Talk:Aconitum napellus

Homeopathy

Hi. While the abstract of Aconite: a lethal Chinese herb discusses it's use in Homeopathy, the article itself does not. The abstract appears to confuse homeopathy and herbal medicine. PouponOnToast (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, I think thats a confused reading on your part. It's a peer reviewed article that simply states that Aconite is used by homeopathy, which fails under the "herbal medicine" umbrella term, the main body of the article goes on to illustrate cases of poising. Hardyplants (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, If this is going to be so difficult, I will hunt down a number of other refs that state that its used by homeopathy, but hate to do it - as it might seem to stress this use more than this article topic warents. Hardyplants (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided, however, weren't strictly about this plant and didn't establish homeopathy's prominence. Patents should not be used as there are serious issues with how patents are given out (it's not a reliable vetting process). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this nonsense mean "homeopathy's prominence." Its seems to me that you are POV waring since you have used a number of different stated reasons to exclude this info in this context. The text simple stated that a patent was granted, not that it works- patents do not determen the legitimacy of an intended inventions purpose just its uniqueness. A large number of references in wikipedia are not strictly about the subject they reference, point me to a police covering this please? Hardyplants (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This plant's use as a homeopathic remedy is actually well known even in the general population, not just by the practitioners of homeopathic medicine. To insist on deleting all reference to one of the most widely used homeopathic remedies - manufactured from this plant by "potentization" (dilution and "succussion") would be unencyclopedic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love a mainstream, independent source for this assertion. Dig one up and will include it. Please make sure it isn't just a source on homeopathy, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, prominence isn't my word. It's straight from Wikipedia policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to resurrect a dead argument, but I think it might be worth adding info on Homeopathy reference, as long as its not WP:UNDUE and complies with WP:FRINGE Shaded0 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aconitum napellus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus

I was looking for more information on the species Aconitum firmum and noticed that Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus have been used interchangeably, some even saying that they are synonyms. However, sources such as the Catalogue of Life and Kew Science recognize them as two different species. On pl.wikipedia.org, Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus both redirect to the same page; it doesn't state that A. napellus is a synonym, but the subspecies A. napellus subsp firmum is.

Should A. firmum redirect to A. napellus, or should it remain its own page?

CoL A. firmum: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/3f74604592b8f829ace95afc11fc9eca

CoL A. napellus: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/0e5317f95dd823472d1e906a9cbe02d0/synonym/d9072751dbc93ab6980c71066ec90480 Kew Science A. firmum: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707355-1

Kew Science A. napellus: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707615-1#synonyms

pl.wikipedia.org A. firmum: https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aconitum_firmum&redirect=no

pl.wikipedia.org A. napellus: https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aconitum_napellus&redirect=no

Mention of A. napellus being a synonym for A. firmum (Polish): http://web.archive.org/web/20150626005609/http://tatry.edu.pl:80/tojad.html

(Copied from the talk page of A. firmum since this applies to both species)

FozzieH (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew is a good source. If they treat these as separate species, Wikipedia should follow suit. Plantdrew (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severity of contact toxicity

I'm concerned that the paragraph referencing fatal contact toxicity may be sensationalist. My understanding is that there is no adequately documented account of a person dying of contact (not ingestion) of Aconitum. The current reference to an alleged fatal incident has since been clarified by the coroner to not be caused by Monkshood poisoning. I suggest an edit to that paragraph that removes the references to the initial (false) allegation the death was caused by contact with Monkshood and instead address the now prevalent urban legend surrounding the death, an urban legend that may be being spread in part by reference to this Wikipedia page. Of course, I think it would be worthwhile to include information that skin contact with these plants is potentially harmful and should be avoided.

Any objections to these changes or anyone interested in making these changes?

References: https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-06-24/did-poisonous-plant-kill-hampshire-gardener/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170601110329/http://www.thepoisongarden.co.uk/blog2/blog250615.htm Kaywal (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]