Talk:Atropa belladonna

Removed the following text from the description; Note:

The photo that appeared prior to this editing was not a photo of deadly nightshade, and has been intentionally deleted. The previous photo showed a woody shrub, with red berries and deep purple flowers. Atropa belladonna has herbaceous stems (non woody), unripe green berries that turn black when ripe, and dull purple flowers. Imc 20:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Whoever added the interwiki link to the Bridge player Belladonna: there must be a better way than to create cross-namespace redirects. How about adding a page about Georges? JFW | T@lk 20:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere

Belladonna is one of the most toxic plants to be found in the Western hemisphere.

Is there any particular reason that this does not say "world"? Specifically indicating "...in the Western Hemisphere" implies that it isn't found in the Eastern Hemisphere, and according to the intro, it is. --Bletch 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps there are more toxic plants in the eastern hemisphere. I do believe that there should be a citation to back up this claim, however.70.104.126.213 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

homeopathic remedies

I picked up a bottle of eye drops marketed as "Pink Eye Relief" made by Similason [1] in CVS today. One of the active ingredients is "Belladonna 6X" for "redness, burning", and the package is marked as being a homeopathic remedy ("an ingredient diluted to the level of 6X contains 0.0000001% of the active ingredient—just enough to jump start the immune system"). I'm including a line about it in the "Modern medecine" section with a link to Homeopathy. —alxndr (t) 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am altering this so that it doesn't imply that Belladonna is a treatment for pinkeye, only that Homeopathy claims it is. Not my leg 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardy or not very hardy?

Deadly nightshade or belladonna (Atropa belladonna) is a well-known, hardy perennial shrub, a member of the nightshade family.

The Belladonna is not a very hardy perennial and will not tolerate transplantation.

Perhaps it means it's hardy in respect to climate and things like that but doesn't take being uprooted well? --86.135.245.203 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill W.

I propose someone remove the text relating to Bill Wilson. If you read the actual source, you'll see quite clearly that he never claimed to have any kind of "belladonna" experience. Those words do not appear in his writings. Nor does a comparable description. I am suggesting this bit of (false) trivia has been added to Deadly Nightshade in error. It should removed. -Anon (Jun 2007)

Homeopathic

Information regarding "homeopathic" use of this plant requires reliable sources. Please don't include this information without such. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article for everything which can be used in homeopathy talks about homeopathy, millions of articles will talk about Homeopathy, which is a bit unbalanced, given that practically anything can be used in homeopathy. For example, if I am allergic to x, then, as I understand it, x can be used in a homeopathic cure. I think we should consider whether this information is important enough to put in the Homeopathy article itself, and it should be added there if it is. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all need to get together to discuss what articles should have at least a mention of homeopathic use. Depending on where you live, we all know that countless homeopathic remedies sit on shelves or in medicine cabinets all over the world. Mere mention in an article would not be considered "undue weight" or "conflict of interest". As far as I am concerned I don't think that the indications for use should be mentioned. You won't find many docs who like the idea of people treating themselves based on what they have read online. Especially wikipedia. My official take is I think the "most used" (aka polychrest) remedies should have a brief passage along with their other pharmacologic/biologic/other use. I have no interest in discussing whether or not people think it works or how many controlled trials have been conducted. The simple truth is that people use it, and for that reason alone the information should be mentioned here.--travisthurston+ 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the lines that it should be mentioned if it is a significant use of the substance (compared with other uses). So I'd be looking for an independent reference which covered uses in general and gave significant weight to the use of this substance in homeopathy. So if 50% of all deadly nightshade is used in homeopathy, then it's in. But if 50% of homeopathy uses deadly nightshade, but only 0.00001% of deadly nightshade is used in homeopathy, then it's out. (Obviously allowing for dilutions!). Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've thought this through. Take iron, for example: iron is used in construction and is also important in biology. It stands to reason though that both can't involve more than 50% and so according to your argument we should exclude one from the "iron" article.Number48 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 50% is necessary - just sufficient. I've left the position of the necessary level open for debate, but suggest it is more than 0.00001%. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We are currently in discussion about starting a List of homeopathic remedies which would include the information in an appropriate location rather than on pages devoted to botany or chemistry. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I found some reliable sources for the information and have edited accordingly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more studies to consider:

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Some of these say Belladonna as a homeopathic treatment is no better than placebo for certain conditions, others say it does have some validity for some certain conditions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk reverted citing UNDUE and weak sources. Please describe how UNDUE applies and why PUBMED is considered a weak source. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of these say that homeopathy is a significant use of deadly nightshade? Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Significance was not stated in the sentence which had been removed. However, the plethora of clinical studies does lend itself to the significance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominence needs to be established for inclusion of homeopathy on any page not directly related to homeopathy. This is part-and-partial to the WP:UNDUE guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, many insignificant books mention deadly nightshade - which may be an important part of the plot - but these books don't deserve a mention here as the book is not prominent enough in the world of deadly nightshade. It is not enough just to quote the book and say it is not claiming to be an important use. I'm not saying that homeopathy isn't important, but I'd like to see an independent reference which says it is first. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That Deadly Nightshade is used as a homeopathic remedy is not a minority or fringe view. It is actually a very common ingredient in homeopathy and homeopathy is widely used throughout the world. That Deadly Nightshade is an effective homeopathic remedy may be a minority or fringe view; however, that is not the information being included. Sources such as those already provided and/or ones such as these should be sufficient: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Are you reading your sources or are you just sending us the results for a search like "deadly nightshade" homeopathy? Most of these hardly discuss either Homeopathy or don't mention Deadly Nightshade except in passing (or the humorous title). PouponOnToast (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. These sources all mention Deadly Nightshade with regards to being a homeopathic treatment. Please read past page one. The last link, a book entitled "Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century" (14) even says that it is a common homeopathic remedy for acute ear infection. Plants for a Future's extensive database (13) states: "the entire plant, harvested when coming into flower, is used to make a homeopathic remedy. This is used especially in cases where there is localised and painful inflammation that radiates heat." A source from "Better Nutrition, April, 1996 by James F. Scheer" (12) states that it is a homeopathic remedy for bed-wetting and measles. The Oxford Book of Health Foods (11) mentions the various ailments belladonna is used to treat in homeopathy as well as discussing the lack of research to support these treatments. The source "The Family Homeopath" (10) uses Deadly Nightshade as a prime example of the basic homeopathic philosophy "like cures like". The Alternative Medicine Encyclopedia (9) says: "Belladonna is frequently prescribed homeopathic remedy used to treat illnesses that manifest symptoms similar to those that belladonna poisoning triggers." The Society of Homeopaths (8) use belladonna as the prime example example to also exemplify the basic principal of homeopathy. The New York Times article (7) is high profile and aside from just being used in the title of the article, deadly nightshad is also mentioned as a homeopathic remedy within the article itself. Plants for a Future (6) is an extensive database of rare and unusual plants and in its listed for belladonna, it discusses its various homeopathic uses. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying you didn't find these sources by doing a google search for "deadly nightshade" homeopathy, and that you looked at them and found each of them to provide a unique and interesting piece of information for this article, and that each of them substantially mentions deadly nightshade, not just in the title or in passing, or by quoting another, different source? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search and I am telling you what each one says about Deadly Nightshade above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't find that googlewarrioring for links typically adds value to an article. For instance, the new york times article uses "deadly nightshade" only to quote from a Homeopathic manual, and two of your sources are identical. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address what each article says as I am outlining above. Thanks for the note about the repetitive link. Google searches can be extremely helpful. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> That's why googlewarrioring isn't helpful. You only have to searchandlink, but I'm supposed to read every article you bring up and evaluate. That's not really in the spirit of collaboration. Why not point to a few mainstream sources that say Deadly Nightshade is a common homeopathic "thing" and we'll go from there. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined what each link states about the topic. So you don't need to bring them up. "Mainstream" has nothing to do with this. We are not making a scientific statement about Belladonna in terms of homeopathy. We are only saying that it is used, and as some of the sources I linked to above state, its use is fairly common. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I find unacceptable the use of googlewarrioring. If an editor in good faith is researching material for an article, using Google, Google Books, Questia, Lexi Nexis, or any other such online resource it should called research and accepted. If editors have concerns about the sources, they need to state what or why these sources are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. It was a term descriptive of goolgle searching for something and then just pasting links for perusal. I'm happy to review links that have already been looked at by someone who supports their inclusion. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please consider doing so with each of the links I detailed above and let me know if any of them are in your opinion acceptable to simply state that "Deadly Nightshade is used in homeopathic remedies to treat such-and-such." That's all. No science need be involved, supportive or non-supportive. This is an encyclopedia of human knowledge and this bit of knowledge about Deadly Nightshade is not mere trivia, especially given the relative ease I had in finding such sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to go through your links untill you do. If you could remove the duplicates and the ones where Deadly Nightshade is mentioned only in passing that would be great. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, there's a lot requiring my attention at the moment, so I'll be specific in what I would consider a base standard. If an authoritative secondary source on deadly-nightshade states that one of it's major uses is homeopathy, then that would be appropriate evidence for me that it warrents a mention. Jefffire (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century which states that Deadly Nightshade is a commonly prescribed homeopathic remedy for acute ear infections. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not an authoritative source for information about deadly nightshade. Jefffire (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

but it is an authoritative source for the use of deadly nightshade in homeopathy. Isn't that all that is required here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of deadly nightshade in homeopathy is not notable with respect to deadly nightshade, only with respect to homeopathy. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. What's more appropriate here than a major book about homeopathy? Ps, please see WP:NNC. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article on homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is not a reliable source for anything - it mistates fact - "Homeopaths have also found g reat success in treating a wide variety of other bacterial infections," is not true, and cast doubts on the accuracy of the entire work. One rotten apple.PouponOnToast (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the book's POV and is irrelevant to this discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That the book is factually completely wrong is, but that's academic to the current discussion. You're being asked to demonstrate that homeopathy is important to deadly nightshade, and thus warrant an inclusion in the article, not the other way round. To that end I ask for a source authoritative on deadly nightshade, for example a text book on the genus, which says that homeopathy is a major use of this plant. Jefffire (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are asking for something which is unlikely to exist... an entire textbook just about Deadly Nightshade. I don't understand why you are setting the bar so high. That's like saying in order to include that Sally from Nightmare Before Christmas uses Deadly Nightshade in the movie, we couldn't rely on the movie or on a book about the movie, but rather we would need it mentioned in a book only about Deadly Nightshade. And perhaps in that same book you might find a passage discussing Queen lyrics or else we can't say that Freddy Mercury says "belladonic haze" in Keep Yourself Alive. IOW, I think you are setting the bar a tad too high here (especially considering that most of this article is lacking in sources of any kind). What the source above demonstrates is that deadly nightshade plays a role in homeopathy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to beat people over the head with expert knowledge, but in the life-science it is generally common for there to be text books on single plant genera, especially the important ones. That was however just an example, a good text book on angiosperms for example would be acceptable as a source. Jefffire (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An authoritative book on Homeopathy which discusses its use of Deadly Nightshade or Belladonna is sufficient for including this information. Here are about 140 such books. Shall we take this to WP:RS/N or will you concede? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me how many other plants are mentioned in all these books? Jefffire (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. And why is that relevant? I have illustrated in at least one authoritative book on Homeopathy that indeed Deadly Nightshade is a common homeopathic prescription for specific common ailments (acute ear infections, measles, et cetera). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those books probably mention several thousand substances used in homeopathy, do they all deserve a mention in their articles? Jefffire (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are commonly prescribed remedies for specific conditions, yes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you can provide an authoritative source on the subject which says that they are. Might I suggest you try checking your plant text books to see if it's mentioned. Jefffire (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have any plant textbooks. Nor have you shown why a homeopathic source is not able to be used for verification. WP:RS/N now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You still got the issue the wrong way round. What is being asked for is evidence that homeopathy is relevant to deadly nightshade. A homeopathic textbook can only show that the plant is relevant to homeopathy. Jefffire (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And we are going in circles. So rather than wasting each others time, I will simply post the issue at WP:RSN. Let's see their take on it there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying to build consensus on the talk page first? Only a few contributors have had a chance to chime in so far, and I'm curious what the members of Wikiproject plant have to say for one. Jefffire (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted to WP:RSN before I had a chance to read this suggestion. Anyhow, perhaps we can hear their thoughts concurrent to those of RSN. I think the main thing is to get a lot of people's thoughts here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an appropriate source for List of homeopathic remedies. However, per the principle of one way linking, it is inappropriate to link to homeopathy from pages that homeopaths believe are important because homeopaths are not reliable sources on other topics other than homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than your own rules you put on your own page, is there an actual real official guideline or policy which supports your statement about one-way linking? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with several posters here - the issue is not whether deadly nightshade is important to homeopathy (which a homeopathy textbook will say) but whether homeopathy is important to deadly nightshade (which a deadly nightshade book will tell you). Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, deadly nightshade may be mentioned in the homeopathy article with sources, but linking homeopathy from the nightshade article would require some significant reliable and non-homeopathic source. Homeopathy is quite irrelevant here and creating a link to homeopathy here amounts to promotion of a pseudoscience. Vsmith (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable and non-homeopathic source? Here you go: [15]. Number48 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither. That's a list of (hundreds of) "Plants and fungi used in homeopathy," not a source reliable to the notability of things on articles about plants. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To be on the positive side, it's a better source than a homeopathic text-book, so you're on the right track. We need something which is a little bit more discriminating. I would be quite happy for there to be mention on the forfront plant used in homeopathy, but add a mention to all of them is obviously silly. Jefffire (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be silly, there's only about 800 on the list. Given that everyone has been claiming there are "millions" of things used in homeopathy this would seem to be quite a discriminating source. Must only be the really notable ones that are listed there!

BTW, Pouponontoast. The Natural History Museum isn't a homeopathy source - it's a natural history source which happens to include, as requested, information about homeopathy. If what you want is a source that doesn't mention homeopathy to mention homeopathy then just say that and be done with it.Number48 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The source linked is not the Natural History Museum. It is simply a search engine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list of 800 is discriminating - in that it shows which substances are important to homeopathy. But I'm interested in deadly nightshade, not homeopathy. I'm looking for a source on deadly nightshade (which doesn't have a homeopathy agenda) which says something along the lines of Deadly nightshade has many uses. Amongst the most significant uses of deadly nightshade is its use in homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To ScienceApologist - the link is to the website of the Natural History Museum. All the content on that website is copyrighted to the Natural History Museum, icluding what links to a search of the database. And the database itself is the database of the Natural History Museum project, "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy". It is clear that the information on each page can be sourced to the Natural History Museum.

To Stephen Streater, the Natural History Museum does not have a "homeopathy agenda". It's the Natural History Museum. The very fact that they have included a homeopathic use for an item on the list demonstrates its notability.[16]Number48 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A search engine is not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a search-engine wholly restricted to Natural History Museum content. How can the mode of searching possibly affect the credentials of the source.20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number48 (talk • contribs)

They have included a homeopathic use on a list of homeopathic remedies, or have I misread this? How much space does the homeopathic use take on the Natural History Museum's published works on Deadly Nightshade? Is this all they have to say about deadly nightshade? Or are there 1,000,000 pages on deadly nightshade, and this is the only one referring to homeopathy? This page does not answer the fundamental question: How important is homeopathy to deadly nightshade? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine it is at least important to deadly nightshade as the fact that "The fictional character Sally in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas uses Deadly Nightshade several times in the movie to get away from her master Doctor Finklestein". A fact that currently sails past the notability threshold for inclusion in the article.Number48 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not mention random uses of the substance unless there were articles which supported not only the fact of the mention but the significance of it. Did this fictional mention lead to a change in government policy, for example? I haven't read the citation, so don't know whether it should be removed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more relevant question to ask in the popular media section is whether, when deadly nightshade is mentioned, people say wasn't that used in that film.... I have no opinion on this and no relevant reference works to fall back on. I do know (see below) that when asked what is belladonna used for? in a medicinal context, my general medical encyclopaedia does not mention homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked up deadly nightshade in three authoritative reference works... The RHS gardening encyclopaedia - no mention of deadly nightshade. The Collins English dictionary - half a dozen lines describing the flower and its toxicity - no mention of homeopathic uses. The BMA Complete Family Heath Guide (first UK edition, 2000) - which mentions belladonna on page 1002 in antispasmotic drugs and refers to p926, which has 2 1/5 columns on antispasmodic drugs and motility stimulants. It does not mention homeopathy. So I have found no evidence in my domestic supply of reliable sources that homeopathy is a significant use of deadly nightshade. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Change

Following extensive discussion on NPOV, the consensus (though not necessarily unanimous) view is that homeopathy has at least one reliable source in an article on deadly nightshade, which is now briefly stated in the article. The statement in the article is gives similar weight to that in the original source and includes the caution warning. Any further debate abount the exact amount and content of the entry can continue with a mention in place. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This source does not assert the prominence of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. Also, the way you wrote the statement was misleading and not verifiable to the source. I tweaked it a bit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your version seems to include quite a lot about the mechanism of homeopathy which may not be interesting to people looking up deadly nightshade. What they will find interesting is that it is used in the preparation of homeopathic stuff, and there is no scientific evidence that it works. To be fair, much medicine is not scientifically tested, which is one reason why the success rates for treating different conditions vary so wildly. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not verifiable that the stuff is actually used. We have only the say-so of homeopaths. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"much medicine is not scientifically tested" - source please? Clinical trial says otherwise.PouponOnToast (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clinical trials are relatively new, and mostly cover drugs. Many drugs are not tested on children, or genetically different groups to the test subjects, but are still used on them even though they may have different effects from those expected. Very few drugs are tested on children, in fact. Another example mentioned on a BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme was the effectiveness of prostate surgery. It turns out that in the NHS, quite a few people contract infections, which have a significant chance of killing, in hospital. And quite a few people with enlarged prostates die of old age or other causes before prostate cancer kills them. It seems no one had actually asked whether a prostate operation would help on balance. I think they came up with the answer that 86 operations were needed to save one like (net) - but that was before the latest MRSA scares, so who knows now whether these operations actually help - there have been no scientific tests to find out - trials of people who do and who don't have the operation in modern NHS hospital conditions to measure life expectancy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just put it in as a stopgap. My point is that this source doesn't assert the prominence of homeopathy to this subject and so mention of homeopathy perhaps should be completely excised. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The source does mention the use of homeopathy, and mentions specific uses. So they obviously think homeopathy has some significance. I just don't think we need a lecture on homeopathy in the DN article - just a note on how it is used. And it is used in the preparation of potions, even if it is not present in the final version. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of information in that article and it looks to me like its just an anecdotal mention rather than an assertion of prominence which is what we're looking for. Nevertheless, it is certainly the best thing that anyone has found to date. It would be nice to get another source that actually judges whether homeopathic use is prominent for this particular plant. Is it, for example, the place where most people have come across it? How many belladonna homeopathic remedies get purchased the world over? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If prominence within Homeopathy really needs to be establish, a simple search of "belladonna homeopathy" pulls back 85,000+ results, most of which are stores selling homeopathic products using Belladonna and Homeopathic indices discussing Belladonna's use. Clearly, we are dealing with a prominent ingredient in Homeopathy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Web searches are not reliable sources. Try again. And it's not the prominence within homeopathy that needs to be established for this page. It's the prominence with respect to Deadly nightshade. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE isn't a policy. ScienceApologist just created the alias link. Prominence, anyhow, is all but established given the notability of the Oxford Book of Health Foods. Anyhow, I think that the Google results goes to answering his question about how many belladonna homeopathic remedies get purchased. Given all of the competition, I would say "a lot".-- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to do better than that. Quantify it. Then compare it to other uses of deadly nightshade. That will convince me. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. However, here's 59,916 bottles of a belladonna homeopathic remedy recalled by the FDA in the US last year because of possible lack of sterility. That's just one manufacturer. Satisfied? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessarily up to us to decide prominence from the raw usage data - which might be original research. We can just note that OUP think it is prominent enough to mention in their DN article. We don't know whether it was number of doses or an important experiment to test its efficacy that made it worth mentioning. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. On the RS/N page you were suggesting that for all we know maybe no bottles were being sold. You thought it was important to mention it then. Anthon01 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because I had been looking at homeopathic sources which were not reliable indicators of the importance of homeopathy. But, following the discussion, I have concluded that the OUP publication is independent of homeopathy, and so much more credible when indicating the relative importance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If non-homeopathic non-commercial plant sites mention homeopathy under 'medicinal uses' or 'uses' section, why isn't that good enough. These sites are put together by botanist or plant enthusiast, with the intention of being informative. The uses of a plant is a common information included in plant databases, sites and books. Anthon01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keepin' it simple

This article is not about homeopathy, so I think we don't need a big screed about why homeopathy doesn't work here. All we need to say it how the plant is used, a few words about lack of experimental support to provide balance, and the link to homeopathy so people who are interested can find out for themselves what homeopathy is all about. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy removal justification

I have just read through the entire list of homeopathy mentions in the OUP reference. There are five (including this article they include rue, arnica montana, pulsatilla, and Bryonia alba). Each one of them is off-handed and anecdotal and none offer more than a single sentence. Only one entry asserts the prominence of the plant with respect to homeopathy (pulsatilla is described as "frequently used"). None of the entries assert the prominence of homeopathy to the plant. There is no analysis of homeopathy, no attempt to describe what a homeopathic preparation of the plant entails, and nothing beyond a brief mention in the glossary that even defines homeopathy (it's simply "an alternative medical treatment"). Indeed, the book does not explain that the homeopathic preparations rarely contain the substance. This is disturbing to me, it looks like the authors are speaking about anecdotal claims rather than trying to evaluate in a substantive way. I believe it is because they want to be thorough in their documentation of claims and sometimes (as in the case of this article) the health claims that are made are only found by homeopaths. This, of course, casts a pall on the claim itself and so it seems right that they would contextualize it to homeopath. So this is an argument for excluding the mention of its use in homeopathy, in my book. However, in some cases, they simply mention that the plant is used in homeopathy without further explanation. This is a bit strange, and I'm not sure I understand it since this listing is so haphazard and I can find nothing in other external sources to indicate that these five plants are somehow special homeopathic plants. In sum, I think this resource is fine for a basic overview on health foods, but homeopathy is not a "health food", it is a "medical treatment". The book seems to be careless with its inclusion of homeopathy on its pages. Therefore, ripping single sentences out of the book and showcasing them here on Wikipedia as singular sources for claims of homeopathic prominence seems to me to be highly problematic. For example, the index of the book contains no mention of homeopathy, though there are plenty of references to alimentary health benefits. This makes sense, the book is about healthy foods and homeopathy is about as far from "food" as "placebo". I submit that these authors included homeopathy anecdotally with no accounting of implications of their inclusion of the subject only as a means of illustration and not to assert any prominence. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. However, please note that the info about Deadly Nightshade being used as a homeopathic remedy is giving "prominence" by being described in the source, The Oxford Book of Health Food. Above, you give a fairly cogent argument; however, it is solely based on you opinion of homeopathy, the source and various Wikipedia policy rather than based on what reliable sources have to say about homeopathy and the source, and actual Wikipedia policies.

Further, please note that the additional text which you are OrangeMarlin are trying to include in the passage is not supported by the given source. I suggest that you stop pushing for this inclusion. The source does tell us that the use of Deadly Nightshade as a homeopathic remedy for various conditions is not supported by any known experimental evidence. Let's go with what the source says, and let's agree to leave the WP:OR out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE is mentioned explicitly in inclusion policies. The rest of this argument is similary specious as it does not deal substantively with the points I raised. The text will be removed unless discussion of the points I made can reveal a rationale for analyzing the source as treating homeopathy as prominent to any of the plants mentioned. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you have a sense of humor. Anthon01 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please don't refer to WP:UNDUE with your fictionalized WP:PROMINENCE. In my opinion, the only way for you to return the text at this point should be two-fold: 1) Provide a source which actually supports what you are trying to add. 2) Gain a consensus here to add it. My fear is that any more content about the homeopathic use of Deadly Nightshade will violate the actual meaning of WP:UNDUE. The text given already says that this use is not supported by any known experimental evidence. Anything else could possibly violate WP:UNDUE and probably WP:NPOV in general. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm deleting all mention of homeopathy, your enumerated suggestions are irrelevant. Since no one has commented substantively on my analysis, I assume that there are no objections. Please indicate where you disagree with any of the points I raise in the first paragraph of this section while referring directly to the proposed source. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The source was deemed reliable at WP:RSN. If you are contesting that, then please feel free to bring it back to RSN. Everyone else here is more than satisfied with the source. Reverting now will be against consensus and unjustified by any cogent Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no one at RSN commented on the analysis I wrote above. They couldn't. It was done on this page after the supposed "consensus" at RSN was reached. Although I respect the person who inserted this sentence and source into the article, I have come to a dispassionate conclusion that the source is not good enough for the content being suggested. Your insistence on ignoring this and instead referring to previous discussions is an example of a false claim of consensus. In the meantime, you still haven't dealt substantively with my request, even after I challenged you to do so three different times above. Either you will read the paragraph and try to present evidence that the source is other than I documented, or you will continue to refuse to engage and find that you increasingly have no ground upon which to stand. The choice is yours. Engage with the analysis or be bypassed. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am telling you to do is to bring your argument to WP:RSN and see if there is a change of opinion (rather than us arguing about it here). However, currently the folks at RSN agreed that Oxford Book of Health is a reliable source of the included information as does nearly every other editor on this page barring yourself. So what I am telling you to do is to bring your points to RSN and see if there is a change of opinion. Please let me know when you do bring it there as I will want to participate in that discussion at that location. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to bring anything to anywhere else but here. The conversation at WP:RSN is over and archived. If you want to start a new conversation there, you are welcome to, but there is no requirement in any of the policies to restart conversations for the sake of the whims of another editor. This is the page where we discuss the article. It is apparent that you are refusing to discuss here. I welcome your input, but I'm not going to jump through arbitrary hoops that you design. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This RSN hoop isn't arbitrary. It is part of WP:DR to get a WP:3PO. You contend that this source is not a WP:RS while everyone else (here and previously at RSN) contends it is. You have a new argument against this source but have reached an impasse here; your logical recourse to follow per DR is to seek 3POs from RSN to see if your grounds to dismiss this source holds water. I would love to discuss this further but with the guidance/opinions of third-parties. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No response? Very well. Homeopathy removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given you an adequate response. Your removal is unjustified. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to respond to my analysis. I've given plenty of time for you to do so. 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

I simply disagree with the conclusion of your analysis (that the Oxford Book of Health Food is not a reliable source). A next step is taking it to WP:RSN and see if they agree or disagree with your conclusion based on your analysis. Another step would be to wait and see if any other editors here agree with your conclusion. In the meantime, your are editing against consensus by removing information from a source which has otherwise been deemed reliable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I simply disagree with the conclusion of your analysis (that the Oxford Book of Health Food is not a reliable source). This is not the conclusion of my analysis. The conclusion is the following: I submit that these authors included homeopathy anecdotally with no accounting of implications of their inclusion of the subject only as a means of illustration and not to assert any prominence. As was stated before, you are falsely claiming consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I stated above: "Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. However, please note that the info about Deadly Nightshade being used as a homeopathic remedy is giving "prominence" by being described in the source, The Oxford Book of Health Food." Clearly, we disagree. Take it to WP:RSN or wait for more opinions here. As it stands now, you are the only one making this objection to the source. Everyone else appears to be okay with the source; hence, consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I stated above, WP:PROMINENCE is part of Wikipedia policy. The source is not giving prominence to homeopathy as it pertains to deadly nightshade. WP:RSN is irrelevant to this discussion because it's not about the reliability of the source but rather about the prominence of the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE is an invention of your own which is merely a redirect to WP:UNDUE. What in UNDUE do you feel is violated or not met by the given source. Please quote directly from the policy when possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE links to policy which uses the term. Undue weight demands that we assess the prominence of a claim with respect to the subject. This assessment was completed above and there was no dissent on the content of the analysis. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. If you want to claim that a belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy is a minority view, then fine. According to UNDUE, views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. However, we are not dealing with the "effectiveness" of homeopathy here (other than saying the majority scientific view of it) but rather talking about its usage. Its usage is not a minority view. This is established by being discussed in a source as prominent as The Oxford Book of Health Food. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have shown above that the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant is not asserted by the source. Since there is no assertion of prominence, there can be no claims of any prominence for the importance of homeopathy to this plant. Therefore, without any prominence, the policy clearly implies removal of the statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have shown that prominence is met by being mentioned in a reliable source. Further, I believe that the weight we are giving the treatment of the homeopathy usage in this article is in accord with the weight it is given in the source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply being mentioned in a source does not mean the source asserts prominence for the thing being mentioned. Since the source asserts zeros prominence the appropriate mention here is zero. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. That is why I am suggesting WP:3O. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and file one. Since you haven't been able to respond to my arguments, it is up to you to find someone who can. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are the one presenting the issue and as no one else seems to agree with you, you should therefore go elsewhere and see if your rationale holds water. As it stands now, it appears that no one agrees with your rationale here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you cannot respond to my idea for whatever reason, it is up to you to find someone who agrees with your disagreement. Simply saying "I disagree" and not providing a commentary on the statement made but instead referring to other unrelated discussions is obstructionism. Good luck finding an advocate. I'll be here waiting. As it looks right now, no one disagrees with my analysis as presented above. You haven't been able to document your objections beyond fallacies and vague innuendo. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You are simply refusing to recognize that I have responded to your rationale in full. Once again here it is: Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. However, please note that the info about Deadly Nightshade being used as a homeopathic remedy is giving "prominence" by being described in the source, The Oxford Book of Health Food. Also, User Cobaltbluetony has discounted your rationale at Talk:Rue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any part of my analysis, have mischaracterized it on no fewer than four occasions above, have ignored the fact that the word prominence is used in the WP:PROMINENCE policy, have not dealt with the anecdotal nature of the context in which homeopathy is described, have not dealt with the arbitrary nature of the inclusion of homeopathy, have falsely claimed consensus where there was none, and remanded a discussion to WP:RSN which had already been archived. That's a tall order of obstructionism you are building. Cobaltbluetony is not active here in this discussion and his contributions at another page have no bearing on this conversation until such time as he decides to discuss here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded, if I mischaracterized it it wasn't intentional, I have not ignored that "prominence" is used in the WP:UNDUe policy but I don't think it means what you think it means, I have said that the context of homeopathy int he book is not arbitrary but rather lends itself to prominence, I have claimed consensus because you are the only one disagreeing with the source now, and I have suggested RSN and other 3POs as merely a way to help solve this dispute per WP:DR. There is no obstruction as you claim and Cobaltbluetony's input at Talk:Rue is highly relevant here because it is virtually an identical situation using the same source. Please bear in mind that above I asked you: What in UNDUE do you feel is violated or not met by the given source? Please quote directly from the policy when possible. I really believe that if you answer this and quote from policy and apply those quotes to your rationale, we all will be on better footing in understanding your position. As it stands now, it doesn't appear that your rationale is inline with WP:UNDUE. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that prominence means that some topics are prominent with respect to subjects of articles and other topics are not. I am not disagreeing with the source; I am characterizing the source. I await response from you with regards to these issues. So far, you haven't explained why my analysis is incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that by only giving its homeopathic use as brief of a mention as we are, we are in line with giving the correct prominence/weight with respect to the subject of this article. This prominence/weight is determined by the source which gives the homeopathic use of Deadly nightshade similar prominence/weight in its content. That's my response regarding these issues. That has always been my response. For that reason, I believe that your interpretation of prominence is wrong and thus your analysis is incorrect. I don't believe that it is possible to spell this out any more clearly, though somehow I feel that I will be re-explaining this to you several more times until you finally concede, "Yes, Levine2112, I recognize that you have responded to my analysis and told me why you think it is incorrect." At which point, I hope you will either agree with my response (in a perfect world) or we can seek some alternate form of dispute resolution - such as WP:3O, mediation, WP:RFC, etc. - as I have been suggesting to you for the past couple of days. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not dealing with the substance of the analysis above. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy removal justification - break

The source does not assert the prominence of anything, so it is not logical to exclude everything not specifically noted as prominent. The prominence can be gauged by the space given to each use. The space we have given over to it is not out of line. Furthermore, just because they have not declared their reason for mentioning homeopathy in only certain plant articles does not mean that they have chosen these at random. It would be more reasonable to assume that the mention occurs in those plants where the homeopathic use is more important for some reason. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we should be using the "space" as proxy for prominence because it is my contention that the authors and editors were not careful in their allocation of space. This can be seen from the motley collection of plants that mention homeopathy compared to those that do not. As editors, we need to have a better rationale for inclusion than "these two editors thought it was important for some reason." I have attempted, through reading the source and what it has to say about homeopathy, to understand what the rationale is. My analysis above indicates that it was probably initially to include claims of health benefits for certain foodstuffs not made in other contexts but degenerated into mere mention as anecdotal discussions. I have yet to see someone who has actually given evidence of reading the source explain to me how this interpretation is incorrect. Therefore, I argue that the source doesn't do a good job of asserting the prominence of homeopathy to the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Levine2112 politely asked me to come here to explain my edits, I'll do so. Since Homeopathy requires multiple dilutions to the point that the only molecules remaining in solution is water itself (unless it's alcohol being used) and a possible few glass molecules from the container, mentioning that a plant (or Berlin Wall) is used in Homeopathy is giving undue weight to a fringe therapy, because in fact it's not in solution any more. Otherwise, Glass will require a section on Homeopathy. I would consider supporting an edit that met the following conditions:

1. No mention of any clinical effect, either presumed or unsupported by any clinical evidence, unless it is supported by reliable sources (I know none exist).
2. There are verifiable sources that state it is used in Homeopathy. A book doesn't count, because unless you have access to a major library, it's hard to prove. Commercial websites are inappropriate.

OK, I've participated in this discussion. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, thanks for your response. I would like to address both of your issues as follows:

1. In the version current in place, these no mention of any clinical effect. There is mention of what it is used to treat and then it says that there is no experimental evidence to support such use. This information all come from us from The Oxford Book of Health Foods, a source deemed reliable for this content at WP:RSN.
2. The Oxford Book of Health Foods does verify Deadly nightshade's use in homeopathy. I don't know why you feel it shouldn't count simply because it is a book. What would Wikipedia be without reliance on books as source. Further, please note that the reference includes a link to GoogleBook where you can read the source page from this book.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: As you requested, here are "verifiable sources that state it is used in Homeopathy."

U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna [17], Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix[18],

Written by a homeopath. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a University Medical Center. That a homeopath wrote it is OR on your part. Anthon01 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

University of Maryland Medical Center, Ear infection - [19], Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly [20], Infantile colic - [21], sinus congestion and headache - [22] and 28 more - [23],

Sourced from a hoomeopath. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources include "Barnett ED, Levatin JL, Chapman EH, et al. Challenges of evaluating homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2000;19(4):273-275. and Friese KH. Acute otitis media in children: a comparison of conventional and homeopathic treatment. Biomedical Therapy . 1997;15(4):462-466. and Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in chiildren: a preliminary ransomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr InfectDis J . These are clearly non-homeopathic sources. Anthon01 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

University of Chicago Medical Center [24], Oregon health and Science University [25], University of NH [26], Cedar-Sinai - Urinary Tract Infection - [27], Uof T Medical - Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used when the classic symptoms of inflammation are present: pain, heat, erythema and swelling. [28], Cornell U. - throbbing headache [29], [30], MedlinePlus - helps in IBS - [31], Nat Cancer Inst - Dictionary - exhibits antiinflammatory activity -[32], Clinical Trials.gov - ongoing study - [33]

These are independent articles which discuss homeopathic belladonna a.k.a. deadly nightshade. Anthon01 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Those that are independent are not talking about homeopathy. The rest are written or directly quoted from homeopathic literature. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard you set is impossible to reach. The University of Maryland references some homeopathic sources but also includes Barnett ED, Levatin JL, Chapman EH, et al. Challenges of evaluating homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2000;19(4):273-275. and Friese KH. Acute otitis media in children: a comparison of conventional and homeopathic treatment. Biomedical Therapy . 1997;15(4):462-466. and Jacobs J, Springer DA, Crothers D. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in chiildren: a preliminary ransomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr InfectDis J . 2001;20(2):177-183. What is wrong with these references? Anthon01 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not every source on homeopathy references homeopathic sources. We have to be careful in articles that are unrelated to homeopathy that we do not use homeopathic sources. That's why the OUP source deserved careful analysis. However, it still failed to establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to deadly nightshade. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop editwarring

I challenge one of you editwarriors to revert to the version that you don't favor and then discuss instead of reverting. I especially challenge this edit summary as being perhaps the most ironic of the month. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the version left by PouponOnToast is an appropriate one to leave up while the issues are discussed more fully on this page. It's worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not the private property of individual editors. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the version that excludes the homeopathy reference (which is given undue weight - the reference work talks about lots of other stuff in much more depth than homeopathy, but none of that is mentioned at all) but includes the content tag is the right version, but I'm not edit warring. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Poupon --DrEightyEight (talk)

On the plus side, this way round, people can easily check the reference for themselves while we discuss it. Stephen B Streater (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• My rough sense of the above debate is that SA has stated reasons for deleting certain material, and Levine has stated reasons for keeping it, but they are not addressing the same points; as if I were to argue, "x=3" and you argue "but y=4". Both reasons to keep, and to delete, can be valid, e.g. "delete because false" and "keep because sourced" (the source may have a factual error contradicted by other sources). The solution is to address specific single points, one at a time. I have no doubt that both SA and L are sincere in promoting the content. Disputatio pro consensum! -- Ptolemipiters Pete St.John (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My sense - and please correct me if I am wrong - is that SA's side of the debate deals with "prominence" and how it relates to WP:UNDUE. My thought is that UNDUE doesn't apply like SA thinks it does. It would be one thing if we are including content which says that Homeopathic remedies with Deadly nightshade are effective cures for such and such. In that case, we would be representing a minority view. However, we are merely saying that homeopathic remedies with Deadly nightshade are used to treat such and such, and further there is no experimental evidence to support such treatment. This seem highly aligned with the majority viewpoint. Further, since we are only dedicating a small mention of DN's use in homeopathy, we are even that much more aligned with WP:UNDUE since we are not making it appear that this use is more significant than some other use. So I don't necessarily think we are dealing X and Y (or Apples and Oranges as it were). Rather, I feel I fully understand SA's argument, but I just don't think they are aligned with Wikipedia policies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{content}} tag has been removed by User:TheDoctorIsIn in this edit. Is this a violation of article probation? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Probation

Please note the new warning tag at the top of this page. Let's be constructive --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

constructive

this is WP, and we include what the world thinks important, not what the world ought to. That the world might use this plant as a homeopathic remedy, or use anything as a specific homeopathic remedy for that matter, is in my view utterly absurd. There is no possible way of aligning such use with the rational knowledge of biology and chemistry, or accommodating it within a scientific world view. The world, unfortunately, does not have a scientific world view exclusively. It is possible that the people who feel the way SA and I do, who would utterly reject homeopathy, might even be in a minority. I suspect most people who have heard of it would say something like, well, we might as well try it. This is altogether deplorable at many levels, and very disheartening. we will have to educate them, and it seems--as it always does to educators--very difficult and frustrating to do so. It is so much less frustrating to pretend we can just ignore them. None the less we are building is a comprehensive encyclopedia. Even if it were a scientific encyclopedia, and adopted a SPOV explicitly, it would still cover the fact that homeopaths use what they think of as a preparation from this plant. all the more reason for us to do so, with the proper citations, which seem to be forthcoming. I cannot see the point of pretending that all people think the way I do. We have to tell people what the medical cults do, or they will not believe us when we talk about scientific medicine. DGG (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in utter agreement with you DGG. I too don't believe in homeopathy, but like you I recognize that Wikipedia is not a scientific POV exclusive encyclopedia but rather a NPOV comprehensive one. That's why - despite my personal beliefs about homeopathy - I am defending the "right" of content about homeopathy to be present in articles such as this one with respect to WP:UNDUE. This means that it shouldn't be given too prominent of a mention if it isn't too prominent of a subject within the topic. Prominence need not me a subjective idea which Wikipedia editors guess-timate. But rather, prominence of a subject to a Wiki article's subject can be determined by the prominence the subject is given in a reliable source about the Wiki article's subject. In this case, Deadly nightshade's homeopathic use in the Oxford source is given a couple of sentences in the Oxford Book of Health Foods article which is several paragraphs long. Likewise, our mention of the homeopathy in the Wikipedia article should be in similar proportions. I believe how we have the article written currently fully meets this prominence proportion and thus satisfies WP:UNDUE. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you are making too much sense here. To do otherwise would be censorship. This project is about all knowledge not just scientific knowledge. Your statement "This is altogether deplorable at many levels, and very disheartening. we will have to educate them, and it seems--as it always does to educators--very difficult and frustrating to do so. unfortunately sounds too similar to the talk of religious fundamentalist. For some science is a religion. Anthon01 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you have unwittingly (probably because you haven't been keeping up with the discussions) made an argument that has already been through the ringer and come out the other end. The issue isn't whether homeopathy is bunk, the issue is that the use of the plant in homeopathy is not verifiable except to homeopathic sources and, since that is the case, we need to have a source which indicates that the use of the plant in homeopathy is relevant to the plant itself. How is this done? By finding a source that states it as such. For example, a source that said "The homeopathic remedies that use this plant in preparation are often the only way people come in contact with this plant's name" or "The homeopathic remedies that use this plant are more popular than the confirmed medical uses". There are any number of ways to establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this subject. But it needs to be established by a reliable, independent mainstream source. Once this is done, then there is no issue, homeopathy gets mentioned on the page. See domesticated sheep for an example of how this is done. So far, the people promoting inclusion of homeopathy have pointed to one single solitary source that qualifies as reliable, independent, and mainstream, but the source does not indicate the prominence of homeopathy to the plant. In fact, it seems like a haphazard mention without justification. I evaluated the source above. So far, no one has disputed this analysis. So, the removal of homeopathy from this page proceeds until someone finds a source that makes a claim of prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made your arguments; they have been rejected by some, embraced by others. But your opinions certainly have not been embraced as policy. Rather, they are at the center of a raging dispute that has caused this article probation. Making ridiculous claims like 'no one has disputed this analysis' just makes your comments look absurd. As does your unilateral declaration that you shall be the sole judge of what are acceptable sources, especially after discussions about this topic at the reliable sources noticeboard went completely against your bizarre opinions. Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Willikers! I read this whole page and its counterpart on Rue. . . also read undue weight policy. . . fringe policy. . . souring policy. . . Scienceapologist's opinion is not grounded. Why is one stubborn editor allowed to make such a stink on such a minor bit of info?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That one editor or a group or engaged in blocking RS info to be added could be construed as disruptive editing. Additionally I direct your attention to the following RS/N[34] NPOV/N[35] and finally to here where the moderator reiterates a sentiment that I have often repeated, that we are not writing a science encyclopedia. [36] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess while reading this page I overlooked the dispute banner thingee. . . what do I do?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At minimum, apologize to Science Apologist for calling him "stubborn," and reinsert the content tag, and avoid edit warring or be incivil. At best, revert to the version you do not prefer, apologize to Science Apologist for calling him "stubborn," and never edit war or be incivil. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did research and Scienceapologist made his edits after the banner thing went up. . . Why did you take it easy on him but are putting me through the ringer? Why not ask him to revert to the version he does not prefer? What is a content tag? Scienceapologist. . . sorry.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not remove the disputed tag or call you "stubborn." The content tag is the template you removed that said {{content}}. It is much like the welcome template you added here. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe someone has violated the Article Probation, you should report it on WP:AN/I. One thing you should not do is allow yourself to be drawn into an argument meant to distract from the issue. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I beleive Scienceapologist and Orangemarlin have violated the probation and they should be reported them to AN\I much like I was. . . the difference being that this was my first edit here. . . they have been editwarring here for some time now.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, TDII, but you must choose you battles. I think it was big of you to apologize for the uncivil characterization and that goes a long way in my book. But yes - in theory - I agree with you that edit warring seemingly violation the probation this article is currently under. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see an apology from TDII. Could you provide a diff? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. 18:04, 31 January 2008. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's a baseline apology. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is light-years more than I have heard going the other way. We need to encourage such behavior and not characterize it as "baseline". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note

I have made a detailed analysis of the way that the reference on Health Foods handles all cases of homeopathy. It is clear that they do not consider homeopathy prominent. By WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMINENCE we are therefore justified in excising homeopathy from this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What reference on Health Foods? Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RTFA. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the mere fact that the Oxford Book of Health Foods includes the homeopathic use of a substance in a short characterization of the substance clearly establishes "prominence". WP:WEIGHT is therefore satisfied by including mention of its homeopathic use in proportion to how it is described in the source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion is not the same thing as prominence. You can read the difference between the two concepts in most if not all English dictionaries. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's was a pretty uncivil comment, SA. Not only does it misrepresents my statements (I'm saying that inclusion establishes prominence), it is also condescending and impugns my intelligence. I expect that PoupOnToast will be warning you about this as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion doesn't establish prominence. They are totally different ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Probation?

This article does not appear to be under probation. Blatent personal attacks, edit warring and tag removal are going around without sanction. I suggest this article be placed on 1rr, and that any further, even borderline violations of basic civility result in unappealable 1 month bans. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. There are approximately 3-4 editors who watch over NPOV. There are a huge number of POV warriors. We'd lose under your scenario. I suggest that Homeopathy promoters get 1RR in total. That should work for me.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the use of "POV warriors" is in effect equivalent to "POV pusher" and thus is an uncivil term to use; especially given the probationary status of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Turning this on its head

So let's see what would happen if we applied the remove prominence argument to conventional medicine. I think we have already had reported that 59.000 homeopathic "doses" of belladonna were removed from circulation by the US government. What evidence do we have that conventional medicinal uses reach anything like this level? Perhaps the conventional use is the insignificant one. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to counter or support an argument that makes no sense. What are you saying or suggesting? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a new argument. Are you trying to say that homeopathy is prominent wrt Deadly Nightshade because of the 59,000 doses? If so, where's your source? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have we seen any article say that conventional medicine is prominent wrt deadly nightshade? We know that 59,000 doses of homeopathic solution were withdrawn because of contamination fears. It is at least conceivable that the homeopathic use exceeds all medical uses. Where would that put the medical/homeopathic balance in the article? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources which indicate that the plant is used in conventional medicine actually document the use of the plant or an extract from the plant. However, there is no indication that this use happens in homeopathy. It's comparing apples and oranges. Remember, WP:PROMINENCE applies to minority opinions. The opinion of the modern medical community is not a minority opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can make a bronze statue by carving a wax one, covering it with clay, melting the wax, pouring it out, filling the clay with bronze and then washing away the clay. Although no wax is left, wax was used in the manufacture of the statue. So the absence of any deadly nightshade in the homeopathic remedy does not imply that it was not used in the preparation of the remedy. Although the use of homeopathic remedies is a minority view, the fact of its use is a majority view, and so not subject to the minority section in WP:PROMINENCE. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that water memory is like making a mold? If so, where is your evidence that this works like this? Are you arguing that an article on wax should include mention the creation of bronze statues? This argument is beginning to sound more and more stretched: as though you are reaching for rationale. You admit to homeopathy being a minority view, which implies that WP:WEIGHT comes into play, but then contradict yourself and claim it is a "majority view" in the "fact of its use". Huh? It's either minority or majority. The fact that pseudoscience "exists" is a "majority view". Does that mean every article on science should mention pseudoscience without regards for undue? Grasping at straws, methinks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is more whether there should be a 'uses of wax' section in wax. This is analagous to there being a uses of deadly nightshade section here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't quite work that way because making a mold isn't a fringe theory. Let's take a better example: let's say that astrologers used channeled wax to make ouija boards. Would you want to include this in the article on wax? When does WP:UNDUE apply if not for such occasions? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or even more analogous would be a "uses" section in an article on a particular type of wax which was indeed uses for casting molds of bronze statues (there are many kinds of wax just as there are many kinds of plants). Regardless, I believe that SBS's point has been clearly stated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't quite work because mold making is not a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

ScienceApologist is still maintaining that no one has dealt with his argument regarding the Oxford Book of Health Foods source. He's latest edit summary in his edit war insists: please see talk. No one has responded to the arguments made. I feel that I and others have responded to his arguments ad nauseum. What I want to find out from others here is:

1. Is there any other part of his argument which hasn't been responded to? If so, what?
2. Does anyone agree with ScienceApologist's rationale that if we are to include mention of the homeopathic use in this article then the source must assert "the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant"? If so, which Wikipedia policy supports such a rationale? And if so, do you feel that the source doesn't assert prominence to the homeopathic use of this plant merely by mentioning that there is a homeopathic use of this plant but rather should go on to explain specifics about "the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant"?

Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone makes a nonsensical argument, you reply by pointing out it is nonsense. If they repeat that argument an additional 4000 times, it is not actually necessary to make 4000 additional replies. He took his nonsensical assertions about 'prominence' to the reliable sources noticeboard where they were rejected. Then to the NPOV talk page where they similarly failed to gain support. My advice o all editors is to relax, be calm, and be patient when it comes to seeing how article probation works out.Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But what do you do when that same editor uses his unsupported logic and effectively blocks anyone from including content else wise? We've reached an impasse. Perhaps an RFC is the next step. Everyone okay with that? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when talk page discussion has reached an impasse, an RfC is appropriate. Hopefully, if there is an RfC, already involved editors will refrain from disrupting it by arguing with every outside respondent who disagrees with their already stated position. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about me in the third person is rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please stop focusing on each other's conduct; it's not helping to solve the dispute. As a user previously uninvolved in this article, I have said that SA's argument makes sense to me. The way forward, as I say below, is to find sources that specifically say deadly nightshade is an important material in homeopathy. Without sources that support that specific assertion, homeopathy shouldn't be mentioned in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. We need a source that says that homeopathy's use of nightshade is prominent with respect to nightshade. We can find plenty of homeopaths claiming that hundreds of plants are important to them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "prominent with respect to nightshade." Can you provide a (hypothetical) example of the type of source that would fulfill this requirement? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. A mainstream, independent source that said something like "most people come in contact with belladonna at the homeopathy counter of the local drug store". Or a soure that said, "50% of all belladonna that is cultivated and grown for harvest by homeopathic producers." ScienceApologist (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In my opinion, that sets the bar too high; it would be enough for me to find a few sources that said that belladonna preparations were among those used most often in homeopathy. (Obviously, there would have to be some actual statistics behind that claim.) I list one such source below. However, in theory, a source such as the one you ask for could exist, and I would set the percentage lower--if someone can reliably establish that 25% (say) of belladonna was used in homeopathy, I think that would be worth mentioning here. (But the Oxford Book of Health Foods doesn't help with us with any of this.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to buy that argument, but I think we need to do more article-based research for this. I say, let's get List of homeopathic remedies up to snuff first so we can identify the most popular homeopathic potions and then decide on a threshhold. We need to be thorough before we decide how to do this (if we decide to do this) and should not apply it in a haphazard way. The percentage I used was arbitrary. Perhaps even 10% would be high enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)r

That sounds like a productive approach; centralizing discussion at Talk:List of homeopathic remedies might help cut down on the conflict that's spread across the plant articles, as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for that. Let's remand all further conversations to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies. Until such time as the article there can delineate the most prominent homeopathic remedies for inclusion on other articles we should avoid these discussions on these pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other editor's response

Editors other than SA, please respond to my questions here. Thanks all. I hope this lends tome clarity to this debacle. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have a place for editors "other than SA". You don't have the right to ban me from talkpage sections, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not banning you from anything. I am seeking clarity on how others feel about your argument and not how you feel about your argument. I am hoping that this will help resolve this dispute. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that precludes me from responding here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Do what you you like. I'm only trying to help resolve this dispute. You actions here are disruptive to the process. So post where you want. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Small victories and all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

That's not my rationale, Levine. My rationale is that the source is not asserting the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant but instead is mentioning it in passing, anecdotally, much the same way someone writing an article on the Earth might mention modern belief in a flat earth in passing, anecdotally without asserting its prominence. The analysis shows that the authors do not investigate homeopathy even to the point of lacking a definition of the subject. It seems that they began including homeopathy to contextualize certain health-benefit claims for certain plants but then sometimes just threw anecdotal mention of homeopathic remedies without any systematic rationale. The fact that the five plants mentioned are not singled out by any other group with respect to homeopathy makes me believe that they simply were not interested in asserting prominence of homeopathy with respect to the plants. Indeed, they had a different editorial goal than we do at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the mere fact that the Oxford Book of Health Foods includes the homeopathic use of a substance in a short characterization of the substance clearly establishes "prominence". WP:WEIGHT is therefore satisfied by including mention of its homeopathic use in proportion to how it is described in the source. It seems that you are making a generalization about the authors of the book based on your own WP:OR. Regardless, the authors found the homeopathic use of these substances prominent enough to mention in their respective articles. I really don't understand why you feel that the authors need to define what homeopathy is. I agree with you in that the authors included homeopathy to contextualize certain health-benefit claims for certain plants. That's exactly what we are doing here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the mere fact of mentioning something does not establish prominence. I can mention a number of reliable mainstream authors who mention the modern flat earth adherents in anecdotal passing when discussing the vagueries of planet Earth. That does not mean they were asserting prominence. I am making an analysis of the authors use of homeopathy based on their book, so it's not original research, it's simply looking at how the idea is used. The fact that the authors don't even bother to define homeopathy is telling: it means that they didn't think it important. This strikes a major blow for anyone trying to say that they though homeopathy is prominent with respect to these plants since they don't care to even say what homeopathy is beyond a throwaway, non-descriptive definition. The authors may have wanted to include a broad range of claims from the prominent to the silly in their book. I don't know, I'm not sure what the authors motivations were. However, it is clear that they were not asserting that homeopathy was prominent with respect to these plants. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please quote from WP:UNDUE where you feel it suggests that a source must assert "prominence" on a topic with respect to an article in order to include the topic in an article? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do even better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That didn't help me before to understand your point. What I am asking for is a direct quote from WP:UNDUE which supports your argument about prominence. That's all. I don't need your rationale to go along with it. Just the specific quote. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A relevant section would be:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In this case, the viewpoint is vastly limited with respect to this mainstream topic. To show otherwise would be to provide a source which demonstrates prominence in the treatment of homeopathy with respect to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I and others have pointed out to you on multiple occasions, the fact that Deadly nightshade is used in a homeopathic remedy is not a viewpoint (held by a minority or a majority). It is a fact. Now then, if we were to say that homeopathic remedies with Deadly nightshade are effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome then that would be a minority view. But we are not saying that. We are merely citing its use; and we even go one further and cite the majority view which that there is no experimental evidence to substantiate claims of effectiveness. So I think it should be clear why that portion of WP:UNDUE does not apply. Is there some other part of WP:UNDUE which you think may apply here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The supposed "fact" of the "use" of deadly nightshade is the opinion of people who believe that water memory or some other pseudoscientific mechanism can somehow allow for the plant to be used in homeopathic remedies even when it is not present in said remedies. Hardly a fact. Nevertheless, it may STILL warrant inclusion in the article if we can just show that this point-of-view is prominent with respect to the subject of the article (that's why WP:UNDUE applies in the first place). An attempt was made to show that a health foods book asserted the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant. On close analysis, it was shown that the book only haphazardly referenced homeopathy and didn't seem to show that it was prominent with respect to any of the plants that had homeopathy mentioned in their articles. In fact, homeopathy was not duly considered by the book at all; they didn't even provide a working definition of the topic. So we're left with one solitary source which anecdotally mentions homeopathy in the same way that some goofy professor might mention the Flat Earth Society when writing an entry on the Earth. Hardly asserting prominence, just connection with anecdotes. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. I still feel that your analysis is without merit to Wikiepdia and groundless in these discussion. This is why I want to hear from others. So please sit back and let's see who agrees with your rationale as I summarized above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you haven't been able to answer me yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there has yet to be any editors who agree with your rationale about WP:UNDUE. Most seem to think that you are setting the bar way to high. Are you convinced yet or do you think a proper RfC should be started on this matter? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I basically agree with SA's argument. Why don't you let User:Stephen B Streater complete his research before you do anything? More sources are likely to help clarify what we should do. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread your response about "setting the bar too high" above. I definitely agree that we should wait for the research from Stephen B Streater, but I maintain what others here maintain and what RSN concluded, that the Oxford book is a satisfactory source for inclusion of the material and that SA's interpretation of WP:UNDUE is not grounded in the policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. However, I disagree with you that the discussion on RSN reached a consensus; that discussion (in which SA didn't take part) contains more or less the same arguments that are here on the talk page, and it doesn't look like people came to an agreement. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple

SA's argument looks pretty simple to me: The Oxford Book of Health Food only gives trivial coverage of deadly nightshade's use in homeopathy; therefore, this source doesn't establish that this is a prominent use of the plant. I find this argument convincing.

If deadly nightshade is an important homeopathic material, it should not be difficult to establish this by reference to non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It may be helpful to look at WP:NOTABILITY, which provides some guidance in regard to "trivial" vs. "significant" coverage. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Google search "Deadly nightshade" and uses yields as the first link The entire plant, harvested when coming into flower, is used to make a homeopathic remedy[232]. This is used especially in cases where there is localised and painful inflammation that radiates heat. It is also used to treat sunstroke and painful menstruation.[37]

Yeah, it is 'simple', however, there is no corresponding Wikipedia policy of 'prominence', WP:UNDUE is being misapplied, and I predict that he assumption that there aren't other sources that talk about this use of this plant will turn out to be completely wrong. Deadly nightshade is in reality used in homeopathic preparations; sooner or later Wikipedia will reflect this reality. How many blood vessels end up being burst between now and then is an open question. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are other sources, find them. It's not that hard, I think: this source says that belladonna was among the five most common medicinal products prescribed by homeopathic GPs in France: M Trichard, E Lamure, and Gilles Chaufferin, "Study of the practice of homeopathic General Practitioners in France," Homeopathy (2003) 92, p. 136.

The ibiblio site doesn't appear to have any editorial control. I don't think it passes WP:RS. On the topic of "prominence", SA's argument is well within policy: we don't write encyclopedia articles based on trivial coverage in other sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my issue with this: one of the most common homeopathic remedies listed uses Muscovy duck liver. Does this mean we should have a link to homeopathy on that article by this rationale? Seems a little weird to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that say that is one of the most common homeopathic remedies, then why wouldn't we state that in the article? Simply because it exposes Homeopathy to ridicule? So what? Homeopathy is quackery, why don't you want people to know that? I just don't understand this fetish with trying to protect people from seeing information about homeopathy. Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it exposes Muscovy Duck to ridicule. Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WE MUST DEFEND THE HONOR OF THE MUSCOVY DUCK!! --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may taste like a duck, but there's no way it should be exposed to quackery. Relata refero (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I simply don't buy the "it does not harm to mention pseudoscience in completely unrelated places". That it makes homeopathy look silly is irrelevant, we aren't here to write silly things just for the sake of silly things. Homeopathy is not that prominent with respect to duck liver, I'd say. If you think differently, I think you have a pretty weird definition of prominent. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that when someone mentions a Muscovy Duck to me, homeopathy is not in the list of the top 10 things I think of. (Till now.) Which is actually what I meant... Relata refero (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words... you used to not know that one of the most common homeopathic remedies uses Muscovy Duck liver as an ingredient, and now, thanks to ScienceAplogist, you know that. So for you at least, Wikipedia has worked: you have learned something. Isn't that what this project is about? Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia is governed by WP:FIVE, not the policies that one particular editor decides to invent. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2008 (UT, C)

Arbitrary section break

As someone with absolutely no interest in Homeopathy or Deadly Nightshade, I'll leave the research to someone else. I'm sure someone else will find other sources eventually. My interest here is in whether or not the Wikipedia model of collaborative editing works. As I've previously said, there is no Wikipedia policy about 'prominence' - it's completely SA's invention. If you agree with him that it should be policy, it is certainly within your right to work to change Wikipedia policies to match SA's ideas. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a straightforward application of the concept of notability to article content. Wikipedia editors argue all the time about whether something is important enough to include in an article or not, and if sources devote only trivial coverage to an aspect of a subject, that's a good indication that the information isn't worth including in a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Do you have an opinion about the link? How about the following links?

U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna [38], Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix[39],

University of Maryland Medical Center, Ear infection - [40], Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly [41], Infantile colic - [42], sinus congestion and headache - [43] and 28 more - [44] Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these say how common belladonna is, and they're basically brochures. There must be better sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no doubt that it has been established by citations to reliable sources that this plant is used in homeopathic preparations. I urge you to ask in an RfC: "Based on the following sources , should the Deadly Nightshade article state that it is used in homeopathic preparations?" Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Anthon01 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not a joke. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why you would ask me if my comment was a joke. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the links are dead and when I look at edit page they said, yada, yada, yada. I understand now what you mean. It would be helpful to get your impression of a good link or two. Anthon01 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been demonstrated repeatedly that no source is going to be acceptable to some. And the shifting arguments and moving goalposts indicate to me that simple discussion is not going to resolve the dispute. Which is why I suggested an RfC. Although I'm not sure how strong my faith is in that process, either. Dlabtot (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we already go through an RfC in the Thuja O. article where the large majority said to keep the reference in the article? I don't think the reference and text has made its way into the article yet. Anthon01 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversations on homeopathic ingredients

Let's remand all future conversations about the prominence (or lack thereof) of homeopathic remedies to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies. What say ye? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from posting to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies... go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, so you agree? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I agree with everything I've said. If you want to work on the List of homeopathic remedies article... go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I don't see any evidence of an end in sight to the rather lame edit war here, so I have protected the article for a couple of weeks in the hope that discussion might result. This is probably the triumph of hope over experience, though. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back :-) Hopefully some stronger references will clear up the disagreements. At least the subject being debated undeniably exists this time! Stephen B Streater (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Plan

OK - Here's my plan. I will go to my local library and have a look at some genuine reference books on deadly nightshade, and report back on how significant they think homeopathy is. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For some non-reliable sources (ie Google hits) about 2% of deadly nightshade article mention homeopathy by name. I would be looking for a weighting of homeopathy in this article similar to the average (ie mean) weighting in the deadly nightshade references we can come up with. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need to look for is claims of prominence. That's what is most important. I don't like word counting because some sources can revel in anecdotes and tangential discussions which doesn't help us build a tertiary source encyclopedia. Bring us some really good sources on deadly nightshade and list the quotes that assert the prominence of homeopathy with respect to that plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick recce today. My library has quite a few books on plants and flowers, and I picked out about half a dozen. Only three mentioned Deadly Nightshade or Belladonna, typically about 10-20 lines each, and none of these mentioned homeopathy. I will compile a definitive list of references and content when I get a chance. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to "Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition" by Stuart A. Vyse: Belladonna is a popular homeopathic medicine made from the poisonous deadly nightshade... [45] -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit weak to me. Popular by what measure? Also, this indicates that it is popular for inclusion in List of homeopathic preparations. Is it prominent for discussion in an article on the plant? This source is not a source about plants at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a surprise. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By the same logic, we cannot include the content: The fictional character Sally in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas uses Deadly Nightshade several times in the movie to get away from her master Doctor Finklestein. - without first citing a source about plants? The same goes for: The British rock band Queen used the lyric "Well I've loved a million women in a belladonic haze" in their early song Keep Yourself Alive. - and pretty much 80% of the content currently used in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRIVIA. I think you'd have some support for removing the items you mention. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:TRIVIA is applicable: This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Nor do I think we should be excluding this material as they - like the homeopathic usage - represents relevant and notable knowledge about Belladonna. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects." Sure, the guideline is about formatting, not inclusion; but there's broad support in the communtity for removing trivial information from articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How are we to determine "trivia"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd advocate composing a clear actionable sentence, e.g. "use of this article's subject as an ingredient in homeopathy is relevant and should be included" (or, "trivial and should be excluded") then have "agree", "disagree", and "comment" replies, and get a consensus. We plainly won't have an undiluted consensus (no pun intended) but it would be wiki-proceduralistic. Don't you think? I love it when specifics are addressed, patiently. The debates about our cross-purposes can be ultimately circular. Pete St.John (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should endeavour to actually find some evidence before giving a verdict, but then we could gauge the consensus. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I in fact want to pursue that, I have a link to explore; but frankly, I consider the burden of proof to be on the defendant in this case: I consider the scienfic community to be squarely (if not unanimously) opposed to homeopathy per se as a body of contemporary medical methods. So IMO it can be treated as pseudoscience, superstition, clinging to outmoded beliefs, wishful thinking, variously; and not in any way as scientific (by contemporary standards). There are honest scientists doing honest research in Psi, for example, but until they come up with something we can consider that topic as not science. Not evil, not quackery (always), not fruad (always), but certainly not science. Until there is some science. Currently there isn't, but there are suggestions of some scientific effects (less than the full statement of homeopathy, of course) that I want to explore. But we should consider homeopathy as not science for the time being. Pete St.John (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As my research develops, it has become apparent that there are several possible places to look for Deadly Nightshade articles. I have started off looking at botanical references, but I can also look up medical reference books. Are there any other areas which might claim deadly nightshade as their own? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New Shortcut

In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second

In this series of edits, Levine2112 has restored the passage "Belladonna has been used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies for acne, boils, and sunburns. There is no experimental evidence to support its use in this way." In this diff, Levine2112 claims that the Oxford Book of Health Foods is "now a very strong source." I'd like to know how Levine2112 arrived at this conclusion, because the discussion on this talk page has indicated that there's quite a bit of disagreement about whether this source justifies mentioning homeopathy in this article. Since I'm not a big fan of edit warring, I'm not going to remove the sentences that Levine2112 added, but I see no consensus that this material should be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Levine2112 is falsely claiming consensus again. I removed the sentences because I think he is gaming the system. We are still waiting on the results of the research by Stephen, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN determined that the Oxford Book of Health Foods is indeed good source for including this information. What other issues need to be addressed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was consensus at RSN, consensus can change, and I don't think that the Oxford book justifies the inclusion of the information. Regarding your point about consistency below, let's remove the bit about detoxification too. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus CAN change but that doesn't mean it has changed nor that it will. Dlabtot (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about consensus, why not try to find a source that argues for the prominence of homeopathy with respect to deadly nightshade? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no corresponding Wikipedia policy. It's simply a link to WP:UNDUE. Dlabtot (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't preventing people from finding such sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

The article talks of Belladonna extract used in the detoxification of alcoholics based on the WP:RS the AA "Big book" by anon author (Bill W.), but Belladonna's use in homeopathic remedies for various conditions in man and animals is not, despite 24 peer reviewed journal articles about it found using the search terms belladonna and homeopathic on PubMed. Ward20 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the editors opposed to including the homeopathic usage had any consistency (or perhaps just interest), they would remove the detoxification of alcoholics information as well. Apparently they only seem to be targeting the removal of Deadly nightshade's well-documented use in the preparation of homeopathic remedies. I have yet to see any good, policy-backed justification for its removal. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} should be added, or the content removed if you consider it unreliable. Other stuff exists is not justification for inclusion. Justin ^chat 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added {{fact}} where I deemed a source was necessary (which is pretty much the entire article). I hope this doesn't come across as making a point, but it does show had little we source in this article and puts the reluctance to include the well-cited homeopathic use into perspective. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of reliability, it's a question of how important the information is. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How are we to determine "importance"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Ward20 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:WEIGHT tells us how to treat information once importance (significance) to the subject is determined. My question was: How do we determine "importance"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Through discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is at the editors' consensual discretion to determine how important an aspect is to a subject? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes; the editors of a particular article make arguments about whether a piece of information is significant, or not, and hopefully develop a consensus about whether the information should be included in an article. This situation is a bit more complicated, because this discussion isn't just about deadly nightshade--the underlying issue here is how homeopathy should be covered on WP, in particular whether it should be mentioned in the articles for every plant that is used in homeopathic remedies, a selection of those plants, or none at all. That's why a centralized discussion would be helpful--we could come up with standards for inclusion/exclusion that would apply to the whole range of articles instead of fighting it out on each and every one. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So essentially - after all the bickering about sources, NPOV, fringe and verifiability - it comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Meaning, it would seem that the only accurate way to describe the main rationale for exclusion seems to be: I don't like homeopathy, it isn't important, and therefore information about it shouldn't be mentioned in article foo. Is this basically it?

If we were to centralize discussions, where could we do that? Mediation? An RfC? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Basically, yes; the editors of a particular article make arguments about whether a piece of information is significant, or not, and hopefully develop a consensus about whether the information should be included in an article." I agree with the statement as it follows weight and consensus guidelines. However, I do not understand how establishing exceptional standards for homeopathy applied across multiple articles can be supported by WP policy or guidelines. "how homeopathy should be covered on WP, in particular whether it should be mentioned in the articles for every plant that is used in homeopathic remedies, a selection of those plants, or none at all.", sounds a bit like censorship to me.

Why complicate the issue? In this article weight seems to be fairly straightforward. Description > Toxicity (although I don't know why Atropine is treated with so much detail concerning the nervous system since someone can follow the link for that information) > Cosmetics (should probably be history but is interesting) > medicine (Where homeopathy should be included. One measure of significance is peer reviewed journal articles, 24 for belladonna and homeopathic on PubMed Vs 12 for Donnatal. They are even similar in that efficacy is disputed for both.) > Recreational drug > or = Folklore > or = Belladonna in the Media. Based on that simple analysis, (there are obviously different ways to approach it) homeopathy in the article belladonna should have slightly more weight than Donnatal. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ward20, your logic here seems very reasonable; measuring relative "importance" by a topic's appearance in conjunction with the article subject in reliable sources (both amount and quality). I agree that the sheer amount of research which has gone into studying the homeopathic effects of Belladonna certainly establishes its relative "importance" to this article. Additionally, reliable sources such as the Oxford Book of Health Foods which dedicate a significant amount of space to discussion homeopathy on its page about Belladonna also can be used to judge weight. So where do we stand now? Where do we take it from here? It seems as though no matter how many sources we provide, no matter how many arguments we negate, no matter how many editors agree to inclusion, there will always be several editors opposed to inclusion on the mere basis that they don't like homeopathy and therefore don't think it should be mentioned in this article. (As a side note, I am skeptical about homeopathy. Currently, I am of the mindset that it is bunk. Regardless, I don't believe that my personal beliefs should have any bearing on content inclusion.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As you say, Levine2112, importance is relative. 24 articles is really not a lot, in comparison to the total number of articles that mention deadly nightshade. If you search on PubMed for "belladonna", you get 1180 results; 24 is a small fraction of that. A google scholar search for "belladonna atropine" turns up some 3180 articles, many of which look like they're in peer-reviewed journals, and I doubt that most of them have to do with homeopathy. I don't claim that google searches are the best guide to what should and shouldn't be included in an article, but these results suggest that the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade is not a prominent feature of scientific discussion about the subject.

Unless I'm wrong, I thought that the Oxford Book of Health Foods devoted one sentence to homeopathic uses of belladonna. No, wait, it's half of one sentence. That's not "a significant amount of space".

I thought Stephen B Streater's plan to look in a number of plant reference books to see what they say about deadly nightshade was a good one. Further up on this page, he says that he looked in three books, and they didn't mention homeopathy; but certainly there are many more books that could be consulted. When there are disputes about what to include and what to leave out, I often think that looking at the way other reference works handle a subject is helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review the Oxford Book of Health Food again [46]. On such a short page of information, it discusses homeopathic preparations made from Deadly nightshade twice. And while 24 studies out of 1180 studies mentioning Belladonna may not seem like a lot, it is a notable sum indeed. That's 2% of published studies/mentions of Belladonna. Too notable to write off as mere trivia. By this rationale, 2% of are article (or at least the scientific sections) should be dedicated to discussing the homeopathic usage. I would guestimate that the two sentences proposed (along the lines of mentioning the homeopathic usage and then the lack of scientific support) would qualify as equal or less than 2% of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another google scholar search on "belladonna homeopathy" turns up 1,060 articles. Using that analysis, since I count 9 sentences with atropine in them, approximately 3 sentences could/should have homeopathy in them. There are two sentences using Donnatal, so that correlates fairly well with the other analysis using peer reviewed journals where it appeared that homeopathy should have slightly more weight than Donnatal.

I am also skeptical homeopathy is efficatious, but the information is what it is and we should report it that way. Ward20 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether homeopathy is prominent with respect to Belladonna. The Oxford Book of Health Foods does not establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant. I encourage the diligent scholars here to find a source which does reliably and independently make such an assertion. At that point I will clamor for the inclusion of homeopathy at this page. Until then I will clamor for the exclusion of homeopathy on this page. I am not opposed to excluding the mention of the supposed cure for alcoholism since the source is also dubious. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that over 2% of all scientific research conducted dealing with Deadly nightshade is involved in studying belladonic homeopathy. Prominence of homeopathy with respect to Belladonna is established by this. The Oxford Book of Health Foods discussing homeopathy twice on such a compact page of information also establishes the prominence of homeopathy with respect to Belladonna.

Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state that a reliable source is needed to make a direct assertion of prominence of one subject to another. Yet, this is what you are requesting us to find. Rather - if we read WP:WEIGHT carefully - we see that prominence is determined by how much weight reliable sources give one subject in a discussion about another; and from the weight given to the subject in the reliable sources, we should in turn give proportional weight in our Wikipedia article.

So what do we have? We know that at least 2% of scientific belladonic research deals with homeopathy. Do we translate that to mean that weight-wise we can allocate 2% of our article to homeopathy? We know that the Oxford Book of Health Foods allocated a couple of sentences to homeopathic preparations on its compact Deadly nightshade page. I'd estimate that the Oxford article is about a third-to-a-quarter of the length of our Wiki article. Does that mean we allocate 6-8 sentence to homeopathy here?

Well, what has been proposed and accepted by many here are simply two succinct sentences: one to describe DN's homeopathic use and another to tell of its scientific acceptance (or lack thereof). I really believe that inserting there simple two sentence into this article is entirely reasonable and well within the policy guidelines set forth by WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

2% is pretty small. The Oxford Book of Health Foods is only one source, and a specialized one; the general plant references that have been consulted so far give no space to homeopathy. That makes me think that we don't need to, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you think that 2% is pretty small, then you shouldn't have an issue with us dedicating 2% of this article to discussions about Deadly nightshade's verifiable homeopathic usage. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We know that at least 2% of scientific belladonic research deals with homeopathy. What utter nonsense. Using your same "method" for this determination, at Google Scholar, I found that .07% of all scientific papers on "Belladonna"[[47] also reference "homeopathy".[48] And the majority of those are either sourced by "homeopathic" journals, or show that such remedies are ineffective beyond placebo. None of them assert the prominence of homeopathy to Belladonna, and if the percentage is indicative of anything, it's that homeopathic remedies have virtually no relevance to this plant, or the article. Justin ^chat 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually what your link above shows is a Google search which elicits 14800 results of "belladonna" in scholarly works. Now, let's perform a Google Scholar search for belladonna homeopath and we get 1070 results of instances of "belladonna" and "homeopath" (homeopathic, homeopathy, etc). That's over 7%. Over 7% of scholarly works discussing "belladonna" also discuss "homeopathy". 7%. Now that's relevant. Please try it for yourself. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I did a Google Scholar search for "deadly nightshade" and one for "deadly nightshade" homeopath; 1,470 versus 123 results respectively. That's over 8%! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick point without taking sides; you can't rely on such multiple searches as your second one in Google Scholar. Your search will pick up anything in Scholar that contains the two strings, even if they're in completely different sections of a 300-page paper. Black Kite 15:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the 24 PubMed articles, I read the largest double-blind randomized controlled trial ever conducted for homeopathic proving (as of 2003) was done with a Belladonna 30C dosage, and it concluded ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects.[49] That seems significant enough in itself to be in the article. Why not say something like, "Belladonna is used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies, and among other articles on homeopathic Belladonna, a large double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled 2003 study with ultramolecular homeopathic Belladonna found no observable clinical effects"?[50]

There is a large sentence about belladonna and witches,[51] two sentences on belladonna and the devil in Folklore,[52] and a rather large paragraph on Belladonna in the Media.[53] Based on the amount of coverage on these other topics (with almost no sources), it would certainly seem there is enough weight in RS publications for a sentence about Belladonna homeopathic use and a notable Belladonna study. Please consider WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, and Information suppression:

* Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

• • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
  • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).

Not that I consider anyone doing anything spurious. Ward20 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if we were dealing with an actual Fringe Theory here, we would have more than enough asserted prominence to include information. As we are not dealing with a theory but rather a fact - homeopathic remedies are in fact prepared with Deadly nightshade - all of these bonus citations are merely icing on cake - a three-tiered extravagant cake made with reliably sourced flour, verifiable eggs, independent third-party milk, and NPOV sugar. :-) Prominence - if that was ever really required by some policy - has long been met and exceeded. Now let's eat some cake. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't even come close. Google searches (for what they are worth) provide a reference, but nothing more. Simply because the two terms are used in a paper, no matter how often, doesn't indicate prominence. The citation that supposedly proves its use is prominent to Deadly_nightshade is nonsense. It says nothing about prominence. Disregarding that, you still have no consensus to add that information, so I ask that you self-revert instead of making broad claims about what has or hasn't been met. Justin ^chat 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the actual amount of research we have pointed to, rather than highlight the Google searches which was merely meant to counter an argument which you made. Now then, I have found yet another piece of scientific research studying the effects of immunology and homeopathy with regards to preparations made from Deadly nightshade. Though I wasn't specifically looking for one, this study actually supports the positive effects of homeopathic remedies made from Deadly nightshade:

Other Homeopathic Medicines

Atropa belladonna and Echinacea angustifolia have been tested for their effects on leukocyte migration and macrophage activity induced by experimental peritonitis in vivo (23). Mice were injected (i.p.) with lipopolysaccharide (1.0 mg kg–1) and treated (0.3 ml per 10 g per day, s.c.) with different forms of these medicines. The association of A. belladonna and E. angustifolia in a formulation containing various potencies produced a significant increase of polymorphonuclear cell migration and a decrease of mononuclear cell percentages. The proportion of degenerate leukocytes was lower in the treated groups, compared to a control group. The treated groups showed increased phagocytosis, mainly in preparations containing high potencies. The authors suggested that A. belladonna and E. angustifolia, when prepared ‘in accord of potencies’, modulate peritoneal inflammatory reaction and have a cytoprotective action on leukocytes.

The homeopathic medicine A. belladonna was tested on the in vitro contraction of isolated duodenum (85). It is noteworthy that low dilutions of Belladonna (1c and 5c) showed inhibitory effects, as expected from the spasmolytic effect of atropin, while highly diluted and dynamized solutions (30c and 45c) showed stimulatory effects. Non-dynamized solutions were inactive.

Full text

Effect of Atropa belladonna and Echinacea angustifolia in homeopathic dilution on experimental peritonitis

Atropa belladonna and Echinacea angustifolia have been used in homeopathy as modulators of inflammatory processes, in simple potency or ‘accord of potencies’, as recommended by homotoxicology. We evaluated their effects on leukocyte migration and macrophage activity induced by experimental peritonitis in vivo. Mice were injected (i.p.) with LPS (1.0 mg/kg) and treated (0.3 ml/10 g/day, s.c.) with different commercial forms of these medicines. Echinacea angustifolia D4—a simple potency preparation—and Belladonna Homaccord®, Belladonna Injeel®, Belladonna Injeel Forte®, Echinacea Injeel® and Echinacea Injeel Forte®—all in ‘accord of potencies’—were tested.

The association of A. belladonna and E. angustifolia in ‘accord of potencies’ produced an increase of polymorphonuclear cell migration (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.03) and a decrease of mononuclear cell percentages (Kruskal-Wallis, Pless-than-or-equals, slant0.04), when compared with control, mainly in preparations containing low potencies. The proportion of degenerate leukocytes was lower in the treated groups, compared to a control group (Pless-than-or-equals, slant0.05). The treated groups showed increased phagocytosis (Pless-than-or-equals, slant0.05), mainly in preparations containing high potencies. Our results suggest that A. belladonna and E. angustifolia, when prepared in ‘accord of potencies’, modulate peritoneal inflammatory reaction and have a cytoprotective action on leukocytes.

Abstract

Do you consider discussion in MedLine significant?

Belladonna (Atropa belladonna L. or its variety acuminata Royle ex Lindl)

Most research has evaluated belladonna in combination with other agents such as ergot alkaloids or barbiturates, or in homeopathic (diluted) preparations.

Homeopathic doses often depend on the symptom being treated and the style of the prescribing provider. Dosing practices may therefore vary widely. Usually, a homeopathic product is diluted several times. For example, belladonna may be diluted by 100 (one teaspoon belladonna added to 99 teaspoons water) in the first round, and this new, dilute mixture may be diluted 30-fold (1 teaspoon of the dilute mixture added to 29 teaspoons water).

Article

How about The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products?

Atropa belladonna L., synonym Deadly nightshade, is a plant species of the family Solanaceae. 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 according to the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia (HAB). The dilution 1:100 is containing a maximum of 1% of the original plant material. The degree of extractability of the plant constituents by homeopathic manufacturing procedures is not known. However, due to the provisions in the pharmacopoeia (HAB) the maximum alkaloid content in the mother tincture is not allowed to exceed 0.1%, calculated as hyoscyamine base. The use follows the principles of homeopathic therapy where animals are diagnosed on basis of the individual pattern of clinical signs.

Atropa belladonna is used as a diluted extract not exceeding one part per hundred prepared according to homeopathic pharmacopoeias with an adjusted total alkaloid content below 0.001%, atropine the main belladonna alkaloid has already been recommended for inclusion into Annex II of Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90,

Atropa belladonna is used in a small number of individual animals for non-regular treatments in accordance with the principles of homeopathic therapy the animals are unlikely to be sent for slaughter during or immediately after treatment, the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products concludes that there is no need to establish an MRL for the homeopathic preparation Atropa belladonna and recommends its inclusion in Annex II of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 in accordance with the following table...

PDF

Exactly how much research on this do we have to find before you are convinced that Deadly nightshade's homeopathic usage deserves mention here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reliable source (not a number of "homeopathic journals" like you've cited above) that state "A common use of belladonna is in homeopathic remedies"? The problem is, you won't find such a source because homeopathic remedies aren't widespread or widely used. The use of belladonna in homeopathic remedies is, by definition, fringe. The numbers I presented previously show that about 1% of the total global population (or less) have used homeopathic remedies in any given year. I think its safe to assume that not all of them used a remedy containing belladonna.

Thus far you've presented a variety of homeopathic journals, and a few secondary sources that says it's used, but not relative to anything else. There are many reliable sources that claim the Time Cube is an erroneous attempt at physics. By your definition of what can and can't be in an article, we should then put a reference to the Time Cube in the article on the Theory of Everything. The fact remains that homeopathy is WP:FRINGE. While some fringe theories are notable enough to have their own articles (such as the Time Cube and Homeopathy), they don't belong in other articles which should be based on relevant information. Justin ^chat 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

More than 2% of the articles on PubMed would be nice. It would also be nice if you paused to see if you've convinced anyone but yourself before restoring the material in the article. We're supposed to try to build a consensus when we edit. As for the quoates you've added, they don't seem to change what we already know. We all know that belladonna is used in homeopathic treatments. What we don't know is how significant that is in relationship to all of the uses of deadly nightshade; and the material you've quoted here doesn't say how common the use of homeopathic belladonna is.

I will say, though, that the Medline article is a good type of source for the question here; it's on the NIH website, and so seems to be a pretty decent source, and the page that covers different aspects of the medicinal use of the plant, so it sets the homeopathic use of the plant in a broader context. But this is only one source, and against it we have the botantical reference books that Stephen B Streater consulted, which give no coverage to the homeopathic aspect. At this point, I'm not convinced that the homeopathic material should be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One good source is more than enough to establish that homeopathic use is worthy of mention. But in fact we have Medline, Oxford Book of Health Food, and several non-homeopathic scientific journals all discussing the usage of Deadly nightshade in Homeopathy. Ask yourself if you've convinced anyone else that it should be left out before deleting the material again. Don't forget, that it is more than just myself and several other editors supporting inclusion; it is also the regular editors of this and other plant articles who see nothing wrong with mentioning the homeopathic uses. So far, I have only seen about four editors against inclusion and their best arguments - other than refusing to recognize sources which RSN recognize as reliable - amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT (IOW, they don't like homeopathy and thus don't think it should be mentioned here). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it time for an RfC? Or is that pointless considering how it was ignored at Thuja? I don't understand why the probation basically hasn't changed anything. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112, you seem to be mistaken about several things. Saying that my objection to including the homeopathic material amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT mischaracterizes my position, and is an assumption of bad faith. I hope that you will refrain from such mischaracterization in the future.

No one disputes that belladonna is used in the preparation of homeopathic treatments, or that the Oxford Book of Health Foods meets WP:RS. But, as the verifiability policy states, verifiability is a threshhold for inclusion. There's plenty of verifiable information that doesn't get included in Wikipedia, and that's because Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. You keep on mentioning the Oxford book; but one source is not enough to establish that this is an important fact about deadly nightshade. Especially not when other editors have found other sources that don't mention the homeopathic use--Stephen B Streater mentioned several above. Here's another. This book, Rodale's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Herbs, doesn't mention homeopathy, but goes into greater detail about the medicinal uses of atropa belladonna than the Oxford Book of Health Foods. So far, I don't see evidence that the homeopathic use of belladonna is regularly mentioned in botanical reference books; that makes me think this isn't an important aspect of belladonna, and therefore it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind if someone can show that plant encyclopedias regularly mention homeopathy. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, sorry about the IDONTLIKEIT insinuation. The truth is, I don't know how you feel about homeopathy. (Personally, I think it is bunk, but that is no reason to exclude information about it.) However, if the entire basis of your argument now rests with, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", then I must urge you to read that policy. As I read it, WP:IINFO provides no justification for removing the homeopathic usage information. This policy applies to following (of which the belladonnic usage of homeopathy does not apply): Lists of FAQs, Plot Summaries, Lyrics Database, Statistics, and News Reports.

Further, there are no policies which I know of which support your other rationale; essentially that mention of a topic in a reliable source about the main subject can be nullified by other sources about that main subject which make no mention of the topic. If you know of such a policy, please point me to it. After all, the same "Rondale" Google book you point us to makes no mention of the opthamological use of Deadly nightshade nor of the generic FDA approved pharmaceutical Donnatel nor of its pseudoephedrine-like qualities nor of its use to counteract chemical warfare poisoning. Basically, this logic of lack of mention in once source canceling out a mention in another source would effectively wipe out the entire "Medicine" section (not to mention the disastrous effects it would have to the rest of the article; for most of the information contained here is not found in the Rondale reference). Again, if this rationale is supported by some policy, please point us to it.

I think it is pretty clear why your two rationales either don't apply here or have no backing in actual Wikipedia policy. Is there some other rationale based on a Wikipedia policy anyone would like to point out to justify the removal of the homeopathic usage from this article? Otherwise, please let's either include this information or move on with a form of WP:DR such as starting a WP:RFC. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The "homeopathic information" doesn't belong in this article until we can find enough sources of a high enough quality to justify the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Will this assertion become more persuasive with additional repetition? No. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The assertion that we need to "find enough sources of a high enough quality to justify the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant" has no backing with any real policy in Wikipedia. If you disagree, please cite the policy and give the exact sentence which justifies this assertion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Levine, you remember awhile back when I compared this to some example from chemistry; gosh, I don't remember, the extreme one (a reductio ad absurdum) was water. Water is essential to everything. The article on sulphuric acid should mention its ingredients, sulpher and water; and the article on sulpher should mention sulphuric acid (it does, and it mentions disolving sulpher in water). However, the article on water does not mention sulpher. Why not? I think that SA is right that a principle (of pertinence) applies, so it's a matter of degree that we dispute (how pertinent is homeopathy to belladonna), right? Else why doesn't Water mention sulphuric acid? Pete St.John (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In your comparison, you are comparing Water to Deadly Nightshade. However, since the homeopathic remedy made from Deadly nightshade contains water (some might argue that it is 100% water), why not compare Water to Water here. That would mean that the products of these combinations with water are analogous: "Homeopathic Remedy" and "Sulfuric Acid". And what is combined with the water in both of these examples are also analogous: "Deadly nightshade" and "Sulfur", respectively. IOW, Water is to Water; and what is added to the water (Sulfur to Deadly Nightshade) can be compared, and thus the products of the combinations with water can be compared (Sulfuric Acid to The Homeopathic Remedy). Thus, since you agree that the Sulfur page should contain information about Sulfuric Acid; shouldn't by the same reasoning the Deadly Nightshade page contain information about the Homeopathic Remedy? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd concede the point that something like "relevance" is relevant, and it's a matter of degree; and then we could discuss where the dividing line should be, particularly if homeopathy sufficiently pertains to belladonna, as we agree belladonna sufficiently pertains to homeopathy (that is, we agree that Homeopathy should mention belladonna because homeopathy considers it an important ingredient). Conceding points, even small ones, helps us converge towards consensus, IMO. That said, yes, the analogy was a reductio. Better would have been for me to say that while an article about the practice of egging houses on Halloween might mention sulpher (the source of the bad smell, which is one of the desired effects of the egging), the article about sulpher probably need not mention egging houses. Even the article about eggs probably should not mention egging houses. X can be pertinent to Y without Y being pertinent to X. Pete St.John (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say - judging from the limited understanding I have of the plant and of the profession - that homeopathy is more relevant to Deadly Nightshade than Deadly Nightshade is relevant to homeopathy. I would expect that Deadly Nightshade would mention its homeopathic use where I would be surprised if the homeopathy article mentioned Deadly Nightshade if but as an example. I am not following your egg analogy, and I think the Sulfur + Water = Sulfuric Acid analogy was more apropos as we are dealing with a substance plus water equaling some potion and agreeing that the potion should be mentioned in the article about the substance though not in the article about water. Applying this model here, we ought to recognize that Belladonna + Water = some Belladonnic homeopathic remedy and such a remedy should be mentioned in the the Belladonna article (given a reliable source verifies such). This is a 1-to-1 relationship between the two analogies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all just tendentious argumentation. Let someone who has a reliable source that asserts the prominence of homeopathy to deadly nightshade produce it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel it is tendentious, please feel free to abstain from participating. Reliable sources that assert the prominence have been provided in the form of the Medline article and the Oxford Book of Health Food. I understand that you are demanding a source which spells out what percentage of a Deadly Nightshade harvest is used in homeopathy (or something to that effect), however there are no Wikipedia policies that I am aware of which would require such a ludicrously high expectation from a source. I have asked you this many times, but here it is once again: If you know of such a policy which outlines such a specific requirement of a source to spell out an exact prominence of information to the article subject, please provide us with a link to such a policy and a quote from the policy which outlines such a requirement. We have asked this of you from quite some time now and several articles' discussion pages, and you have yet to provide us such a policy. I know you feel that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE state this, but as far as what I have read, they do not state such a requirement from the sources. If they do, and I am just missing it, please spell it out for me here by quoting exact text from these (or any other) policies. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with abstention is that twice when I abstained you made false claims of consensus as justification in article space for your edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to address your false accusation. I am, however, still waiting for a policy which expresses your rationale for keeping this material out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity citations

I would have preferred marking the section "toxicity" for needing citation, rather than marking each of many related points. We want to focus on what facts need to be supported, and not get distracted by things we can agree on; particularly, that belladonna is poisonous. Anyway I found a ciation for the simple fact that those alkaloids (specified in the article) appear in the leaves, stem, root etc of the plant, so "every part" seems fair (but maybe the alkaloids don't appear in the mitochondria or the ADP, what level of structure scale is meant? But we really don't want to make ourselves crazy, right?) Pete St.John (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine and perhaps better to mark each section needing references with a section template rather than marking each individual piece of information. With exception to common knowledge items, I do believe that everything in this article needs to be verified by a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we improve the article by finding the citations, and on the merely botanical points that's not so hard, so that's OK. But for example, ordinary material can have one general source per section; e.g. "2+2 = 4 (cf Algebra I)" instead of "2 (cf Nonnegative Whole Numbers) + (cf abelian additively-denoted operators) 2 (cf Nonnegative Whole Numbers) = (cf Arithmetic Equality and Other Equivalence Relations) ..." etc. We don't want to be pedants. Well some of us do. Pete St.John (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But for the mere sake of mentioning it, with regards to your example "2+2=4", no source would be necessary since this is common knowledge. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations are proper for controversial issues certainly. I personally like them for anything which doesn't constitute general knowledge. However, you wanted to make your point by tagging nearly every sentence with {{fact}}. I'm not going to go to battle over it, however, you've made the article look absurd and that is a disservice to the entire Wikipedia community. If you decide to self-revert, great. If not, so be it. In the mean time, you might consider that your actions give the appearance that your more interested in making a point than you are writing an encyclopedia. Justin ^chat 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually made it clear that I was not making a point. Whether you believe me or not is a matter of WP:AGF. As a result of my request for sources, editors are already verifying content which laid un-sourced for quite some time. Net result: the article is already improving. What I find absurd is an article with virtually no attribution in an encyclopedia (our encyclopedia) which prides itself on policies such as WP:RS and WP:V which make up a very pillar of Wikipedia's core foundation. And our attempts to bolster this pillar in this article is what you describe as doing a disservice to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I simply disagree. Regardless of this difference in opinion of what constitutes article improvement, if you want to revert my edit, please be bold and do so. I'd much rather you just said, "Thank you". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet produced a source which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is because no one has produced a policy which demonstrates that inclusion of this content warrants such a source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider WP:REDFLAG. Find a better source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in REDFLAG which applies here. Can you cite a passage from REDFLAG which does and let us know how? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive, misleading, and counterfactual edit summary

This edit summary is misleading, claiming something happened on this page that did not. We are still waiting for good sources regarding the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. Since this user has not only failed to provide this but has resisted any attempt to adequately source this sentence for inclusion, I have removed it. Please do not act so disruptively. Future actions in this regard will be reported to administrators for appropriate action per the terms of the homeopathy probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence has been shown according to WP:Fringe where mention of a fringe topic in a mainstream source is sufficient to "firmly establish" prominence and relevance. Given that no fringe claim is made in any event, this more than meets the criteria of that guideline. No convincing case has been made here for any other policy or guideline which would warrant exclusion and various policies and guidelines have now been cited which support inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.242.242 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:CONSENSUS? Before this turns into an edit war, have you been involved in this discussion and forgot to login? I'm assuming so, since your contribs don't show very much editing at all, and it helps to know who's who in these debates. Justin ^chat 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence has not been shown. Still waiting for a source claiming that homeopathy if prominent with respect to this plant.209.249.65.142 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user, could you please explain what you mean by 'prominent with respect to this plant'? Such a principle does not exist within Wikipedia policy. So, what exactly are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominence is found in the WP:WEIGHT clause. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you the anonymous user to whom this question was directed?

BTW, although the word 'prominence' does appear in WP:WEIGHT, it would be a falsehood to claim that WP:WEIGHT says anything about "prominence with respect to the subject" as a condition for inclusion. WP:WEIGHT says: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." and it also says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;". Could you please quote the part of WP:WEIGHT that supports your arguments? Arguments which were so uncannily echoed by 209.249.65.142, even using precisely the same words? Dlabtot (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not the anonymous user, but anyone is allowed to comment on talkpages (see WP:TALK). It's clear that WP:WEIGHT demands that we consider the prominence of the material suggested for inclusion to the subject of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just note that you are unable to quote any portion of WP:WEIGHT to support your position and you are simply asserting something that has been demonstrated to be false. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's something about a "tiny minority" in that policy. However, I really wish that people would stop hair-splitting about the exact wording of policies. It should be clear that there's no policy that mandates including material just because there's one source that mentions something; moreover, it should be clear that normal editorial processes include deciding what material is important enough to include in an encyclopedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of hair splitting - it's a simply matter of WP:WEIGHT neither saying what SA claims it says, nor implying it; in fact there is no support at all in WP:WEIGHT for his claim. If you disagree, I would like to know what section of the policy does support this claim.

On a side note, if you wish to talk about instances where there is "one source that mentions", it would be more appropriate to do so about an article where that is actually the case. In this case, there are a multiple sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding:

“ Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. ”

In this case, homeopathy is the tiny-minority view that "may not" be included at all.

“ We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. ”

Since this is not an article devoted to homeopathy, it does not deserve mention here.

“ To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. ”

This is the rationale for excluding homeopathy here.

“ Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. ”

The homeopathic view has such a minority representation among experts as to be evaluated as being tiny enough for exclusion here.

“ Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. ”

For example, the Oxford University text is unduly weighted by cherry-picking quotes without regard for the prominence of the quotes.

“ An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ”

In other words, since homeopathy is insignificant with respect to this subject, it deserves exclusion.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed - even by you - fact that these quacks use Deadly Nightshade, is not a 'viewpoint'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

“ Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. ”

Good try. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Touché. So the question is whether this brief mention, verified by multiple sources, gives undue weight to the undisputed fact that these quacks use Deadly Nightshade in their bogus 'remedies'. If the goal is to excise information about homeopathy from this encyclopedia, the answer would seem to be yes; if the goal is to provide information, so that readers can learn for themselves that homeopathy is complete BS, the answer would seem to be no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This piece of the debate is surreal to me; it may be that SA, Dlabtot, and Levine are all mad at me (expressing themselves in divers ways of course) and somehow reflect three differing, mutually antagonistic views. Pro-science, anti-science, pro-alternatives, anti-alternatives, anti-anti-science, anti-anti-science-with-guns...? But maybe the "if-else" suggested by Dlabtot is a clue to converging to something that might sustain consensus: how about we agree that mention of homeopathy may be excluded, but need not be; and then seek wording that suits, such as "Belladonna is sometimes used as a homeopathic palliative". That would be neither "Homeopaths cure many maladies with belladonna" nor "There is no such thing as homeopathy", neither sentence really serving anyone's purpose. Pete St.John (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the nature of the problem. The only mention that is acceptable is no mention. Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it you mean, the only mention acceptable to anti-anti-science (whoever they may be)? I was noting that Dlabtot may be willing to accept the pedagogical purpose ("if the goal is to provide information so ..."). You and he may have different hopes for what the user will ultimately learn ("Homeopathy is Evil", "Homeopathy Cures All", "Homeopathy is a complex socio-political-historical-medical syndrome that encompases folk-medicine palliation, outright fraud, and ill-documented supersitions, among many other things"...) but we maybe can agree that some brief well-worded mention would be OK for five or six of the seven or eight sides. Pete St.John (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this NIH source? MedlinePlus

There are few available studies of belladonna alone for any indication. Most research has evaluated belladonna in combination with other agents such as ergot alkaloids or barbiturates, or in homeopathic (diluted) preparations. Preliminary evidence suggests possible efficacy in combination with barbiturates for the management of symptoms associated with irritable bowel syndrome. However, there is currently insufficient scientific evidence regarding the use of belladonna for this or any other indication.

Ward20 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd accept that. I'd hotlink the word "homeopathic" so that it need not merely be construed by the casual reader as a synonym for "diluted". SA, Levine? Pete St.John (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems very incidental to me. Not enough to justify inclusion of homeopathy. The problem is that people seem to be inventing research to include homeopathy. I think mentioning homeopathy in mainstream articles is fine. I encouraged the mention of homeopathy, properly framed, at domestic sheep. Here, however, it seems artificial to say the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That doesn't solve the issue at hand. The question right now isn't the legitimacy of homeopathy, it has none. The question at hand is whether or not homeopathy is relevant to deadly nightshade. This has been the same argument by any number of people, and it's either been ignored or simply avoided. The simple fact is: homeopathy has absolutely NO relevance to deadly nightshade. Relevance of content is an important aspect of Wikipedia. Although it's only an essay, we as a community do it all the time (see handling trivia for a more specific example). We have to be discriminant in what we include in articles. Otherwise, WP is nothing more than a collection of information. Justin ^chat 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you expand that please? The many RS sources presented talk about making, testing and consuming belladonna (deadly nightshade) homeopathic preparations so it it hard for me see understand why homeopathy has absolutely no relevance to deadly nightshade. Ward20 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources provided certainly show that deadly nightshade is relevant to homeopathy. But that in no way proves that homeopathy is relevant to deadly nightshade. The fact remains, purely based on the numbers (which is WP:SYNTH, but I'm not advocating adding it to an article) that a TINY minority of people in the world used a homeopathic remedy in a given year. It's unlikely that 100% of them used this particular plant extract, however, evening assuming they did it still constitutes an extremely small (proportionally) use of the plant.

Homeopathy gets press because their claims seem plausible to the untrained, but are so outlandish various medical organizations (and journals) deemed it necessary to prove how ineffective they are. In the broad picture, that is what this debate is about. Should a pseudoscientific theory, with a tiny following, be crosslinked on various scientific articles, simply because the medical field publishes reports discounting it? It's counterintuitive. Homeopathy has no meaningful relevance to any of the plant articles (like Astrology does to the planets or stars, or Alchemy does to Chemistry). Justin ^chat 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes the amount of use of the plant for homeopathy is probably small. But, an estimated 500 million people use homeopathy (P.N. Kaul, Alternative therapeutic modalities. Alternative medicine. 1996). Which I calculate at about 7/1000 people worldwide. If that many practice what science considers pseudoscientific... well it is what it is, such as Stars in astrology and Planets in astrology. I don't believe in this material, but I don't think restricting information about it from RSs is the best policy. Ward20 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reworded: Most studies have tested belladonna in combination with other agents such as ergot alkaloids or barbiturates, or in homeopathic preparations. Preliminary evidence suggests possible efficacy in combination with barbiturates for symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. However, presently there is insufficient scientific evidence regarding the use of belladonna for any indication. Ward20 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not liking it. What qualifies "most studies"? Where were these studies published? Why are they significant? etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply the conclusions of second source MedlinePlus. Arguments for or against their conclusions unless it is by a RS specifically addressing their conclusions on this particular subject is OR. Ward20 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an anecdotal remark not necessary to the conclusion. I don't think it supports the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, first, regarding "sheep" above, I don't get it. Made me curious about the odd spelling I'd never noticed before ("Aries" instead of "Ares", but I guess just English phonetics explains it) but perhaps you could be more specific about the analogy. Second, I agree that predominately homeopathy does not pertain to belladonna (certainly less than belladonna pertains to homeopathy), however, it's not clear to me that the pertinence is flatly zero. Medicinal applications of plants are pertinent. Belladonna does seem to have some (limited, because it's toxic, but toxicity is dependent on quantities, even ricin) medicinal application. While the metaphysical basis as tradtionally espoused by homeopathy may be utter hokum, incidental success of a technique, in a complex system, may be meaningful. I think in this case, a small aptly worded reference may quell a great deal of smoke at very little expense in light. Sure, if I were writing the article I'd omit homeopathy. But I'm not a democracy. It's a wonder when democracies reach any solutions at all, it's so inefficient; and maybe the perfect is the enemy of the good. Pete St.John (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this were a democracy this discussion was over almost two months ago. WP works by consensus, or near consensus. Just an editor or two can frustrate the will of 10, as you can see. Anthon01 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to say that homeopathy may be relevant to this plant, but some source has to explain the relevance. Simply saying that studies have been done on homeopathic remedies that claimed to have belladonna or using the OUP source which mentions homeopathic preparations off-handedly in an ancillary fashion does not rise to the WP:REDFLAG standard that would satisfy the conditions of WP:WEIGHT. What we need is a source that establishes something along the lines of "most people are familiar with belladonna in its homeopathic incarnation" or "25% (or some other number) of all the belladonna harvested in the world is purchased by homeopathic companies". Something that establishes the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant is all I want. Simply finding sources that off-handedly mention homeopathy in isolated sentences without making a direct connection between the subjects is not enough. I can find plenty of weird combinations of words (it's called googlewhacking). It's not necessarily relevant to our encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's prominent enough to be prominently mentioned in research about belladonna by the RS. That should give it enough WP:weight to include the material proposed. Ward20 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Off-handed mention is not good enough and is not prominent. The cited material does not deal with homeopathy except to mention that belladonna has been studied. In what fashion they do not say, but I'm willing to bet they are referring to fringe journals which means that this discussion is rightly excluded here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Perhaps this debate should be continued with an mediator. SA: The term claim in studies have been done on homeopathic remedies that claimed to have belladonna is disingenuous. If we are talking about ultra high potencies then have no material is left. There is not claim of belladonna present in this dilutions, only that belladonna was used in the intial dilution. I don't think you need 25% of belladonna is used to make a case for the inclusion. I think 1-2% is sufficient, as this is not a paper encyclopedia. I think mention under "uses" in a scholarly books or databases is sufficient. I think you are stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If belladonna is not even in the stuff, then it is not relevant to this article at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Why? Because it is used to make it. Anthon01 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Too oblique of a rationale. We don't mention homeopathy on glass for example, even though homeopaths use glassware to make their snake oil. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

←
Not Oblique. Direct. Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying this does not make it so. If your justification for inclusion of homeopathy on this page is "homeopaths use it in preparation" then you'll have to do better. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths use it in making preparation. Anthon01 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And children use it in making tree houses. What's your point? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no scholarly sources discussing "tree houses." You're stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. After you read through the 5900 possibilities you can let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a smart guy. Why are you sending me to search? Shouldn't that be your responsiblility at least to make the initial effort, since you are making this "claim?" BTW, treehouse "deadly nightshade" is a better search with 223 hits. Knock yourself out. You're stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you flatter me. You misspelled "responsibility". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. Please. It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. I must say this is much milder form of incivility then I'm use to from you. So you can't win the argument so you try a spelling dig? I commend you. Anthon01 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already won the argument. There is no spoon. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, you mispelled "If we both concede specific points of fact eventually we can establish a mutually acceptable common basis for a consensus". In fact the hamming distance between what you typed, and what you meant, is so huge that I'm not honestly sure it's what you meant by "I've already won". Pete St.John (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was closer to a Hubble distance. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Slashdot; science vs pedagogy

NB: If we can be Slashdotted, maybe they can be Wikified. Anyway, Slashdot has an item from an AAAS conference; here some quotes:

We're all familiar with news talk shows where two individuals, both with impressive credentials, argue for completely incompatible positions. Unfortunately, these sorts of arguments aren't limited to social or political issues, but have increasingly extended into the scientific and medical realms. Aside from providing an indication that you can find someone with an M.D. or Ph.D. that's willing to say nearly anything (see infomercials for further evidence), these disagreements are likely to leave the public confused over where to find credible scientific information...

...The importance of quality information was driven home by a recent study that revealed a tendency for false or misleading information regarding breast cancer to appear on web sites devoted to alternative medicine. So, how is the public supposed to identify quality scientific information? The recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting included a session devoted to understanding how the public receives and evaluates scientific information...

the conclusion later is the novel part:

The clear message of the session was that a command of facts is never going to be good enough to convince most segments of the public, whether they're parents or Congress. How the information is conveyed can matter more than its content, and different forms of communication may be necessary for different audiences. As became clear in the ensuing discussion, most of the public act as consumers of information, with journalists acting as middlemen. To connect with the public, scientists have to work with the press to ensure that two things happen. Reporters have to overcome their ingrained aversion to the uncertainties of science, and have to avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance that's addressed via material from crackpots with credentials.

I want "scientists" (here, the Pro-Science camp) to work with "journalists" (here, general editors, some of whom may have various aversions). We're not doing that right now. I think ScienceApologist (for example) would be completely on board with "avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance" but might benefit from introspection regarding the "how the information is conveyed can matter more than it's content". Pete St.John (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And what can Anthon01 benefit from? Or Levine2112? Or yourself? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The take-away for me was the point I meant to concede, "avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance"; where I said "I think SA would be on board..."? That part seemed, to me, to enunciate your own view. You could have written it. So a discussion at the AAAS confirms the trend you have been trying to identify and resist. Right? But they also make a point that it's not good enough (for the purpose of diseminating information to the public) to get the facts right. It's necessary to convey; we, as scientists, are to help the "press" overcome aversions, as well as undue weight. Reaching a consensus about the wording in the article would be a victory for all of us. That doesn't mean we have to pander to fraud; it means we have to acknowledge pedagogy as a motive, as well as facts. Let's help the science-deprived overcome their aversions, as burying them would be too much work. Plus Anthon plays chess, which you don't. Pete St.John (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't play chess? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to trick you into admitting you do, then I could crush you like a bug. But you out-smarted me once again; how humiliating, for a chessplayer. Meanwhile, what do you think of the pertinence of pedagogy to consensus, as I construe from the AAAS material? 1. e4. Pete St.John (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While pedagogy is the reason I am here, Wikipedia's function is not to teach but to report. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting is conveying the truth; nearly a synonym for teaching. If pedagogy were irrelevant, the New York Times would publish lists of facts instead of sentences. A good text book has the facts, but also the words to convey them effectively. Neither textbooks nor encyclopedias are handbooks. Pete St.John (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all journalists are teachers. Not all teachers are journalists. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I concede that journalism and education are not logically equivalent. I believe the encyclopedia is definitely and putatively educational, and that good pedagogy is necessary to both (responsible) journalism and (effective) education, anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You might want to run that by WP:ENC. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote: [a]n encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. Note that "information" denotes "truth" (false statements aren't information in the journalistic sense, but disinformation) and "convey" denotes moving the information so as to be received (e.g. if the text were in undecipherable code, it would not be conveyed, because the information would not be received). The AAAS item suggests that conveyance of information requires pedagogy (as I interpret "how the information is conveyed can be more important than the content"). Pete St.John (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

People on both sides disagree with me; I must perfoce be the biggest fool here :-) Anyway, it might seem that WP:ENC contradicts WP:V. I would suggest the solution is that verification (that is, citing sources; not literal verification which, in fact, literally means establishing truth, from the latin veritas)-- that verification is the process we use, as a practical matter, to establish truth. Just as "no reasonable doubt", "precedent", etc pertain to the Jury determining truth (and possibly getting a different result than a scientist would). The Content Preceeds the Policies. Our aim is promulgating truth, and the purpose of the policies is to enable us to pursue that effectively. In particular, I think we as contributors should seek verifications for truths. We can believe the truth for any reason we like (e.g. Received Inspiration) but that is just motivation for us to seek the verifications, the reliable sources. Pete St.John (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also from WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. So, in essence, "verification" is not to show a values judgment on content - it's not to show if the information in truthful - but rather to show that the information exists on a reliable source. So to bring this back to the article and topic at hand, the information about Deadly Nightshade's use in homeopathy has been verified to exist by the Oxford Book and by MedlinePlus. What's more, no one is arguing that the information is false. Even those against inclusion agree that Deadly nightshade is used in the preparation of specific homeopathic remedies and that such remedies aren't backed by any science. So, WP:V is completely met here. I don't think that is the hang-up ScienceApologist has with inclusion. Rather, he feels that inclusion somehow violates WP:NPOV (or more specifically WP:UNDUE). However, he nor anyone else has been able to pinpoint any part of that policy which would prohibit inclusion. SA maintains that in order to include information about the homeopathic usage of a plant in an article about that plant, one must provide a source which shows that homeopathy is "prominent" to the plant. For some time now, I have asked for a quote from NPOV which supports this rationale and still none has been given. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Sure Levine, it's UNDUE, and we've gotten nowhere there. I argued that pertinence is pertinent (in that water, sulpher thing), where I wasn't able to get you to concede anything; and I've argued for pedagogy, that while the reference (to homeopathy) is not required it's acceptable (since it's referenced, and belladonna has lots of merely interesting bits, and the suggested references were pretty modest), but SA won't concede a point either. Seems hopeless to me, frankly. In short: it's weak material (I agree with SA) but it's not flatly irrelevant (I disagree with SA), not because homeopathy is good science, but because homeopathy is a real and significant social and political process. Homeopathy is real even if the principles of homeopathy are hokum. It's impossible to acheive consensus without common ground, that is, people agreeing to things, on which they can build with logic. I have no clue for progress, myself, but I'm glad that at least here, we aren't calling each other names. Except, of course, that SA is a closet patzer :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better, Pete. I'll concede that homeopathy may be relevant to this page if anyone gives me a source that asserts a prominent relevance. I actually have no opinion on whether homeopathy is irrelevant to this plant or not. All I will say is that it is certainly possible that it is relevant, but no one has provided evidence to this effect that satisfies the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter, If it is any consolation, I completely agree with you in that homeopathy is a real and significant social and political process even if its principles are hokum. So there is some common ground. As you may know, I am not a believer in homeopathy. I am a scientific skeptic and frankly the science which would support homeopathy's effectiveness hasn't convinced me yet. However, I do recognize that a huge amount of people do use homeopathy (we are talking about hundreds of millions of people around the world!) and thus factual and verified information about homeopathy can be entirely relevant to subjects such as Deadly nightshade. For instance, let's say that there was a major world religion (100 million faithful worldwide) and that in this hypothetical religion they regularly burned incense made from Deadly nightshade as one of their prayer rituals to cleanse the soul. Even though there is no scientific evidence that burning this incense does cleanse souls, wouldn't the inclusion of such material be of notable interest to this article? Especially if the fact that this ritual exists was detailed in several reliable sources?

SA, can you quote "the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT" you allude to which warrants that a source is need to assert a prominent relevance? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous section. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous section is rather huge with lots of tangents. Can you just make things simple please and provide here a quote "the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT" you allude to which warrants that a source is need to assert a prominent relevance? Please keep in mind that the use of the homeopathic remedy made from Deadly nightshade is not a viewpoint but a fact; while a statement saying that such a remedy is either effective or not is a viewpoint. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look for the cquotes. They're impossible to miss. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all of those apply to "viewpoints". As we all agree on, we are not dealing with any viewpoints here other than the scientific mainstream which view belladonnic homeopathy as ineffective. Otherwise, we are dealing with non-viewpoints. As a reminder, here is the text we would like to include: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. Is there a minority viewpoint there which you feel is given too much weight? If so, what? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While we wait for your answer, please be aware that I have posted a request for clarification at the newly created WP:NPOV/N NPOV Noticeboard. I would like to see if we can get some neutral opinions from some experts there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just removed two external links per WP:EL Links normally to be avoided. They were fairly obvious I believe. Another one is borderline so I am asking for comment if this one should be removed or not:

• Erowid - Belladonna Information (on recreational uses)
  

Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Added links to recreational and use in tea

I removed the citation needed twice under where it talks about recreational use and use in tea. I hope this is ok. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One of those sources was SPAM - known as a "doorway page" - basically a search engine optimization tactic where as page is made that looks like a resource but actually contains ecommerce type links. (You also did something weird in your edit where the ref was made into a section header.) The other source I have left; however, it is from a homeopathic website, so I am unsure whether it will fly as a WP:RS here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see the discussion above when I added these links, feel free to revert if I did a no-no. Sorry again everyone.--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, revert if it is incorrect, I have no problems with being reverted. As for your other comments, I'm sorry I don't understand. As for the section header, I didn't catch it and obvious I didn't mean to do that so thanks for the fix. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at this header and I didn't go anywhere near this paragraph never mind make the header. I guess someone else did but I don't see that I did it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Going through history I found it here [54] Apparently it's been here awhile. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what that diff shows, but know that the header which you added contained a link to a spam source. Thus I removed it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)