Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 09:52, 31 January 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 (2008)

some new sources on homeopathic usage?

I see that there isn't still any homeopathy mention after last time. I suppose that nobody found a good source to complement the Timber Press book? A quick google search does not reveal herb books mentioning its homepathic use . Neither specialized herbal books, neither medical herbal books that are not centered on homeopathy, neither mainstream medicine books(*), neither governamental organizations explaining the Thuja plant medical properties and giving some relevance to homeopathic remedies, etc.

(*)recent books only, please. No books from around 1900 because homeopathy was very popular then and they listed many homeopathic remedies, some of them not surviving the decline in popularity and not becoming notable later. Some of those sources probably list every remedy that existed at the time.

I see that one of the proponents of inclusion recognized that "notability and undue weight objections may have some merit in this particular case". For example, medline does not have much on thuja and mentions of homeopathy related to tuja are very very trivial . --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've never been personally opposed to stating that this herb was used in homeopathic potions. What bothers me is that editors add it implying that it actually works. If they're going to state that a dilute potion of this cures erectile dysfunction, we need to state that it doesn't. It makes for a boring article if you ask me. Otherwise, if we're going to do this, I agree with what you're writing. OrangeMarlin 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope this won't start a huge debate again, but Marlin, your statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the discussion. In the course of the enormous debate last year, several different wordings were proposed that did not imply anything of its efficacy. From what I remember and just re-read, the statements proponents of inclusion were defending simply identified that the plant has been used in preparations for remedy X. No one ever suggested including an implication that the homeopathic "potion" would cure anything. In fact, most if not all proponents of inclusion publicly stated they believed homeopathy was utter crap and not to be relied upon. I just thought that correction should be noted to your above comment. Cheers, Rkitko 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I was purely stating mine. The reason I opposed any inclusion of homeopathy is because it is pure crap. OrangeMarlin 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, this gave me cognitive whiplash:

"You know, I've never been personally opposed to stating that this herb was used in homeopathic potions."

Then later: "The reason I opposed any inclusion of homeopathy is because it is pure crap."

I just wish you wouldn't misrepresent what some editors, in good faith, saw as an attempt to improve the article by mentioning, neutrally, a use of the plant. It is not just my opinion that these editors were not trying to push a POV that the homeopathic remedies worked, it's also fact. No one was attempting to imply that; in fact, most attempts were to neutralize the language to assuage any concerns. Please don't attempt to revise history. If you find an argument for inclusion of a "homeopathy works" POV in the many archived discussions, please let me know where it is. --Rkitko 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is the exact sort of Scientific Fundamentalism POV which I am discussing at here under Scientific Fundamentalism and Pseudoskepticism POV pushing shouldn't be tolerated. Agree? Disagree? I'd love some more feedback there. -- Levine2112 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Use to remove skin tags

There is no "one" article to support Thujas use in several remedies to remove skin tags. Any one company is not going to mention competitive products. The NIH lists at least 3 thuja products here specifically to remove skin tags: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?startswith=THUJA+OCCIDENTALIS&x=13&y=17&labeltype=human Is that a good enough reference to revert and include the statement?Sedimentary (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are all homeopathic nonsense. See the warning NIH uses when you click on each one. Since the discussion above back in 2008/2009, the Misplaced Pages community has thought long and hard about how to represent medical information on the site. To that end, see the guidelines on reliable sources for medical content. If readers turn to an encyclopedia and receive information, we better be certain it's correct when it comes to medical topics. The consensus since this earlier conversation is that homeopathy is WP:FRINGE and mention of a use (all the products I've seen for skin tag removal that include this plant are homeopathic) would provide them undue weight in covering the topic of this article. The NIH database wouldn't suffice to meet WP:MEDRS anyway. Rkitko 22:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos

@Hike395: I think at least some of the images that you removed in this edit were fine as far as the policy on galleries is concerned. It warns against indiscriminate collections of images, images that basically illustrate the same thing and do not add to understanding of the article's subject. Images of cultivars are fine by this criterion. And so are photos of various parts of the tree at different stages of development, like the mature seed cones and the leaves. They do add to the understanding of what the tree looks like. They also maybe give indications of things that the article ought to be expanded to describe. So, I would like to restore some of the images that you removed. — Eru·tuon 18:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Well, the policy states "a gallery section may be appropriate in some Misplaced Pages articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". I think that different stages of development can be shown with individual images and text. If you'd like to restore the cultivar gallery, I would not object. (See, e.g., gallery of species in Marmota). —hike395 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Techny, Illinois reference

There is no link to Techny, Illinois when one puts "Techny" in the Misplaced Pages search but rather just to this section. Perhaps someone knows how to update this?

This has been done. Regards, Darorcilmir (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• C-Class plant articles
• Mid-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles