Talk:Aconitum napellus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Homeopathy[edit]

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

No it does not, I think thats a confused reading on your part. It's a peer reviewed article that simply states that Aconite is used by homeopathy, which fails under the "herbal medicine" umbrella term, the main body of the article goes on to illustrate cases of poising. Hardyplants (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, If this is going to be so difficult, I will hunt down a number of other refs that state that its used by homeopathy, but hate to do it - as it might seem to stress this use more than this article topic warents. Hardyplants (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This plant's use as a homeopathic remedy is actually well known even in the general population, not just by the practitioners of homeopathic medicine. To insist on deleting all reference to one of the most widely used homeopathic remedies - manufactured from this plant by "potentization" (dilution and "succussion") would be unencyclopedic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd love a mainstream, independent source for this assertion. Dig one up and will include it. Please make sure it isn't just a source on homeopathy, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


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