have to compromise, work by consensus, and work together. Fighting will get you nowhere.

Just a little lesson for the future. --Filll (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Things my garden center didn't tell me

My local garden center didn't tell me that, when diluted with water to a 10M solution, Thuja occidentalis became a cure for some sort of disease. They did tell me, though, that when planted in the ground and fed water through its roots, Thuja occidentalis becomes an attractive hedge. They also told me to plant it in full sun to light shade, and that it would grow to about 12-15 feet tall and 6-8 feet wide. (That turns out to be a good choice for my landscape, because planting another spruce tree would have been too tall for the power lines that I planted it under.)

Either my garden center is participating in a conspiracy to suppress the truth about Thuja occidentalis, or this article is giving too much weight to the medicinal nature of the plant. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read the article you will see that virtually everything your garden centre told you is already included. What some of us are wondering, is why the Natural history Museum is considered less important and a less reliable source than your garden centre? We are wondering this because the things the Natural history Museum told us about Thuja occidentalis are currently being censored.Number48 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not the Natural History Museum. That's a search engine that the Natural History Museum has dumped in sources without vetting them for reliability. We've discussed this before. It's a fine source for what homeopaths believe, but it doesn't assert the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the Natural History Museum. It is copyrighted to the Natural History Museum. The database is entirely the Natural History Museum's database which was the result of the Natural History Museum's botany project to bring up to date the names of plants and fungi used in homeopathy. If you check out the site you'll even find the particular people from the NHM who did the work along with the opportunity to purchase the said list from the Natural History Museum's publications.Number48 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


There is an easy way to settle this. I have access to the senior management of the National History Museum through personal contacts, and I will ask them the official scientific position of the National History Museum on homeopathy and homeopathic remedies and their recommendations for prescribed homeopathic materials and their therapeutic actions and efficacy.--Filll (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Homeopathy is quackery, and I'd guess that's the almost unanimous opinion of the participants in this discussion, but the issue here is not whether or not homeopathy is quackery but whether or not to mention the use of this plant in homeopathy. Dlabtot (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd just want to mention, Dlabtot, that while some practice of homeopathy is indeed quackery, and some is fraud, some is sincere (probably clinging to outmoded views, which lots of people do). So I prefer terms like "pseuodoscience" so as to not necessarily denote mere foolishness. Let me give an example: is it possible to add something, X, to a substance Y, dilute it until there is none of X left, but the solution is not the same as before? No longer pure Y? yes you can! Examples include adding a virus to a human: the immune system gets rid of all the virus, the human is still sick (or weak). He's changed even after all of the additive has been removed. Another example: catalysts. You can add a catalyst to a mixture, then remove all of the catalyst, and the substance is different from what it was before. So there are examples of this "homeopathic effect" in biology and in chemistry. The actual instances of use of that type of process in homeopathy, as they are known to be practiced, are all bunk, yes. But delineating when and how that general process works was not so obvious in the 19th century, and still confuses plenty of people now. So does quantuum chromodynamics and general relativity and lots of things, I know because they confuse me too. There's education to be produced here, we want light, not heat. Pete St.John (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue what you are talking about, but whatever it is, it's clearly completely off-topic to the discussion of the Thuja occidentalis article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the content, Dlabtot. I was trying to say that calling homeopathy "quackery" is unnecessarily uncivil. I'm not objecting to it; knock yourselves out if you want. You guys have all been fighting over terminology for a long time, but really it's not necessary or useful to be uncivil. So the topic is debating towards consensus, which benefits from mutual respect, or the mere appearce of mutual toleration, even when one side is misguided by quackery, fraud, ignorance, loyalty, fear, whatever. OK? Pete St.John (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a debate?

Does the article on Mercury give any information regarding it's uses in astrology? I would guess astrology has an equal number of sources, probably more followers, and espouses itself a science (similarly to homeopathy). Regardless of sources (reliable or otherwise), fringe theories should not be given undue weight. The number of followers isn't indicitive of whether or not a theory is fringe, but how science treats it. Science treats homeopathy, moreso than any other pseudoscience I'm aware of, as a fringe theory. Neutral point of view, specifically giving undue weight reigns supreme here. If certain compounds are used more than others in homeopathy, it belongs on the article about homeopathy. Justin chat 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said Justin.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the article on Mercury does mention its use in astrology right in the lead: The astronomical symbol for Mercury is a stylized version of the god’s head and winged hat atop his caduceus, an ancient astrological symbol.
And while we are making the comparison, let's look at another astrological article... how about Virgo? Note that Virgo has a disambiguation page with a link to the actual astrological article. However, let's look at the scientific article Virgo (constellation). A quick scan of the page reveals that there is a subsection named "Astrology". Just a brief sentence, but it is there.
A brief sentence is exactly what we are suggesting gets included in this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Levine, first, the reference to astrology in the Mercury article is historical. This isn't obvious to everyone by any means, but in fact, astrology, numerology, alchemy etc were all respectable scholarly efforts at various times, but dropped out as the sciences of astronomy, mathematics, and chemistry (respectively) were invented and promolgated. Newton wasn't nuts for studying alchemy, because chemistry was still being invented then; his work in mathematics was all scientific, because math had been a science for almost two thousand years by his day. Historical reference to astrology is a very different thing than reference to contemporary practice of astrology, which is fringe. Second, the term "Virgo" is used almost exclusively in reference to astrology (everyone sees it in the paper every day) so it's natural for the Virgo article to at least mention the astrological sign. That's not true for Thuja. That said, I don't think brief mention is undue weight, as I'm liberal about trivia, but I disagree that pages about ingredients need to mention homeopathic applications for navigational research, lists of ingredients should be on the homeopathy pages (but that's from discussion elsewhere). I'd vote to just let this go. Pete St.John (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I can explain why astrology is mentioned on those pages: there are mainstream articles written by non-astrologers that mention the relevance of astrology to the topic. There are no mainstream articles written by non-homeopathy advocates who mention the relevance of homeopathy to Thuja. It's that simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for those pesky botanists at the Natural History Museum, eh! Or these environmentalists [17] Number48 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Name the botantist in question. Remember, that's just a search engine. Also, those environmentalists are alt med supporters. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Or the major Medical University Health Center or the College environmental studies departments.Anthon01 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Non-homeopathy references that mention the use of Thuja?
  • Academic botany books
  • Rheumatology, one of the most highly regarded Medical journals [18]
  • University of Marland Medical Center
  • Warts -- for warts of any location except plantar. [19]
  • Prostatitis - specifically if there is a forked stream of urine [20]
  • Belladonna -- for seizures that occur in individuals with a high fever [21]
  • Lupus - Thuja occidentalis - [22]
  • Lyme - [23]*
  • Whitman College - (Top ranked) Enviro studies dept.[24]
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - When the prostate is enlarged - [25]
Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Every last one of those sources were written by homeopaths. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So it wasn't a perfect example. However, it's notable that the sentence is in the lead, not the article body, and it has a context: it's used in a historical relevance. However, it's further notable that Mercury and Virgo are fundamentally major aspects of astrology. I'm not sure the burden of showing that Thuja occidentalis is a major aspect of homeopathy has been met. Alchemy is another good example of this behavior. Major aspects of the practice do get a cursory mention (such as Copper), but we aren't going to mention "it was used in alchemy" on every single thing that had a connection (however distant) to alchemy.
So, using that methodology, perhaps finding a source that can cite the most common ingredients in homeopathy, and using that as a reference point in articles is appropriate. Pointing out every compound used in homeopathy, on every article about that compound, is by definition, undue weight. Justin chat 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight is not applicable across articles. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is. Policy is applicable everywhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a debate because anti-alt-med editors do not want homeopathy spread across wikipedia, even if wikipedia policy and guidelines support its inclusion. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other astronomy and other non-astrological pages which discuss their astrological aspects: Aries (constellation), Aquarius (constellation), Algol, Arcturus, Altair, Constellation , Capricornus, Dice, Definition of music, Gold, June, Longitude, Leo (constellation), Libra (constellation), March... I hope you are getting the idea. I don't think we can say that gold is fundamentally a major aspect of astrology, but yet in the gold article it discusses both Egyptian and Chinese astrology. Why? Because it is interesting and verifiable information. That's all we want to provide here. Not marketing text for Homeopathy. Not an endorsement of Homeopathy. Just interesting information which is completely verifiable to reliable sources. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So what? Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. I know astronomical sources very well and I can tell you that it is impossible to divorce many concepts of astronomy from their astrological precursors. Most of this stuff is relevant to the history of a name or a symbol and is not asserting "use" of the object in astronomy. However, homeopathy is irrelevant to botany. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) That sounds like a challenge to WP:NPOV. If a compound is prominent within homeopathy, I can see the sense in mentioning it on a given article. Just because a reliable source mentions that something is used in such and such a way, does not mean the content belongs in the article. If this is compound that is very common in homeopathic recipes, and you can find a source to say as much, then I'm all for adding it. However, simply adding it to every single article that has any connection to homeopathy is NOT supported by any policies or guidelines I'm aware of, and is in fact, entirely contrary to WP:UNDUE.
So far, the evidence for prominence is a book that states certain plants which are used in homeopathic remedies, and the Natural History Museum which seems to be attempting to catalogue ALL plants and fungi used in homeopathic remedies. Neither of these indicate that this particular plant is an important aspect, only that they are used. Seems to me that the argument in this case, would allow for every single article on every single homeopathic ingredient to mention it's used in homeopathy.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The book that was mentioned (which I consider reliable) and the NHM mentions are nothing more than cursory notes. Although notability and verifiability are important policies within Wikipedia, I hardly consider them the only inclusion criteria. And while I don't question the reliability of either of the sources mentioned, I certainly question whether they are notable on the topic of homeopathy since they do nothing more than state "it's used in homeopathy". Justin chat 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Justin, you're right. Homeopathy is patent pseudoscience and so we should only include it if mainstream independent sources can establish its prominence with respect to this particular plant. Since the various supporters of homeopathy on this page have been spectacularly unable to find such things (they either quote fringe sources, mainstream dependent sources, or source that do not assert prominence), we really don't have a debate at all. Just a lot of people upset because their beloved homeopathy text has been removed from a mainstream article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this is another lark? First there was the notability of citations for which there is no policy, then the prominence of citations, for which there is no policy now there is undue weight across articles. Undue weight applies to only one article at a time, and not to a class of articles or to WP as a whole. Anthon01 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is only one article, Anthon01. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Justin said above "Pointing out every compound used in homeopathy, on every article about that compound, is by definition, undue weight." I was responding to that comment. You agreed with him. Anthon01 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In each individual article. Yawn. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:PROMINENCE, no WP:CITATIONNOTABILITY and no WP:GLOBALWEIGHT policies. Please use the correct terminology. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. When I made that statement, it was in reference to the fact that simply because something is used in homeopathy doesn't mean it has enough weight to be mentioned within the article. The above sources do not assert the importance of homeopathy to Thuja occidentalis, but the importance of Thuja occidentalis to homeopathy. This is neither a minor nor semantic difference. You'll notice the article on Orange does NOT list every single use of the orange, but only those uses that are considered notable to the Orange. The difference is measurable in miles. Justin chat 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let try this. From this article. (Quotation begins) "Thuja occidentalis is very widely used as an ornamental tree, particularly for screens and hedges. Over 300 cultivars have been selected and named for garden use; some of the commoner in the horticultural trade include 'Degroot's Spire', 'Ellwangeriana', 'Hetz Wintergreen', 'Lutea', 'Rheingold', 'Smaragd' (a.k.a. 'Emerald Green'), 'Techny', and 'Wareana'. It was introduced into Europe as early as 1540 and today is widely cultivated there, especially in parks and cemeteries.

The foliage of thuja is rich in Vitamin C and is believed to be the annedda which cured the scurvy of Jacques Cartier and his party in the winter of 1535–1536.[2] Due to the neurotoxic compound thujone, internal use can be harmful and is not recommended.

White cedar is the preferred wood for the structural elements, such as ribs and planking, of birchbark canoes and the planking of wooden canoes." (Quotation ends) What justifies this text in the article? There are no supporting references. Anthon01 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are references, but no inline citations. However, if you feel material is unreferenced, you are welcome to remove it (when the protection is released). Justin chat 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Building the Maine Guide Canoe By Jerry Stelmok, page 42, justifies that text. Dlabtot (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this source [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That source uses 56 words on the subject. This is about 1/6 of the words used to describe the harvesting process for the plant. We have zero words on the harvesting process. Why is every trivial mention of homeopathy with respect to the plant used to argue for the inclusion of homeopathic information, but none of those sources are ever used to improve the article in obvious ways? Wait, rhetorical question. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
56 words? What difference does that make? How many words does it take? Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A much larger percentage compared to harvesting. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So we give harvesting 6 sentences and homeopathy one. Anthon01 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were to go ahead and do that as opposed to say you should do that, let me tell you, it would go a long way. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read that section several times, and not once does the author state that usage for those purposes is widespread. Once again, no matter if we find 5,000,000 sources for a particular use, it won't matter unless such use isn't considered a fringe use of a particular compound. Again, we don't list every single statement simply because it's verifiable. It must also be notable within the articles context.
The fact that an orange (the juice anyhow) is an ingredient in a screwdriver doesn't mean we that we need to put it in the article on Orange's. The concept is pretty simple... find a reliable source that states a common use for this particular plant is homeopathy, and I see no reason it shouldn't be added.
Homeopathy doesn't get a blank check for entry simply because it has a broad following on Wikipedia. It's considered unscientific and pseudoscientific by the scientific community. Unless proven otherwise, the barrier for entry in articles that aren't specifically about Homeopathy IS higher. That is exactly what WP:UNDUE is about. Justin chat 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument is absolutely pointless. If someone is always going to interpret white as black, white as the thing may be it's never going to appear as such to certain people. It's very clear to me what the right and wrong thing to do here is, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not necessarily based on correct or incorrect. If these people want to deprive readers of information because of a fear of pseudoscience, so be it. I'd rather use my creative energy elsewhere. Just to give a quick example though, homeopathic remedies are mentioned several times in the Flora of North America, such as here (though not about this plant). But at this point I wouldn't be surprised if systematists count as practising homeopaths and the Flora of North America is seen as homeopath literature. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way. But trying to bully others to get your own way often fails. The way to make progress here is through consensus and cooperation, as I offered above and seems to be repeatedly rejected. Too bad.--Filll (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I hope no one felt bullied by my comments, and if anyone did I apologise. If it came off that way it was only out of frustration for being unable to do what I believe to be correct. DJLayton4 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You aren't doing any bullying; any suggestion that you are is ridiculous. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What a complete mischaracterization of the discussion here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A way to make progress potentially

There is an way to get more information and partially settle this. I have access to the senior management of the National History Museum through personal contacts, and I will ask them the official scientific position of the National History Museum on homeopathy and homeopathic remedies and their recommendations for prescribed homeopathic materials and their therapeutic actions and efficacy. However, no matter what they say, we still must abide by NPOV and other policies of WP of course, no matter what some claim or misread into the policies.--Filll (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can get them to publish, don't do this. It will just frusterate you, as it cannot be used per WP:OR. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I might be able to get them to make a press release, or to point me to a published official stance on the matter.--Filll (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would make any difference or how its pertinent to the discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you just proved my point. Very interesting.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You could suggest why it would make a difference and I could change my mind. Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The important thing would be asking for a publication (be it press release or otherwise) that states whether or not their exhibit constitutes anything more than a "directory". If they consider it a directory, than it excludes it from being a reliable source of information. Justin chat 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would a press release matter???? I'm not going to be convinced. Show me it works in a peer-reviewed journal, and I'm on board. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"POV edits"?

Regarding this revert, Levine2112 (talk · contribs)'s edit seems to be in line with the consensus of the RfC above . Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) how do you justify your removal of this sourced material and what exactly do you mean by your edit summary: "POV edits""? Dlabtot (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would appreciate an explanation or humbly ask that my edit is restored. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it seems to me that in a context that includes historical speculation about a 16th century use, it's not so bad to mention use in homeopathy. So I wouldn't mind Levine's sentence, myself. However, in general, I propose a standard like this: Myrtle mentions Aphrodite (among other mystical traditions) because myrtle was particularly significant in pre-christian European mysticism, religion, mythology, and pre-science (as in, Alchemy was pre-science; modern pursuit of alchemy is pseudo-science; Newton wasn't a fool, some things he studied weren't as developed as science, as others. In math and astronomy he stood on the shoulders of giants; in chemistry and biology he did not.) So it's right to mention mythos etc in the myrtle article. But does Thuja have particular significance to homeopathy? If so, sure cite it. But zillions of herbal remedies were used by druids (for example) without mentioning druids in the herb's article. Myrtle was special. Is Thuja? Pete St.John (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You say "zillions of herbal remedies were used by druids (for example)", but simply using the word 'example' is not the same as providing an example. Could you please actually give an example of a reliable source describing a druidical herbal remedy that you believe should not be cited in that herb's WP article? Thanks in advance. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No. That wasn't an article contribution; this is the discussion page. If you don't believe druids used herbal remedies, feel free to drop me a note at my talk and I'll try to find an article to help you out. But here on the talk page, I assert some things that I would presume editors could agree upon; e.g. that during the Dark Ages, people didn't have modern pharmacology, and had to resort to a variety of plants for their primitive medicine. If you find that incredible, we should take that off-line. The point is that granting many plants were used by Druids (shamans, witchdoctors, wherever one sought help in primitive societies), is not a reason to cite "used by druids" in the article on the plant; except in cases like myrtle, where the plant was particularly significant to the culture. So for a specific thought experiment: suppose druids mixed sugar in brewing tea, or an extract from a root, whatever, for comforting the sick. Maybe every culture since the discovery of sugar has done that. There would be no reason to put "used by Druids to make medicine taste better" in the article on sugar. It's used by everyone to make things taste better. Pete St.John (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but Thuja occidentalis is used only by homeopaths for very specific remedies. I am unsure, PSJ, if you are supporting or opposing inclusion of this in this particular article. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments appear to be without any verifiable basis in fact. There is no point in conducting "thought experiments" about unrealities or speculations - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the real world, based on verifiable citations to reliable sources. At any rate, this is the discussion page for the Thuja occidentalis article; perhaps it would be more constructive if we limited discussion here to ways to improve the Thuja occidentalis article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Dlabtot (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Levine, I'm not strongly opposed to inclusion (because of the context of the offbeat historical speculation in that section, as well) but in general I believe that articles about plants should not mention homeopathic uses (or as halloween decorations) unless they particularly pertain (pumpkins should refer to Halloween, but apples should not, even though I myself have carved apples as halloween decorations). Now referring to Dlabtot (in the third person), I take it that he is one of the editors who do not believe that logic is relevant in discourse or that it is desirable to ever concede any common understanding before fighting over particulars; same old same old, on all sides of all debates. So we'll let that one go as is, readers may take their pick. Pete St.John (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What I do believe, is that I asked if the "example" you used, exists in the real world: Are there reliable sources that discuss druidical herbal preparations, where the inclusion of that information in those herbs' respective articles would be detrimental for Wikipedia?
I'd also like to ask that you please refrain from making further personal comments about what you believe to be my shortcomings. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ACS

ACS is an authority on cancer treatments. We even have a section of oncology devoted to Alternative Cancer Treatments where this information may be relevant. However, ACS is not an authority on plants and the cite used does not establish the prominence of homeopathy to Thuja occidentalis. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the referenced fact. The action and rationale is indistinguishable from those of a POV pusher using WP:GAME. Please stop disrupting the improvement of the document with censorious edits. cygnis insignis 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The rationale seems pretty clear to me. The ACS is an authority on cancer, not on plants. We are currently having a similar discussion on plenty of other pages devoted to plants. I'm not quite sure what "POV" I'm supposed to be "pushing" here, but if you have a source which establishes that homeopathy is prominent with respect to this particular plant, please show it. This source does not do that and is really not reliable for inclusion given the particular wording of WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read WP:UNDUE over and over again and I simply can't agree with your assessment. As an aside, the ACS ref was added by Justin (talk · contribs) here, replacing a reference that is an authority on plants that he deemed a homeopathic reference (not true). --Rkitko (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read my NPOV tutorial at the plants WikiProject? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I disagree with your assessments and think it's rather disingenuous to call it a tutorial. Furthermore, in response to part of your soapbox you linked to, particularly this: However, if you find such a source that asserts that the homeopathic use of the plant is prominent, then inclusion is justified. We provided such with this, which states in the first sentence of the article, Arbor vitae (Thuja occidentalis L.) is a native European tree widely used in homeopathy and evidence-based phytotherapy. Widely used. Of course, then it became a credentials fight when you and other editors claimed this reference isn't reliable. Since when is a peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press not a reliable source? --Rkitko (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the original material as sourced to the Timber Press.200.133.15.2 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is misleading, because none of the plant is in the end product. It isn't an "ingredient" if it's diluted to non-existence. I replaced this with the ACS reference because it clearly states that there is no evidence suggesting it does anything. Unfortunately, it seems that the POV pushers want to ensure that such facts don't end up in articles. Justin chat 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa pilgrim, I only reverted to that source because your source had been rejected. BTW though, your version talks about dilute thuja whereas the other version only talks about its use in preparations so I don't think there is much to choose. Reword it the way you want but please use both sources. Would also appreciate a bit less of the storming in with all ontologies blazing.200.133.15.2 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I'd never really seen proper full-blown edit warring until I stumbled across this article a few weeks back. Is it really so hard to reach a consensus, in which both sides compromise, but are happy to some extent with the result? Clearly it is. I've protected the article for another week, and will be quick to protect again if the warring restarts after that. Please formulate some sort of consensus on this talk page before next Sunday. TalkIslander 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of harming the process, I doubt very much that consensus will ever be reached in the near future. The fundamental disagreement is on interpretation of various policies, mostly NPOV. This is why I really do wish the arbcom would have taken that case. I must also point out that consensus seemed to have been reached with the WP:PLANTS editors, with most supporting inclusion of carefully-worded material. And ultimately this is a plant article and our expert botanists agree on inclusion. --Rkitko (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't handle content issues. Furthermore, the members at WP:PLANTS don't decide what goes into articles and what doesn't. The consensus reached at WT:PLANTS isn't valid here. They don't own articles within their projects domain. I still maintain that inclusion of this is, by definition, WP:FRINGE. The fundamental disagreement, at least in my perspective, is the argument that because there are sources citing this plants usage in Homeopathy, it should be used here. I beg to differ. Unless a source specifically states that homeopathy is one of the primary uses of Thuja occidentalis it doesn't belong here. There is an extraordinary difference between "Thuja occidentalis is important to homeopathy" and "Homeopathy is important to Thuja occidentalis". The latter simply hasn't been proven, thus, mentioning it here is akin to mentioning a WP:FRINGE use of the plant.
To summarize, the only way a given topic warrants mention in a different article is if that topic is notable within the scope of the other topic. Thus far the only source that says the extract is used extensively within Homeopathy, doesn't actually state that one of its primary uses is homeopathy. Ignoring that, the source isn't even independent, which again, according to WP:FRINGE should be avoided (peer-reviewed or not). Justin chat 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus reached at WT:PLANTS isn't valid here. They don't own articles within their projects domain. Did I suggest they (we) do? No, but often, and I think validly, content disputes turn to the experts in the field. Several professional botanists are members of WP:PLANTS and I thought the information was pertinent to the discussion of consensus, since few of them have voiced their opinions here on this article's talk page. --Rkitko (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The validity of content disputes never turn to experts when it comes to Wikipedia. Consensus rules here, and your vote as a professional botanist is no more relevant than a history major or a high school senior. Ignoring that, the content regarding this issue isn't even about the botanical properties of the plant, but of it's use in a particularly controversial alternative medicine. Unfortunately, I fail to see how a degree in botany is any more valid than a degree in astrophysics in this content dispute. This isn't an attempt to insult WP:PLANTS, on the contrary I wish WP:ANIMALS had the same level of participation. But the beauty of Wikipedia is its collaboration. The moment we start emphasizing credentials, it isn't Wikipedia anymore. Justin chat 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there. I never claimed to be one of the professional botanists. I'm far from it. Please don't make assumptions about what I mean. --Rkitko (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I used "your" as an example. Don't be so defensive :P. Justin chat 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote either. If a discussion required establishing whether a reference was a reliable botanical source, the views of professional botanists would be a valuable contribution to that discussion. This is what would seem to be required, this is what happened. The source was supplied, discussed, accepted, and included. Then it was removed. Why not include both citations? cygnis insignis 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, the views of anyone would be a valuable contribution, botanists included. But coming up with a supposed consensus at WT:PLANTS is not a solution (which, if I'm not mistaken, was your reason for adding it to the article). First of all, the consensus needs to be determined at this page, not at WT:PLANTS. Second, the attempt at consensus here failed. How anyone considers the above RFC a consensus is beyond me. I'm all for ensuing discussion on the matter, and I'm even open to including it under the right circumstances, but thus far I'm hardly convinced that it belongs in this article. Justin chat 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried a few times to forge a compromise, but without some sort of official body to force people to abide by the compromise and recognize it, it is sort of meaningless. But it would be nice if we could do this in an orderly fashion instead of spawning potentially 10s of thousands or more minihomeopathy articles in a completely uncontrolled way here.-Filll (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your compromise didn't attend to the problem at hand and seemed to try to do an end-run around the problem by forcing a limitation on the number of articles this sort of mention should be included in. And I think it's pretty dishonest to say "10s of thousands". From the sources that have been cited before, only 800 plants had been listed in use. As pointed out before, that's a small percentage. And! No one has laid out their intention to go about adding all that information willy-nilly if consensus is reached to include that sort of info. I certainly wouldn't; I've got other things to do. So why the hard limit? We're talking right now about only this article's content. --Rkitko (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


If we came to a compromise, this article might very well have a section on homeopathy. Frankly you must not have been paying attention to the discussion about the compromise. There are about 3000 plant remedies according to one source I have seen. And a similar number of mineral and animal remedies probably. Then we have seen efforts to include glowing sections on homeopathy on the WP biographies of all people who ever tried homeopathy, even if they found it to be completely worthless (like Charles Darwin, who wrote very nasty things about the stupidity of homeopathy in his letters etc). This could easily get to 20,000 or more miniarticles on homeopathy. This clearly is a violation of WP:UNDUE; we do not exist to promote homeopathy in an uncritical way. --Filll (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This just seems to be a total mischaracterization and not at all informative about the actual dispute. The conspiracy that you see to turn WP into a vehicle for promotion about homeopathy may or may not exist. There are many products of the imagination that may exist. However, the WP:BATTLE against that conspiracy, whether real or not, should not be fought here. Here, the question is simply whether or not reliable sources say that Thuja has been used in the quack therapy we know as homeopathy, and whether that use is significant enough to include in this article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia tends to attract the supporters of various pseudosciences, far more than it attracts professional scientists. According to my calculation, about 2.6% of the worlds population practices Homeopathy. 99.99% of those people live in India. 2% of US citizens practice it, and for a solid metric, 31% of US citizens believe in Astrology.
The point is, Homeopathy has a very very tiny following. So even assuming Thuja occidentalis is one of the top 10 "remedies", it's likely that Thuja's use as a homeopathic remedy is statistically less than 1%, probably GREATLY less than 1%. So is that significant enough to include it on this article? Hardly. If I found a reference citing it's use as toilet paper, I assume no one here would be arguing for its inclusion. But, for reasons beyond explanation, we should include it's usage in quackery for the sake of including it? That simply doesn't make sense. Justin chat 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is significant enough to include if it was significant enough for the preponderance of secondary sources we are citing to include, not if we, through a process of original research and synthesis make some judgement about the top 10 remedies and include it on that basis. I don't really understand your "TP" analogy.... if that use was significant enough to be noted by reliable sources, why would we not want to include that information? Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Preponderance? You have one secondary source that says it's used in homeopathy, one secondary source that says it's used but doesn't do anything, a peer-reviewed journal on alternative medicines (ie, primary source) and a directory. I hardly consider that a preponderance. Ignoring that, again, none of the sources indicate the prominence of homeopathy TO THE PLANT. I'm not sure how else I can put this. When discussing various uses, individual articles should only explain uses that are prominent to the articles topic. To use a previous analogy, if a few people use oranges as baseballs, even if it is covered in secondary sources it's an extremely minor use of the fruit. As such, it doesn't belong in the article on oranges. Homeopathy is notable enough to have its own article, but is homeopathy notable enough within the context of Thuja occidentalis to warrant inclusion it this article? None of the sources presented show that. On the contrary, the only source that attempts to describe how wide-spread the use is, is a primary source. It gives no details aside from a "used a lot" (paraphrase).
Simply because fringe scientific concepts warrant their own articles, doesn't mean they warrant inclusion in other articles. We don't put a reference to the Time Cube in the article on physics, time or the Theory of Everything for this very reason. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for fringe theories, and regardless how neutral the tone, unless someone shows that homeopathy is notable to Thuja occidentalis it doesn't belong here. That isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It's WP:N, which (IMHO) the sources presented have failed to show how homeopathy is notable to Thuja occidentalis at all. Justin chat 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments appeared to have strayed significantly from the subject. I won't address anything other than the question of whether this material should be included in the article, a question which imho, was answered by the RfC above. Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments were explaining, in detail, why this doesn't belong here. That is the subject of this debate. And I hardly consider the RfC above conclusive. Justin chat 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot, this is why I suggested that we come to some reasonable sensible compromise. And yet, my suggestion over and over again has been spat back in my face in an obnoxious pugilistic combative uncivil fashion. Just like you did. Feel proud of yourself for acting in such an uncivil manner and contributing to the war. Because you make people just want to attack you with your attitude. Try to be a bit more reasonable and conciliatory here or else I predict trouble. And lets not have any more trouble. --Filll (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Isn't it fun to just fight over nonsense and continue the dispute? Very impressive.--Filll (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re "imho": no opinion can be humble.
Rec the rest: mentioning that an extract of Thuja is used in homeopathy is fine; anything else crosses the line. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
How do we verify that Thuja is actually used in homeopathy when the extract is so diluted it is essentially impossible to detect? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I'm terribly interested in getting back into this discussion, but I find this point quite irrelevant. If there is nothing left after the dilution process, Thuja was still used in homeopathy- during the process that is. As I have said before, I agree that homeopathy is ridiculous, but whether or not any molecules of Thuja extract are left once the product is administered does not change the fact that the plant was used in the process. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That is completely irrelevant sophistry. We don't verify on Wikipedia by conducting original research, such as, in your example, trying to 'detect' something. To verify means to cite to reliable sources. Numerous reliable source have been cited. An RfC has been conducted. It's time to end this WP:BATTLE. The crusade against homeopathy will have to continue elsewhere. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you find an independent source that thuja is actually in any of the remedies that homeopaths claim it is in? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? That is totally irrelevant to the discussion on this page. But I'm repeating myself; which may be fruitless in this case. As far as engaging in further rounds of this cycle, I'll just say that I believe that Wikipedia does not operate on the principle that the person who gets in the last word must be right, nor can a failure to re-re-respond to the same argument be construed as agreement. Dlabtot (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that there is no consensus to include any mention of homeopathy on this page unless a reliable, independent source that establishes the prominence of homeopathy to the plant is found. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would argue just the opposite: these is no consensus to leave it out. Strictly speaking, a heck of a lot more editors see no issue with including it than excluding it. We have gone through an RFC which also favored inclusion. Shall we try Mediation next? Perhaps it can be a mediation inclusive of no just this article, but get into similar Plant articles where the mention of Homeopathic uses have been systematically removed. What think ye? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Mediation is hardly going to solve the crux of the issue. The dispute revolves around different interpretations of WP:NPOV. No amount of mediating is going to solve that. I think, to avoid further escalation of an on-going problem, the best possible solution is to come to a consensus at WT:NPOV on whether or not User:ScienceApologist's interpretation of WP:NPOV is accurate. I think it is, but we need a great deal more community involvement in a decision like that. Justin chat 08:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if you want to change the WP:NPOV policy, this is not the place to do it. That discussion should take place at WT:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Justin, would you please do us the honor of posting the question to WT:NPOV? You seem to understand ScienceApologist's rationale. Please let us know when you have done so, as I - for one - may want to add my two-cents in terms of my rationale. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Thuja, American Cancer Society, last revised 6/19/2007. available online
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thuja_occidentalis/Archive_1&oldid=1191241719"