Talk:Atropa belladonna

Categories:

• WikiProject banners without banner shells
• NA-Class Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Proposals, question

An edit removed attribution to National Institutes of Health. According to the Natural Standard Research Collaboration they prepared the evidence based monograph for the NIH. I think the material should be attributed so the reader knows the authority of the opinion per WP:ASF.

The sentence, "A double-blind study of the effects of homeopathic preparations of belladonna indicate no difference in effect than placebo" was added, sourced by the 2001, 87 subject, Walach study. The wording could be tweaked a bit because this one study does not represent all homeopathic preparations. It only represents one preparation that has statistically no belladonna remaining. A more NPOV wording would be, "A double-blind study of the effects of an ultramolecular homeopathic preparation of belladonna indicates no differences in effect than placebo controls." Another suggested change is to use the much larger and more recent 2003, 253 subject, Brien study that is available to the reader for free. I don't consider the next question a huge issue. Should this sentence be in the article at all? It seems the article already makes it clear to the reader there has been no established efficacy of any of the belladonna homeopathic preparations. Is a primary sourced study of a preparation, that statically contains no belladonna, needed in the article to drive home a subgroup of a point covered by a secondary source that was stated in the previous sentence? Comments? Ward20 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "statistically contains no belladonna" is relevant, as this is true of most homeopathic dilutions (those beyond 12c; 30c is standard) and "ultramolecular" is unneeded - this is standard for homeopathy, and not unusual. It would be nice if there was a reference for the typical dilution. The ones I can find are 30c, 30x, and 200c - certainly beyond ultra-molecular. Irrelevant but interesting: the 200c solution is 170$ - that makes statistically no belladonna very expensive! --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that statistical fact may be relevant. Homeopathic knowledge is fairly obscure in the general public; this is particularly true regarding the public's chemical knowledge of homeopathic dilutions. Mentioning it here certainly takes up no more than a sentence, and fairly summarizes the scientific view of such remedies. Antelan^talk 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill and a bit tangential. If the reader wants to learn more about homeopathy in general, let them click the Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this path before. Essentially, there is no belladonna in solution. If you don't like that fact, then remove the whole reference to it's use in homeopathy. If an editor wants to discuss it's use in homeopathy, let's make it clear that it's really not there. If we don't make that clear, then the inference is that it does something useful. Since there are no molecules of belladonna in solution, it can't do anything. I guess it can rehydrate, which is a good thing. And I'm in the wrong business. I could bottle 200cc of water and sell it for $170. If I had only known. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that essentially there is no belladonna there. We also all agree that Belladonna was used in the preparation of the "solution". The thing is, this is true for all homeopathic remedies, right? (I am not sure - despite popular misconception around here - I am not a homeopath and to the best of my knowledge I have never taken a homeopathic remedy; come to think of it, I am not sure that I've ever seen a homeopathic remedy up-close). If so, then why repeat it every time homeopathy is mentioned throughout Wikipedia? It is wiser to Wikilink. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For me as a writer, I want to write to inform the reader. The statistical fact is verifiable, noteworthy, and relevant. It is also interesting to learn. Indeed, explaining this to readers may be what ultimately entices them to click through and learn about homeopathy itself. Antelan^talk 01:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Understand I am coming off of a months-long dispute just trying to get a one sentence mention included (and I am truly glad that there seems to be a consensus supporting this mention now!) and one of the most common arguments against inclusion was that "we don't want to have mini-homeopathic articles floating around Wikipedia". I still don't know what that argument means, but I am timid about giving too much space in this article to homeopathy because of that argument. That said, I think the more knowledge we add, the better article we will have. So just keep it on point and don't make it a tangent into a general discussion into the merits of homeopathy and we should be okay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if homeopathic uses of this plant merit mention here, then it naturally follows that a brief description of relevant features of those remedies (such as the fact that they likely do not contain any of the plant substance in question) are also relevant. That said, sure, it's completely possible that homeopathic uses of this plant are so insignificant as not to merit mention in this article. That's also fine by me, as I have no predilection either way at this point. Antelan^talk 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Ward20s wording seemed to imply that there may be other homeopathic preparations of belladonna that do contain an active amount of belladonna and thus may have an effect. I dispute this implication, as there is no evidence for homeopathic belladonna (and no, 1x is not a homeopathic preparation). I generally agree with OM and Antelan above. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite a lot of time combing through PubMed finding articles from PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS (and you don't get anymore "scientific" than that) showing evidence of physical effects of homepathic uses of belladonna, and these were removed from that section and some mealy-mouthed sentences about how it does not have any "proven" effects were substituted. I cited articles that proved it had effects from peer-reviewed journals. Why were these citations removed?Harry53 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Harry Roth

There are hundreds if not thousands of substances used for homeopathy, and having a homeopathy section on each of them would give undue weight to proven nonsense. It would be like adding a reference to Klingon in English language just because someone wrote English using the Klingon alphabet. We can see the reason for the inclusion of homeopathy here in the comment "explaining this to readers may be what ultimately entices them to click through and learn about homeopathy itself". As with a lot of pseudoscience, advocates try inserting refs to their cause in as many places as they can, as a form of advertisement. This is undue weight, just as a Trekkie adding Klingon to English so that people could learn about Star Trek would be undue weight. Belladonna is not particularly important in homeopathy, so there's no need to have the mention here. Also, as it was placed, the info confused the presentation of other alternative medicinal uses by breaking up the paragraph, so it is inappropriate purely from the view of copy editing. kwami (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus above that the sentence should be included. Rather than continue the wikidrama and edit-warring which ScienceApologist tries to stir at every turn, the sentence should remain. Given that a source states that the preparation has been tested and proven ineffective, that could also go in. II | (t - c) 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kwamikagami and ScienceApologist, I have not yet seen arguments and references why Atropa belladonna would be of exceptional importance for homeopathy. We simply cannot have a link to homeopathy on every plant, mineral, or any other natural thing that has been used in homeopathy (without any evidence of efficacy!). Wikipedia has pretty clear policies and guidelines on this as mentioned above (e.g. WP:UNDUE). Cacycle (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

look, what is the problem here? this is not an argument about whether homeopathy works; this is a discussion of how Atropa Belladona was and is used. no one seems to be questioning that there actually are preparations that use (even if in miniscule quantities - 'essentially none' does not equal 'none') AB, so there's really no substance to the argument for removing this reference. go fight your battles on the homeopathy page; don't spread them here for no good reason. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a gander at all the sources we have that are explicitly about this plant. I've looked at close to 250 myself. See how many mention homeopathy by name? I count three and of those three only one mentions homeopathy more than a single line. I estimate that approximately 0.085% of the words I've read in all the sources are devoted to homeopathy. That's a grand total of 0.748 words that we should devote to this subject in our article. Undue weight is clear: excise it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your own original research doesn't mean much around here; and it certainly doesn't overrule the consensus and the input at WP:RSN and WP:NPOV/N. Weight and source requirements are completely satisfied, so why aren't you? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know how you measure WP:WEIGHT in any other way and get back at us. Oh, and stop making false claims of consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have answered this time and again for you. And still you edit war. If you disagree with the decision at WP:NPOV/N (Weight) so much, then please take it up over there. But the consensus are NPOV/N was a version not too dissimilar to what is in place now. Creating a separate "Alt Med" section, I think was a great idea and everyone else here seems to agree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine, you ended that section with "So where do we stand. Can we add the phrase (or some amalgamation suggested above) to the article without violating WP:NPOV?" You never got an answer, as the discussion moved off-topic. I don't see that that's consensus, when you yourself didn't see it as such at the time. kwami (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the discussion picked up here and based off the "votes" at NPOV/N, we formed a version which seemed to satisfy the most editors. Please check the archives. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't true. Look, I've read more than 100 articles on this plant. I know more about it than probably most botanists. I have looked for evidence that it is cultivated for homeopathy, that it is used more than other plants in homeopathy, that it is a favorite homeopathic remedy over other plants. I have read children's books, camping guides, wildlife references, video game manuals, and even an account of ancient burial rights. I found three (count them: three) references that were explicitly about this plant that mentioned homeopathy. Two of them were so off-handed as to be almost not worth including. The third was about the fact that it didn't work. I'm saying that the VAST MAJORITY of sources act as if homeopathy's connection to this plant is NONEXISTENT.

Compare that, if you will, to Domesticated sheep. In this article, there are numerous sources which discuss sheep herder's experiences with homeopathic remedies on their sheep. Bizarre and weird, but apparently reliable sources on sheep are more attuned to homeopathy than those reliable sources on deadly nightshade. I made my estimation of how many words should be included in this article on homeopathy. It's less than one. If someone else would like to make a similar estimation, I'll gladly compare methods. But so far, all I have is a lot of feet-dragging and false claims of consensus. Not to mention an insulting accusation of original research which but for the person it comes from would be downright absurd. Thing is, I think that Levine2112 actually thinks it is "original research" to try to figure out if some subject deserves mention when he has hand "cherry-picked" sources himself that "mention" the subject he so passionately wants to see included.

Am I in a pickle? I guess so. I don't give one ounce of interest about this subject, I only want to make sure it doesn't misrepresent the best of sources. Do I want to write this article? Not really. I just want to see that WP:WEIGHT is satisfied. I don't think I'm qualified to write the article, but I do think I'm qualified to edit it down for WP:WEIGHT concerns since I'm the closest thing Wikipedia has to a WP:WEIGHT expert.

This is the last of a list of about 50 articles which off-handedly mentioned homeopathy. I have no idea why Levine2112 chose this one to make a stink over. But he's got his friends User:Ludwigs2, User:Dlabtot, and User:ImperfectlyInformed to take up the slack. It's a nightmare. One that should have been solved long ago, but the administrators I have asked for help over this matter have seemed to be too scared to make any enforcement decrees against the homeopathy insertions despite the TOMES of text I have documented on this.

It's Wikipedia at it's worst.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a measurement for how much weight homeopathy should be given or not? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... look, this is all some strange pedantic quibble over the particular use of the word 'homeopathy' that SA is trying to parlay into excluding any mention of altmed usage at all. I've recommended changing the word to Naturopathy instead, which removes the entire objection; I don't know why that hasn't been adopted. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the problem is that there isn't a source which uses the term "Naturopathy". Secondly, I haven't removed "any mention of altmed usage (sic) at all". Only homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

there may not be any sources that use the term naturopathy, but there are certainly numerous sources noting the use of AB (currently and historically) in various kinds of preparations that would fall under the purview of naturopathy. or if you prefer 'natural' or 'home' remedies, or some other term, that would be fine. the practice has a long and notable history; if you want to quibble about what to call it, that's fine, but stop trying to exclude it through silly word games. --Ludwigs2 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name to naturopathy is no solution, since there is a major difference between naturopathy and homeopathy. I personally would rather not mention homeopathy -- especially if SA is right that atropa belladona is not a major homeopathic material -- but I don't see why it is worth raising such a huge fuss about. However, if three reliable sources can be found that state that belladona is a homeopathic material, then I don't see why we need to edit-war over giving it a sentence. Plus, there have been a couple clinical trials on the homeopathic preparation. These certainly are not minor. SA is not the ultimate "weigher" on Wikipedia. People offer their opinions on weight, and those opinions should be respected. SA's is that homeopathy deserves no weight. Other people respectfully disagree. The best way to solve this at this point is to do a RfC, not edit-war. Edit-warring rather than trying to gauge consensus opinion through things like RfCs is a recurrent theme for SA -- he should consider rethinking his approach. II | (t - c) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

you're preaching to the choir, II...  :-) --Ludwigs2 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As someone not involved here, I'd like to point out that the WP:WEIGHT argument that seems to be surrounding this article in completely daft. Atropa belladonna is sold as a homeopathic remedy on its own or as an ingredient in other rememdies. This can be easily verified through a simple web search. A brief line mentioning this fact would not be undue weight. To argue otherwise defies common sense. Unfortunately, this is one of many article on Wikipedia where the pissing match between opposing agenda-pushers has taken a back seat to writing good, factual, balanced articles that incorporate a bit of good sense about what to include.--Tafew (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks of this encyclopedia is we get comments like the above which fail to address even the most simple arguments laid out above. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Someday, if I have time, I will be happy to go through the reams of discussion above and point out where it appears there are people hewing an idealogical line rather than trying to actually write a NPOV article that is useful to the public at large. I happen to think a brief one line mention of the fact that there are people in the world who buy/sell this stuff as a homeopathic remedy (balanced of course with the fact there are no real credible studies showing value as a medicine) would be appropriate. In a way, it is kind of sad to see that the opinion expressed that critcism of the process that is happening here is a "drawback". Sorry SA, but I'm just calling it like I see it, and I point out that it takes two sides to having a pissing contest; otherwise you are just writing your name in the snow.--Tafew (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think that was a fairly cogent comment, and pretty much on point. are you just trying to poison the well, to exclude reasonably neutral opinions? --Ludwigs2 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start this again. Ludwigs, DNFT. Comments like that should not be dignified with a reply. II | (t - c) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And therein lies yet another problem that seems to be hard baked into Wikipedia culture these days. Don't like the point being made? Call the person a troll. I will merely point out that there is a difference between strongly worded criticism and trolling, and what I'm doing is more tough love for a project I once loved, but more and more seems to have been hijacked along the way.--Tafew (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that when I said don't feed the trolls, I was referring to ScienceApologist and his vague comment that Tafew's comment or my comment "fail to address even the most simple concepts". I'd love to hear an explanation for his comment, but I'm not holding my breath. Since people don't seem inclined to comment on the RfC, I suppose the edit-warring will continue once this page is unprotected. II | (t - c) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies then, I misconstrued your comments to be referring to my criticism as trolling. As an aside, given the state of Wikipedia these days, I'm not sure I would hold my breath for edit warring to stop on any contentious article. Hopefully, I'm wrong though and content can still win out over ideology.--Tafew (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching this article, if the edit warring continues people start getting blocked. BJ^Talk 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal RfC: Who thinks we exclude the homeopathy sentence?

Include a sentence noting trials and lack of effectiveness -- ScienceApologist has raised some good points about weight. I have no way of knowing whether he does really know more about belladona than your average botanist, and given my history with him, I'm guessing that's an exaggeration. However, clinical trials are not cheap, and so the fact that 2 have been done[1][2] on this particular homeopathic preparation is evidence that it is one of the major preparations. II | (t - c) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - Given that there are at least two clinical trials devoted to the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna and the prominent discussion in the Oxford University Press book and on Medline Plus, mentioning the homeopathic usage on this article is completely acceptable. Collectively, these sources satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Individually, they all satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. And the text currently in place (which notes the trials and lack of effectiveness) satisfies WP:NPOV. I think that ScienceApologist is setting the bar way too high by expecting us to consider the sum total of all literature written about Atropa belladonna and then weigh the mention of homeopathic usage here on how many times its homeopathic usage is discussed in all of that literature. I also think ScienceApologist is exaggerating for effect here to push some ideology of his. I wonder how many sources out there mention that Atropa belladonna "reverses the effects of poisoning by organophosphate nerve agents used for chemical warfare" or that Donnatal is used to "provide peripheral anticholinergic/antispasmodic action and mild sedation." Yet, ScienceApologist has not held these up to his all-to-high WEIGHT standard which he is trying to set (or any of the other dozens of bits of information in this article which are probably only mentioned in a handful of sources discussing the topic). Imagine the impact such an unrealistic standard would have on all of Wikipedia - if we were only able to mention information which is described in some indiscriminate, notable percentage of sources. We would hardly have an encyclopedia left to edit. It would just be a collection of the most obvious information out there which everyone pretty much already knows. Forget about the interesting tidbits or the different points of view or even exposing the reader to some trivial or controversial issue. Sounds like we'd have a weak resource here containing stale, whitewashed information. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - The article is about atropa, not about homeopathy. By the way, Google Scholar gets 610 hits for "atropine homeopathy", most of them fringy, and 4250 for "atropine organophosphate", mainly from solid medical journals (they refer more to insecticide poisoning than chemical warfare, though).Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on responses

These clinical trials did not contain any belladonna and so per WP:REDFLAG they are not ways to establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this subject. Nice try, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same clinical trials? [3][4] Both of these are studying homeopathic remedies made from Belladonna. I am not sure why you feel RED FLAG applies here. We are dealing with mainstream sources, nothing out of character, and these views aren't contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community (that being the medical mainstream). I am confused by your post here, ScienceApologist. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Do the math. How many atoms from the plant are in a solution that is diluted to one part in 10⁶⁰? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi. How much of the plant was used in preparing the remedy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is none in the remedy then zero. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. A certain amount of Atropa belladonna is used in the preparation of the remedy before it is diluted essentially out of existence. The plant is used in the preparation and hypothetically even if it wasn't, it is still associated with the topic at hand and your argument here remains Ignoratio elenchi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No... that's wrong. We cannot verify that any atropa belladonna was ever used because the people who use it in the clinical trials do not prepare it themselves and no tests can determine it. WP:REDFLAG means that we must think about whether the extraordinary claim (that atropa belladonna is actually used in the creation of this remedy) is established by extraordinary evidence and an impeccible source. Since this is not addressed, we do not satisfy the requirement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if hypothetically no Atropa belladonna was used in the preparation of the homeopathic remedy, the remedy is still associated with the topic at hand (Atropa belladonna) and your argument here remains Ignoratio elenchi. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Glass is also "associated" with the remedy in a more verifiable way. Should we include this in the article on glass? Your argument is indicative of ignoratio totali ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The remedy is touted to be made using Belladonna (hence the name Belladonna 30x or Belladonna 60x). It is not touted to be made using glass (Glass 30x?). The belladonic homeopathic remedy directly correlates to the topic Atropa belladonna. It only tangentially correlates to glass (and even water for that matter). Your argumentation here is clearly a red herring (aka Ignoratio elenchi) as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You can try and distract us with your own conjecture and opinions on your ideological crusade to route Wikipedia of all mentions of homeopathy, but nothing will change the fact that this homeopathic remedy is made from a dilution of Atropa belladonna, that there are at least two clinical studies researching the efficacy of the remedy, and that the remedy is described prominently in several reliable sources including MedlinePlus and in a book published by the Oxford University Press. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What homeopaths do or do not tout is irrelevant to this page since they are not experts in this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The preparation of Atropa belladonna

For whatever it is worth, ScienceApologist has claimed that there is no reliable evidence that the plant Belladonna is ever used in the preparation of the homeopathic remedy. Regardless of whether his claim is true (which it isn't and I will show you why), this argumentation is merely a Red Herring here. Now then, from the European Medicines Agency (a body of the European Union responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for European marketing authorization for medicinal products in the EU): "The mother tincture of Atropa belladonna is prepared by ethanolic extraction of the whole fresh plant at the end of the blooming period without the ligneous parts of the stalks..." So, yes, the homeopathic remedy is in fact made from the plant belladonna. Whether or not any molecules of the plant remain in the final product is not terribly relevant to this discussion here. Thus, we have a remedy made using the plant - a remedy which is studied in at least two pieces of notable research - and a remedy which is mentioned prominently in reliable sources concerned with the plant Atropa belladonna (including MedlinePlus and one published by the Oxford University Press). Can there be any reasonable doubt now that a brief mention of the homeopathic usage of Belladonna is appropriate in this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to lay off engaging ScienceApologist when he makes silly comments. The two studies clearly say they are studying a homeopathic mixture of belladona. Their word trumps SA. End of story. Stop wasting your time and cluttering up this page. ScienceApologist has not defended his assertions with sources or reasonable arguments, so we should not feel compelled to engage his assertions. II | (t - c) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In actuality the only place any mention of any homeopathic remedy would be appropriate is in an article on distilled water since that is the only thing verifiably in any such "cure." Wikipedia definitely should not be encourageing belief in sympathetic magic no matter what new term is applied to it.Kbs666 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be appropriate on the water article. This is a remedy associated with Belladonna, not water and not glass. Therefore it is most relevant on this article. I certainly don't think we are encouraging a belief in magic as this article makes it clear that "there is currently insufficient scientific evidence to recommend the use of traditional or homeopathic preparations of belladonna for any condition". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source associates the 30C remedy with this plant? Anyone who is not a homeopath? If not, then we have no reliable sources which associate the remedy and only one source that even obliquely mentions homeopathy as an anecdote (and perhaps unintentionally.... It's hard to say when you're trying to write a passage in an article that is so ridiculously unduly weighted). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument is old and tired. There are three non-homeopathic sources given in the passage, each of which are WP:RS (and well-supported by consensus at WP:RSN). This matter was taken to WP:NPOV/N and they found no Weight issues whatsoever. Do you have any new objections which you would like to present? Anything which hasn't been refuted? Or can we finally move on? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since homeopathy is as fringe as you can get, the issue is really one of determining whether the "reliable sources" are reliable enough to get past WP:WEIGHT. The NPOVN note was flawed and virtually every uninvolved editor who has come here has supported me. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to set up another NPOVN or RSN, feel free. But I am abiding by the majority rule at the ones past. This is not about supporting "you". This is about supporting positions. And currently, the majority of editors don't support your position. But as I said, please feel free to shop around to other or the same noticeboards. (I see you have already done that here in a manner which is less than civil. Please consider refactoring.) Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing derived from the belladonna plant in the homeopathic preparation. The dilution makes that clear. So if nothing of the supposed treatment is actually in the water what is being relied upon? That water once exposed to belladonna will somehow have some effect like belladonna. That's sympathetic magic. Homeopaths may call it the "Law of Similars" but sympathetic magic it remains. Kbs666 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that this is nothing derived from the belladonna plant in the homeopathic preparation. However, this has no bearing on whether or not we include this information in this article. The plain facts are that the plant is used in the preparation of the remedy (regardless if anything of it remains in an ultramolecular homeopathic dosage). The remedy was made using the plant and regardless if the substance remains in the remedy, the remedy is still associated with the plant. We are not here to debunk or prove anything. We are merely presenting relevant information per WP:NPOV. If you are looking for more reliable sources associating the plant with the remedy, consider the peer-reviewed studies such as this one or many of these. We may also wish to consider using this source from the Natural History Museum, though I (and the large majority others at NPOVN and RSN) feel that the sources we are currently using suffice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that glass is used in the preparation of every homeopathic remedy as is distilled water. Your argument is just as specious for inclusion of homeopathy in those articles as it is to inclusion in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither "glass" nor "water" is commonly associated with the remedy. The remedy is called Belladonna 30x (60x or 200x). This line of argumentation of yours is extremely weak. It we were to list all of the products which are bottled in glass on the glass article, it would be ridiculous. Just as if we were to include all of the products which are mostly water on the water article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Glass and water are both commonly associated with homeopathic remedies. It doesn't matter what the remedy is called. If a homeopath decided to call the remedy Theory of relativity it wouldn't belong there. We need someone who is not a homeopath saying that this remedy is somehow relevant to homeopathy or atropa belladonna. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show me a non-homeopathic reliable source which associated this particular remedy with glass in any meaningful way. In the meantime, we have a plethora of non-homeopathic source describing the relevance of this remedy to the plant. Do you really now want a non-homeopathic source describing how this remedy is relevant to homeopathy or was that a typo? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"we have a plethora of non-homeopathic source describing the relevance of this remedy to the plant." No we don't. We have sources that say that the a homeopathic remedy which uses the name of this plant exists. That's all we have. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Presentation in these reliable sources (reputably published books, peer-reviewed research, gov't medical agencies, etc.) establish relevance. This has been discussed many times over in the past each time you have brought this argumentation and it has been refuted time and time again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We have ONE secondary source that mentions homeopathy in an anecdotal fashion, and has been disparaged. Everything else we have is a primary source and does not establish the WP:WEIGHT neeeded. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please list out and describe your grievance with each source currently being used. I believe there are four right now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Health Foods mentions homeopathy only in passing, and as you can see in the archives, I have made a case that the authors did not think it that important, or really even care to address whether homeopathy was a subject worthy of careful consideration at all. Medline sources mentions homeopathy in almost every article on every possible homeopathic remedy. That doesn't establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this subject. The primary source is about homeopathy, not about this plant. The authors are not writing about this plant, they are writing about the inefficacy of homeopathy. They could have chosen any remedy. That does not establish the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory guideline

Quoting from WP:FRINGE: Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects.

Since the presence of any atoms of this plant in homeopathic solutions has not received critical review from the scientific community, the presence of homeopathy in this article should be excluded. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no conjecture being made in this article regarding homeopathic usage. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. There is a conjecture implicit that homeopathy is a prominent use of this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)'

That is not conjecture which is included in the article, but rather your conjecture of whether something should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply by mentioning homeopathy, we make that conjecture. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. And the type of conjecture you may be creating, is not the kind the passage from WP:FRINGE above deals with. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. I WROTE that passage in the guideline. This is exactly the situation that it is meant to address. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please refactor your uncivil language above. Second, I think that passage refers to fringe conjecture presented in an article rather than conjecture about whether or not fringe should be presented in an article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a guideline on my talk page for refactoring uncivil comments. You can follow the procedure there. I don't see anything uncivil. You seem to miss the fact that fringe theories, like homeopathy, are THEMSELVES conjectures. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have banned me from your talk page, so I am afraid asking you to refactor here is my only recourse. I have asked and you don't see anything uncivil, so I guess that's that. We are not describing the fringe theory of homeopathy here in this article, so there is no fringe conjecture. Rather, we are aptly describing the scientific mainstream position of the remedy's efficacy (or lack thereof). I am all in favor of this. However, I don't support the push to include editorializing such as: "it doesn't contain the plant but nevertheless...". None of our sources state that it doesn't contain the plant and it fails to address that the remedy - despite contain only ultramolecular remnants - was in fact made using the plant. You seem to have an ideological agenda here to either mention homeopathy in the worst possible light by going beyond even what the reliable sources say or to not mention homeopathy at all. Whereas I have no problem with describing the scientific mainstream's lack of support for the homeopathic remedies and just leave it at that. Remember, I am not pro-homeopathy nor am I pushing a pro-homeopathic agenda here. I am merely trying to include relevant information in the most NPOV fashion which the reliable sources can provide. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can do it here. Just tell me what in the comment was uncivil and why you perceive it to be uncivil. You can also suggest alternative wording, but that's not necessary. By virtue of the fact that you want to MENTION homeopathy in this article, we are necessarily including the idea of homeopathy in this article. You cannot have it both ways. Either we're dealing with the homeopathy conjecture and including mention of homeopathy or we aren't. The position of the scientific mainstream (as you put it) is that homeopathy is bunk. That's it. There's not much more to it than that. The fact that homeopathy is bunk really has no place on this page, but neither does homeopathy itself because it is so fringe and so unrelated to this plant as to be not worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the only thing I object to is your language ("Bullshit".) That seems aggressive. Consider the hundreds of less offensive alternatives. I have no problem with the mention we currently have in the article other than the "it doesn't contain the plant but nevertheless..." editorializing. None of the sources say this and the "nevertheless" seems to be making an argument which isn't sourced. If we can resolve that issue, I think we can finally put this bad boy to sleep. What do you say? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay, so redacted. Was it that hard? Now, I have a big problem mentioning homeopathy as I think we are mentioning it arbitrarily. Go to your local pharmacy and see how many Boiron homeopathic remedies they have in that blue box at the back of the store. I bet there are close to 100 remedies in there. Each and every one is associated with an actual plant, chemical, or animal product that we have an article on in this very encyclopedia. If you look at the list of homeopathic remedies, there are quite a number listed. Almost NONE of the articles on the actual substance has a single mention of homeopathy. The reason for this is simple: homeopathy is simply not all that important in the grand scheme of what is prominent about a topic. What we have right now is something that is a red-herring: a wild-goose-chase through the wiles of alternative medicine. The fact that this plant is used in homeopathic preparations is not at all notable. For flip's sake, poison ivy, hemlock, arsenic, strychnine, and plenty of other poisons are all used in homeopathic remedies simply because they produce such dramatic symptoms and homeopaths like dramatic symptoms. The peculiar desires of homeopaths to attach themselves to poisonous plants might be of interest on a page devoted to homeopathy, but on pages devoted to poisonous plants it defies common sense to consider discussing the peculiar beliefs of such a small group of anachronists.

As to this statement "None of our sources state that it doesn't contain the plant," such a reference can be easily found. Quackwatch.org for instance has an article that explains homeopathic dilution and explains that dilutions above a certain scale likely contain nothing of the substance in question. Is that acceptable if the article absolutely must mention homeopathy? Kbs666 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Two objections: Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything but its opinions. And the source (I am guessing) is not about the belladonnic homeopathic remedies specifically but perhaps about homeopathy in general. What would be nice here would be a reliable mainstream source which says that there is no molecules left whatsoever after all dilutions (whether they be 200x or 30x). Then we could use that reference to support such a statement in the article. Currently we have no such source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Levine2112, this could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It doesn't mention belladonna specifically. But what it does say is that "Many homeopathic remedies would be expected to contain zero molecules of the original substance". "Many" not a "all". We don't have a source which supports this phrase: "Homeopathic preparations that do not contain the plant but nevertheless use its name..." This seems to be making an original argument, in that it is not sourced and merely reflects the opinions of an editor here. Hence, the phrase would violate WP:NPOV if left unsourced. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just disruption at this point. I'm going to make a motion.

Motion

Remove all mention of homeopathy from this article as a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Support

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is not a fringe theory that "belladonna is used to prepare a homeopathic preparation", it is a common verifiable fact (currently not mentioned). Agreed that a theory explaining homeopathic has no place here (but current wording tries to suggest that an explanation is universally agreed). Peer-reviewed papers on the homeopathic efficacy of belladonna are available.[5] Does it work? Who knows. --88.84.137.165 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion

A Request for Comment has been launched on my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute. Since I was recently involved in managing a dispute at this article, I invite anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)