Huh?[edit]

May I just say, whoever did that introduction to this list of herbs needs to go back to school. As a biological and chemical studier, I do not think it accurate to say that plants synthesize anything, let alone chemical compounds - they produce those compounds naturally, and in fact scientists in labs synthesize that process in order to make patentable products. M**santo have repeatedly run into trouble over this issue, and the FDA make this point VERY CLEAR! Just correcting the disinfo, there... Lee Mutlee Smith, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.14.122 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) The misconception that science can ever PROVE anything is rampant here and is clouding the discussion. Scientific evidence SUPPORTS or REFUTES theories, models, hypotheses. It never proves anything, nor can it. Support can be very strong and very persuasive, but it should never be mistaken for proof. (No, this is not just a matter of semantics.) 2) It is a mistake to think that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of medicinal herbs will ever be investigated by the scientific community because there is no financial incentive to do so. (Yes, science is just one human endeavor influenced by money.) 3) Even if herbal remedies were investigated by science, science would "miss the point" of herbalism because it would investigate individual components of an herb rather than the hundreds of components likely working in concert with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.43.149 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is of generally high calibre. Fascinating. However, it is hardly justified by the poverty of information on the page itself... Goodonya guys, but either enter some worthwhile information, or delete the rubbish page until you have finished discussing it, eh? Cjsunbird (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. This page would be great on a semantic wiki, but as it stands it is just too plain cumbersome to edit. Too bad, because this could be a very valuable resource. 206.47.252.82 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science is a newcomer to medicine. People have used herbs for millennia for their medicinal properties. It's unreasonable to stand at this point in history and insist that our standards of scientific validity be met before we're allowed to note these properties in an encyclopedic article. These are medicinal herbs. People use them as medicine. They have since before Columbus was born. This article lists these herbs and why people use and have used them. Thanks in large part to your comments, the article now thoroughly documents where these uses are noted by people qualified to note them.

Another problem, I suppose, is that it's hard to distinguish between:

Doing so would make a heck of an article, I readily admit, but not one that I'm prepared to put the time into researching. I'm inclined to leave it at "these are reasons why people have used, or current use these herbs medicinally".

I'd also like to suggest that, with your permission, we move this discussion off your talk page to Talk:List of medicinal herbs (with a different header).

How about let's move on now? Waitak 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure where to start, so I just go from the beginning.

I'll reply inline.
Please don't shout. What I meant was that it is only in relatively recent history that the use of the scientific method has become the standard by which medical claims are judged. In Hong Kong, where I've spent the last couple of decades, you can go to any local shopping center and buy herbs that people have been using for 5,000 years to treat a whole range of ailments. Usually the other half of the herbal store is a western-style pharmacy. Some of these herbs have been studied scientifically. Others haven't. In all cases, people buy them because, somewhere along the way, somebody noticed that, most of the time, if you use this plant in this way, it has this affect on most people. In parts of Africa, where the average income is something less that US$1 a day, people use wormwood when they get parasites. Works great. They've been using it in this way for millennia. In both cases, it's not urban legends, gossip or magic. It's biochemistry that nobody's gotten around to studying just yet. Somebody probably ought to.
I'm not devaluing science or scientists. I'm saying that the measure of scientific rigor that our society demands before accepting something as true is, while powerful and important, relatively recent - and unusual - historically.
Sorry, I don't accept the dichotomy. There is more in the world than "proven scientifically" and "urban legend". Take another look at the list that I gave you above, for example ("Properties that have been ascribed...").
Not at all. And to the contrary, summarily deleting all of the references because you don't like what they say strikes me as evidence of some degree of bias.
It seems to me that you're saying, "Okay, so XXX,000,000 people in Africa (or China, or India, or pre-colonial America...) use(d) neem (or garlic or wormwood or whatever) for medicinal properties. Sorry, these haven't been proven scientifically, so keep it the heck out Wikipedia."
There we go again. It's either science or gossip? Sorry.
Sure, and the article ought to include it whenever it's available.

Please, if you're going to post something about magic, please do. But science is a method by which we logically test something. If you're right about these herbs, then what's wrong with science? Orangemarlin 05:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would be a lot easier to discuss without the slapshots. Could you be a little more civil, please?
Nothing is wrong with science. I'm a published scientist, and understand full well how science works. There's also nothing wrong with ethnobotanical scholarship. Waitak 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely agree with Waitak, there are a lot of documented and empirically-derived uses for plants as medicine (hence, medicinal plants) that have been used safely and effectively for hundreds if not thousands of years across cultural and geographic boundaries with similar if not parallel indications. If this is not evidence for the efficacy of plants as medicine without use of the scientific method (which by the way, is based upon experiment followed by observation, leading to a hypothesis).

So, millions of people around the world rely on traditional medicine and herbalism for their health, and marlin is saying that they're basically idiots by adding a not of skepticism with everything he 'contributes' to articles that he does not agree with. By the way, if you do a little research into the subject, you'll see that the effectiveness of many herbs has not been scientifically tested or have pure compounds isolated since pharmaceutical companies cannot find a profit motive as patentability is an issue. Wiki wiki1 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NPOV[edit]

  1. The article's references to not adhere to standards of WP:VERIFY. The articles used as sources are either secondary, represent foreign language articles, and are questionable.
  2. The article exhibits scientific bias discounting scientific analysis for unsubstantiated claims.
  3. The article does not utilize reliable sources. To quote, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
  4. The article relies upon fringe theories.

I am not saying this article shouldn't exist. I'm not saying the article shouldn't have reference to history knowledge. What I am saying is that it violates NPOV to make medical claims that have not been tested, verified and peer-reviewed. There must be caveats, unless the evidence is clear like with respect to St. Johns Wort. Orangemarlin 06:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is interesting, if you are familiaer with the litrature you'll find that this list is just skimming the surface of known medicinal herbs (that is herbs which have been used by some cultures for their medicinal properties). The Plants for a Future site list something like 3000 medicinal plants, all of which are referenced by numerious other sources. Dr Duke's ethnobotony database is one of the most authorative sources in the field and lists a similar number of plants. A medline search will find numerious scientific papers on all these plants.
It seems very odd to go from a version where a start at individual references hence better meating WP:VERIFY to one with just general references. I've reverted back to the better referenced version and added a link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. --Salix alba (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See what you think of a compromise that might help the NPOV. Orangemarlin 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for knowledge for all people to access. So, when you say that this article is/was all point-of-view, etc. you're really placing your own beliefs in place of those of those that have been well substantiated both scientifically and empirically. No one ever outlined wikipedia as a website for primary medical information, there may simply exist a list of plants, and their traditional medicinal uses; it seems, however, that you have a conflict of interest that is causing you to vandalize this, and many other pages simply because you haven't looked deeply enough into this different world from 'Western medicine'. Wiki wiki1 08:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a problem marking what has been scientifically verified, but currently the article is presented as it the only POV which matters, discounting the extensive ethnobotony research of Duke and others. Indeed science is based on observation and ethobotony uses are important observations. We are actually getting close to WP:CENSOR here.
Ways forward: the table could be altered to have two columns: scientific status; traditional uses. Another suggestion that I've had off wiki is to create a seperate lists List of traditional medicinal plant uses. --Salix alba (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vague claims[edit]

What precisely is tonic supposed mean? If this article is to go anywhere we need to avoid such vague hand-wavery as "tonic" or "ointment". That, and assuming that just because a herb has been used for particular ailment, that it's in any way beneficial for that ailment, unless there are good double-blind clinical trials supporting that use. ornis 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article, as it stands, documents ethnobotanical medicinal uses of plants. I certainly agree that "tonic" isn't a useful word in modern medicine, but there's a wealth of documentary evidence that the concept exists and is ascribed to particular plants in a number of medical traditions, both historically and currently, in various parts of the world. I think that the controversy over this article boils down to this:
  • One set of editors (including myself) is trying to document what properties traditional medicine practitioners have ascribed to plants that they particularly value. Speaking only for myself, the motivation for doing so is that - who knows? - maybe some of them actually do have these properties, and it's probably worth paying attention. Some plants clearly do have medicinal properties. Garlic, for example, became the principal antibiotic during World War I, when supplies of more powerful, modern drugs dried up. There's a huge body of knowledge that I think is important to record. In cases where these plants have been shown not to have these properties, this ought to be noted in the article.
  • Another set of editors strongly believes that no mention of medicinal properties should be made without peer-reviewed scientific papers that categorically demonstrate these properties. In my opinion,this leaves no room for any treatment of traditional medicine, from any POV other than rejecting it out of hand. That's clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There's no POV involved in saying, "These four books say that this plant was used by these people for these purposes."
I should add that summarily deleting all references, particularly when the person who did so is the very same person who demanded them in the first place, comes perilously close to - sorry - vandalism. Even with the best of interpretations, it's hard to see evidence of good faith in some of the recent edits. Waitak 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two separate editors reverted you, because they are concerned that the references you've provided are not from reliable sources. And again, the fact that someone believes a herb has certain properties isn't a license to repeat that claim as though it were true if there's no scientific evidence to back it up. ornis 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two editors put the references back, two editors wiped out all of the references - not just the ones I'd added. I'd love to see some evidence that people have actually looked at these references. Hirt and M'Pia, Duke and Foster and Duke (1983) are all wonderful references, for example. Waitak 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a difference between peer-reviewed claims and secondary and unreliable sources. However, we need to work through this issue to make this article better. I spent two minutes with just St. John's Wort and found maybe 20 outstanding references. And none of them were some ancient Chinese text which fails as a reference on so many points. Here's a compromise.
  1. First of all, if you're going to use "medicinal" get rid of the new age crap. "Digestive" means nothing to anyone--if you believe that it reduces acidity, then say it that way. If it's a laxative, say that way.
  2. Next, let's create three columns: A) herbal properties with peer-reviewed journal articles supporting the claims (and only the claims stated in the article, and none of this generic nonsense like digestive); B) properties that have been shown illusory under scientific investigation; and finally, C) properties that have not been verified.
  3. Some herbs may fit in all three categories. Let's do it that way.
I think this a fair compromise that helps the NPOV and everything. But we have to be fair to each other's side in this process. Let's clean the article, and add back as we show a reference. If it is scientifically tested, then get peer-reviewed journals to show it. And, I do not consider the Journal of alternative medicine to be a reliable reference. We can get a very nice article, one which sets a standard if we can all work in this manner. Orangemarlin 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to compromise. I don't agree to wiping clean all of the references, however. I can't believe that you've actually looked at these before wiping them. I also object to characterizing the properties as "scientific", "illusory" or "unconfirmed". Snopes uses "T", "TB", "F" and "FB" for urban legends. (I spent a chunk of my life debunking them.) Perhaps something like that would work?
I'll work with you on this, but I'd like to see a little evidence of something besides a bulldozer as your editing tool of choice. Waitak 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, Waitak, you cannot be accusing, even in an off-handed way, long-time editors of vandalism. User:FeloniousMonk is a long-time admin for this project, and takes NPOV on principle. He has berated me in the past for not following NPOV, and if he's reverting here, he has balanced all objections, and agrees the article is POV. Deleting the references to get this article right is not a problem, they all exist in history. All of us can add it back under the new format. I agree that science can be pig-headed at times, but I also think that fighting a battle by claiming science is wrong is not a battle that can be won. There are herbs out there that have some supporting evidence, some have scientifically supported evidence, and some have been debunked. All deserve a mention. And I'll ignore your last comment, thought it is a personal attack. It's time to relax, calm down, and establish verified and reliable sources. Orangemarlin 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three categories are sufficient. I'll stand strongly on Scientific and unconfirmed. Illusory probably is harsh, but we do need a proper word there to indicate that it has been debunked. Remember your opinion is fine, but it's just a POV. Find verified and reliable sources, and no one will fight this battle. The compromise is that there is a section to allow all of us to edit in unverified claims. Orangemarlin 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest that illusory has npov problems. However a category of scientifically falsified would be useful. I would suggest possibly the slightly more unwieldly "folk-cures disconfirmed by science" or something similar. I would furthermore point out that Wikipedia does not care if science is being pig-headed or whether any other system is being pigheaded. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ri) Illusory bothered me a bit too, I've changed it to falsified, is that satisfactory to everyone? ornis 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies for anything remotely like a personal attack. I am strongly committed to civility in life in general, and WP in particular. I also hope that you don't see any claim in my responses that "science is wrong". I've certainly had no intention of making any such claim. Rather, I think that there's a lot that science hasn't gotten around to yet - even said that, I think.
You're right, as well, that the references are in the history. It seems to me that we're moving toward an article that says:
  • These pharmaceuticals have been used for these reasons:
  • Some of them have been verified by science
  • Others have been shown not to have these properties by science
I don't see the need to add "Some have not yet been examined by scientists", since it's evident from the above. That's a bit of what I was trying to get at with the reference to Snopes.
As for references, if the article is going to say the above, we must have verifiable references that back up the historical uses of these pharmaceuticals. I've put in a fair bit of work trying to provide them. Orangemarlin keeps deleting them, and then inserting a claim that the article is unreferenced. Can you see how that might appear disingenuous?
As an aside, I'd also like to see the article note in which medical traditions these plants have been used for which purposes. I have as little respect for new age ... stuff... as you do. Distinguishing between neowhatever and traditional medical practices that date back thousands of years would be a good thing. Waitak 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, a quick note. On what basis do you assert that horehound is not an expectorant? A quick search turned up thousands of references to this particular usage (this one for example). Waitak 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I was just shuffling stuff around to fix the table. ornis 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waitak..relax a bit. It's going to be a an experiment in progress a lot of times. People will be moving references around, changing categories. That's the spirit of consensus. Orangemarlin 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me we really have three things in this article: 1) medicinal plants currently used today, 2) medicinal plants which have scietifically verified properties, 3) traditional/ethnobotony uses and uses from non western systems Traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda. To base the table just on a Scientific POV discounts traditional uses and could be part of a pro-western systematic bias.
I'd also like to ask whether we should really be using primary sources (that is individual journal articles) as opossed to secondary sources which review several journal articles. Taking just one trial is week evidence either way. WP:PSTS covers this in more details. Thats one of the reasons I added a link to National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine which has several short articles reviewing current state of scientific understanding.
I'm also not sure on the title Herb implies a particular type of plant, yet we have trees like hawthorn listed. A better title might be List of medicinal plants. --Salix alba (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know science was either anti-Chinese or not used in china. If this is so, I'd love to know. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's Wikpedia's standards to require verification by reliable sources. Secondary sources aren't so reliable. Secondary sources that review primary sources in a peer-reviewed journal are acceptable. And that NIH center...let's not go there. It was a political toss over the side, and no notable scientists are part of the center. Orangemarlin 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're putting words in his mouth. He said nothing like "science is anti-Chinese" nor "science is not used in China". There are very probably more scientists in China than there are college students in most other countries. Traditional Chinese medicine has grown over a period of thousands of years. The basis upon which it was established predates, by millennia, the emergence of peer-reviewed journal articles as the sole criterion for establishing validity. The two medical practices exist side by side in Chinese communities to this day. You seem quite determined to equate "not scientifically verified" with "not valid", as above when you present dichotomies like science/gossip, science/urban legend and science/magic, in the face of multiple attempts to present something more balanced. That, good sir, is a very strong POV! Waitak 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before you start accusing me of anything, and I've ignored a lot of personal attacking from you, you really need to read neutral POV, specifically the section on undue weight, fringe theories, reliable sources and verifiability. Tradition, though can be discussed, does not make it valid. Wikipedia does not endeavor to balance all POV's as if they are all equally valid. Based on your logic, then Holocaust denial would be equal to the Holocaust. Science is not magical, it is a process through which you ascertain whether a hypothesis can be tested and, if it can be, what are the results of that testing. If an herb or plant can due what you claim, it should be tested, as many have been. I am fairly consistent in all articles that I edit. If you read the article Psuedoscience you will see what you're doing. Attack the study rather than analyze the results. Sometimes Chinese medicine got it wrong. Sometimes traditional medicine got it wrong. That's while an independent methodology that lacks biase is utilized, like science. Science has NO moral stance, it just is a method to analyze a hypothesis. Orangemarlin 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry... your edit summary says that you were responding to an attack. Help me out here. What, in what I just wrote, did you see as an attack? I'm baffled. I have, of course, read each of the articles that you quote. I believe in them, and hold to them in my edits. My objection was to the loaded words you've used ("gossip", "urban legend", "magic") in this discussion. I know what pseudoscience is, and it's ungracious of you to accuse me of indulging in it. And the Holocaust denial comment was decidedly below the belt.
"Attacking the study"? Sorry? Find me a single example where I've said that a claim must be true for any reason that you would object to. I've bent over backwards to tell you that all I'm claiming is: there exists or existed a significant group of people who used these plants for these reasons. At your insistance, we're now extending that to "... and science has this to say about these reasons". So how, precisely, do you see me indulging in any of the things you accuse me of? It's fine to tell me to "relax", but would you please stop all these accusations?
I'm going to bow out of this for a while. The cost of trying to help here is rapidly exceeding what I can afford to spend. Hopefully when the dust eventually settles, there will be an article that we're all happy with. Waitak 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, NCCAM is an obnoxious use of taxpayer money. But, if it shows either the efficacy or lack thereof, maybe it won't be. I'd prefer NIH to be focused on primary science research. It's still a political BS move on the part of republicans. Orangemarlin 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the NCCAM, and similar chairs of alternative medicine in the UK, as being a good step forward. For many years now there has been a great divide between the alternative health community and the scietific community, resulting in little funding of research into the subject. NCCAM is indicative of a growing trend in communication. --Salix alba (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops one more point. I didn't think I removed it? I thought I removed a spam link? Orangemarlin 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of herbs to get consensus[edit]

Let's start a new section to make sure we're not stepping on each others toes. Just start a subsection if you want to discuss it. Orangemarlin 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus? Herb by herb? You have to be kidding! There are 168 herbs on the NPLEX alone ... most have multiple indications - and I believe most NDs/herbalists would tell you this is only 'bare-bones' list of medicinal plants. I don't think you realize the size of the task at hand - this article would run on for thousands of pages if we stopped to evaluate herb-by-herb and indication by indication. All this article should do is list verifiable sources for health claims, both 'traditional' (King's, Hoffman, Comission E etc) and more modern EBM sources (pub med, cochrane). There is no way a single article could weigh the pros and cons of individual herbal indications. It will have to be enough to note the source of the claim and let the reader investigate further. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foxglove

Give me a few minutes on PMID. Digitalis is like one of the original anti-arrhytmics out there. I just need to find the best source!!! Orangemarlin 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested title change[edit]

To "List of plants used as medicine" which removes pov issues of effectiveness and gets ride of the only-herbs issue. JoshuaZ 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a good idea, as the title makes no claim as to actual medicinal properties. --Salix alba (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is Used as Medicine is ambiguous. It begs the question "used by whom?". Some readers may assume "by mainstream medicine." If it means by anyone, anywhere, anytime it borders on meaningless.I'd prefer a title that is not open to misinterpretation. Maybe "List of plants claimed to have medicinal value" Its a bit longer but it should be clear to anyone that a claim may be true or falseCayte 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)CayteReply[reply]
How about a paragraph describing the criteria for inclusion? The article needs one in any case to describe the categories. ornis (t) 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Description of evidence[edit]

I don't understand what the 'Falsified pharmaceutical properties' and 'Unconfirmed pharmaceutical properties' columns would contain. Perhaps the table should use a standard EBM heirarchy like the following to convey the quality of evidence for each herb:

If the quality of evidence is not known, they we could just record 'Level: unknown'. In my experience, it is almost always a mistake to say 'no evidence exists': it is always better to say that you havn't been able to find any. If we adopt a system like this, we would have to agree what 'Level' applies to historical 'tried and true' sources of information (King, Culpepper etc). I'm thinking they should be considered a "D".


206.47.252.66 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should expect the list will need to evolve with time. It should be simple at first. That would give it room to grow. With categories of evidence, there's also animal-model, in-vitro and epidemiological research Plus ethnobotanical cross cultural studies. Plausability increases if a herb is used in similar ways by diverse cultures or it belongs to the same genus as a herb with an established use. 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Scientific and pharmaceutical[edit]

So, based upon this format that has been graciously handed down by marlin, are we to equate medicine and pharmacy as mutual and exclusive? that is to say, the way that categories have been drawn out makes it appear that the only medicine in the world that is existent or effective is that of pharmaceutical medicine. Wiki wiki1 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only medicine that can be said to be effective is that supported by scientific evidence, else efficacy is unknown or disconfirmed. Folk medicine is fine if you want to establish use, but not if you want to establish effectivness.JamesStewart7 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does science know that a given molecule comes from a plant and not a drug factory? Science knows no bounds: it can certainly be used to establish efficacy of folk medicine. 206.47.252.82 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its useful to record folkloric and ethnobotanical uses and cite historical texts like Gerard. I'm not sure what format to use. The table will get unwieldy fast. It would be ideal to test everything in double blind studies but it takes time and mucho dinero. Also the tests run for only a few years on limited populations so we're back to the folkloric epistemology once a pharmaceutical is extrapolated to longer time frames and widespread use.Cayte 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)CayteReply[reply]

Violation: 'No Original Reseach'[edit]

The 'evidence' column of the table violates the no original research rule. It is one thing to provide references that show (or fail to show) efficacy of a given herb for a given indication. It is also alright to note that you havn't been able to find much evidence either way. It is not ok to pronounce a given indication 'confirmed' or 'denied'. This is the job of metea-analysis. A thourough, exhaustive search of all availible literature, with pooled statistical analysis, published in a peer reviewed journal may determine that a particular herbal indication is 'confirmed' or 'denied': a single wiki editor who may have only spent a half an hour googling the subject should avoid judging/analying the evidence in this way. The 'confirmed' and 'denied' statements are nothing more than unverified opinions of individual editors. Besides, such judgments lead to endless debate/argument over how individual studies 'should' be interpretted. I may interpret the literature as having 'denied' the cholesterol-lowering effect of Allium sativa, but another editor may see the literature as having 'confirmed' it. It will have to be enough to cite actual original research and then let the reader decide. Naturstud (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Association of Konjac to acute hepatitis is not relevant?[edit]

Can someone explain why was the acute hepatitis source removed on this edit? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The column of Pharmacopoeial status has been added....[edit]

Whoever knows the latest status of the materials, please update the edition accordingly--222.64.29.57 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not link wikispecies to the content of the article, other than the use in the section of external link[edit]

unless there are proper references (including images) cited in the wikispecies--222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The common name and synonyms of Astragalus membranaceus may need to be harmonized....[edit]

with the following http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1999/9241545178.pdf --222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the literature in the following http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20053076910 --222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf034278x --222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0202279 --222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just left a (long) comment on the Astragalus propinquus page concerning this. The WHO pamphlet is wrong. There are two choices here. We can talk about a "Radix astragali" as being from a single species, in which case, the scientific name is Astragalus mongholicus. We can talk about there being two (closely related) species, in which case they are A. mongholicus and A. propinquus. We can not (by the rules of botanical nomenclature) use the name Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge as the WHO pamphlet does (A. propinquus is the "legal" name for this species). For sources, you can use [1] for the two species position, or [2] for the single species position.192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A topic of....[edit]

List of chemicals used as medicine has been added based on the info from Diethanolamine and its discussion page--222.64.29.135 (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

plants used as medicine[edit]

I'd recommend grouping to the malady that it treats. A proposed divion is:

Note that wound treatment is on a different section than the treatment of skin infections, ... this is because the first is a oil/creamish substance (prone to attracting bacteria/infections) and the second is desinfectant alone (not prone to attracting bacteria but with slower skin regeneration properties). Respiration and fever may be combined but most plants work either on 1 of the 2, so perhaps this is best left as is. Headaches may be aleviated by 2 types of medicine, one working on the root cause and another simply disabling the pain receptors. Some references need to be found first, I made division based on the book "Bush food:Aboriginal food and herbal medicine by Jennifer Isaacs", and modified it based on own experiences/knowledge The plant examples can be placed in section as examples, full List of plants used as medicine article need to be modified too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

refimprove[edit]

This article contains extensive questionable entries without citation and without even an assertion that there is reliable support for them. They are severely degrading the quality and reliability of the article, and should be removed unless support can be added. Locke9k (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little care, please[edit]

I know this is in good faith, but watch the sources, keep them in line with WP:MEDRS, and watch you don't promote misconceptions (Aspirin is NOT salicyclic acid, for example; it's a modification of it which reduces some side effects.) Also, "evaluated for" is NOT an acceptable way to say "some studies found it didn't work, but others did". You can say it's ambiguous, or that studies are mixed, or many things, but that phrasing makes the implied claim that it DOES work.

It might be a good idea to set out your criteria. Are we looking at plants with proven effects (a much smaller list), or should there be multiple lists, organised by level of evidence? I wouldn't let this go too low down the evidence tree, though: once you get to website claims, in all honesty, I suspect you could find some website to say practically any plant could treat any disease; the modern era has resulted in a lot of claim inflation.86.176.222.119 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have been attempting to be careful, but I'll step up the effort. As for critera, I've also tried to be explicit in the intro (have a look if you haven't had a chance). My vision for this list is a neutral list of plants that have seen a significant amount of use medicinally. I have no interest in engaging in a debate about claims for any of these plants. Rather, the references here serve the purpose of verifying use, not verifying claims. Where there are claims or counterclaims made, the entries can (and perhaps should) point to them, but without engaging in a debate over their validity.
While I'm here, I'll mention that I'm going to undo the last two changes to the article, because:
  1. There is no way that mentioning a list of the three conditions to which a particular chemical present in a plant is applicable constitutes "blatant spam". The list of conditions was well cited and attested.
  2. The journal in the citation that was removed on the basis of WP:MEDRS is used hundreds of times in Wikipedia. Again the purpose of the citation is to point to where a claim was made. Given that this journal is widely used elsewhere in WP, it's unreasonable to require this article to submit to a higher level of significance in its references than is used elsewhere.
Thanks again for the feedback. Keep it coming.
Waitak (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that "blatant spam" is a bit over the top, but I do think there's an issue putting things like foxglove or opium poppy - pretty much proven to do what it's claimed - on equal footing with things that have, at best, preliminary info, or even that are merely "used for" a condition. Saying something is "used for" is an implied claim of efficacy, and I don't think we should go there, without substantial explanation that this doesn't mean it [necessarily] works.
As such, I find the planned scope rather problematic. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't disagree, but once we engage in presenting degrees of attestation as a principal feature of this article, we've stepped right onto the same slippery slope that trashed the article in the first place. I don't see a safe middle ground between "we don't engage on the question of veracity of claims at all here" and having to state the degree of certainly for every single claim. Perhaps there is one that I'm not seeing. My stance is "just don't go there", but I'm open to correction and/or suggestion. Waitak (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, I think that NOT stating the degree of certainty for every single claim would be likely to put us where this was before: about to be deleted. There's no place for articles on Wikipedia that violate WP:NPOV by design. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree entirely with that last statement. If I were to see such an article, I'd certainly vote to delete it. An article that says these plants have been or are being used for these purposes does not remotely qualify as "violating WP:NPOV by design". I don't understand why you're having such a hard time seeing the distinction. Waitak (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plants used in Ayurvedic medicine[edit]

How would the community collectively like to handle plants that are used in Ayurvedic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and other non-Western medical traditions? I made a start at it, by adding two such plants, and both were removed. Given that this article is intended to be a list of plants that are used medicinally, and that these plants unambiguously are, I'd think that they belong here. I think that they belong in Wikipedia, while avoiding entering into a debate on the merits of individual claims. If it is going to be required that there be citations that prove that the reasons for which these plants were or are used within folk medicine traditions are validated by modern medical research, then this list is going to be a non-starter.

Waitak (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of those are covered on other lists; just link to those lists in "See also". 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problems with just linking to them is that (1) there would not then be a comprehensive list of medicinal plants, (2) most of those lists don't mention what the plants are used for and (3) (as Warden mentions below) lots of plants will be used in multiple medicinal traditions. I'm inclined to go for comprehensiveness here. Waitak (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well-known plants such as ginger and rhubarb will tend to have been used in multiple schools of medicine and so we should not try to divide them between them. Warden (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digitalis[edit]

A recent edit revert claims that the reference connected to Digitalis supports the view that the plant is used and not just a pharmaceutical extract of it - but I cannot find this assertion in the article referenced. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll track it down one way or another and either make sure it's cited or revert it to refer to only the derivative. Waitak (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've rewritten the entry to distinguish between medicinal usage of the plant and subsequent usage of the drug derived from it. Waitak (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horrible NPOV, OR, and SYNTH violations[edit]

This article:

This article is terrible. One of the worst on Wikipedia. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have to agree. At the very least, change the title to List of plants used in alternative medicine. At the moment, it really looks like a giant herbalists' advertisement page. And that can become pretty dangerous.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree as well. The article is dishonest and deceptive to the extreme, and is basically a bad-faith attempt to create a POV fork. The excuse that this is a list of plants that have been used in "medicine", including fraudulent "alternative medicine" without making any medical claims is bogus and purposefully misleading. I support renaming he article to "Plants used in Aleternative Medicine", and that all material pertaining to any medical conditions be deleted. That material should be in the articles on the individual plants, not here, per WP:CFORK. There are also problems with ownership of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about List of plants with medicinal properties. We can remove anything that doesn't have a source stating efficacy. If need be, we can also do a page for alternative medicine for the stuff in this article that doesn't do anything but is used anyway. Another solution would be to convert the page to a category. Noformation Talk 01:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's difficult to respond to a position as hostile and polarized as the one you're expressing, but I'll try. As I've rewritten this article, here's what I've tried to do for each entry. In every case, every single thing stated in the article is backed up by a reliable source. If there's any case in which that's not true, please lend a hand and point it out. I'd more than welcome the help.

There's nothing non-neutral, dishonest, deceptive, etc. in any of the above. I'm not throwing out negative information, as you accuse me of. This is a good-faith attempt to record exactly what I've stated. I'm sure that I've missed things, being human, but my motives aren't as suspect as you seem to feel they are. I'm not an "alt.med troll" as someone with a similar IP to yours posted elsewhere. Again, language like you've been using doesn't invite discussion. I more than welcome contributions from one and all. That, incidentally, is how the disclaimer which I added to the article was removed. After adding it, other editors felt that it goes against WP policy on disclaimers, so they removed it. I personally feel that it would be a good idea to have a disclaimer, but I'm not willing to get into an edit war over it, so I left it.

Although you haven't stated it, here's what I've gleaned about the POV behind your objections. It seems to me that you believe that no medicinal usage of any plant should be in Wikipedia unless scientific research has shown that this usage is effective. I can respect that, although I disagree. The fact that science may not have addressed the effectiveness of a particular plant in a particular usage doesn't mean that it wasn't used that way, perhaps by a large number of people. What I can't respect is the tone that you've taken in this discussion. It's unworthy of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to reread WP:CIVIL.

Folks, please. Take a deep breath, and see if it's possible for you to participate more constructively. Language like the above isn't welcome or helpful. Waitak (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ongoing issue in this is the problem of what "medicine" means. Given the default understanding of "modern medicine", there are only a handful of plants that are used as sources of modern medicine; everything else is part of some traditional herbalism or another and isn't used in modern medicine, whether or not it is being researched. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My position is not as stated. I think that a contextualised, careful description of traditional medicine is appropriate for Wikipedia, BUT that we must not ignore evidence while doing so. This article is kind of the equivalent of writing an article on, I don't know, geocentricism, citing lots of sources discussing it, but ignoring all parts of those sources that say it's been disproven. The equivalent geocentricism articlee might say "Geocentricism says that all other celestial objects orbit around us. It has been studied and considered by astronomers such as Copernicus and Kepler. [Citations to their works]"
That's a little bit of an exaggeration, of course, but not so much as I'd like. You're specifically ignoring parts of sources that present scientific evidence.
It gets worse: When the scientific evidence IN THE SOURCES YOU SELECTED is summarised, it's getting removed back out. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A case study

I checked a source, and found it had been misrepresented. Here's the source: [3]

As you can see, it says:

The entry said:

I changed this to reflect the source:

Which is a reasonably accurate summary, I think, though we could reasonably have a discussion about the best way to express a (cited) lack of any sufficient evidence to support a claim. Note that I presented the levels of evidence, including the possibility of it lowering cholesterol.

I GOT A WARNING AND HAD MY CHANGE REVERTED, FOR DARING TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE IN THE SOURCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.176.218.96

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to List of plants used as medicine appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

That's nothing but straight up trolling, containing nothing but lies about what had been done. I thought this article might be fixable - we could go in, add evaluations of the claims, or quote reliable sources to say when there's no scientific evidence either way.

I don't object to discussing historical usages. But people WILL use Wikipedia as a source of advice on these things, so we have a duty to briefly state whether there's any evidence, particularly when the sources used for the claims conveniently summarises this evidence for us, so that we don't have to.

86.176.222.245 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's an improvement in tone. Let me take up what you've said point by point. First, the alfalfa article. The article that you quoted says that it doesn't know whether it works or not for kidney ailments etc. because apparently nobody's looked. It doesn't say "We've looked at the evidence, and decided that it doesn't work." It says "We don't really know whether this works or not, because there hasn't been enough study yet." The point is that modern medicine doesn't focus on plants much. Where it does, by all means add what they've learned. I certainly have done that (and it would be more gracious of you to recognize that). There is, however, no point in specifically tacking on a notice saying "science doesn't have a rating for this" notice onto every single entry for which that's true. Better to say (as we have) in the intro that modern medicine doesn't much care about plants used medicinally for the most part.
In your case study, you didn't "dare to present the evidence in the source". All you did was repeat the source's statement that it doesn't know enough to give a rating.
As for "straight up trolling", I'm baffled as to what you mean. Trolling, in my understanding, is when people say things for the primary purpose of upsetting people. There is not the slightest trace of anything like that, in what I'm able to see. Similarly for "nothing but lies": What exactly is it that you think Suriel1981 is lying about? Do you truly believe that everybody in the discussion who doesn't agree with you is doing nothing but trolling and lying?
I'm trying to work with you here, I really am. If you'll stop the inflammatory and accusatory language, it'll really help. Waitak (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BOLDly moved[edit]

I have taken the hint from the AFD closure and moved the article on the basis of the primary article being herbalism. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I think that this is the best of all of the alternative titles that have been proposed. Well done. Waitak (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposal[edit]

I think that the discussion over this article in various places has been useful. It's certainly crystallized my thinking on what ought to go into the entries in this list. In that spirit, I'd like to offer the following proposal to formalize the criteria for entries. I could repeat this after every one of the following points, but let me state it once here instead: every piece of information in every entry must be backed up by a reliable source.

I believe that every entry in the article currently meets all of the above criteria. It seems to me that this ought to do the best job we can of covering the topic while ensuring that no-one is misled into using a plant in a way that could harm them. None of us wants that.

As an aside, may we please get rid of the tags on the top of the article? Specifically:

If I've missed some instances where the above isn't true, I'd love for them to be pointed out so that we can fix them. In short, let's get back to what Wikipedia is best at: cordial, collaborative creation of reliable, interesting articles. Waitak (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Used to treat" implies it works. The selective use of sources, discussed a million times now, where a neutral or negative source is used to say its used to treat something is original research: It's cherry picking of studies to create new conclusions by synthesising only the positive parts of articles. This results in situations where the citations paint a completely different view from the text. This creates a POV-Pushing of the idea that the herbs can successfully treat diseases they can't.
We can't pretend things work, when the sources say there's no scientific evidence for the claims. a lack of evidence needs to be stated, because if that isn't stated, it's presumed by default that there's positive evidence. This has been said to you several dozen times.
Okay, sure, there may be some cases where one could mention a traditional use without studies. The claims that Viking berserkers ate fly agaric to go into their berserk rage could merely be sourced to reliable historians. Mentioning alcohol was formerly used as an anaesthetic is similarly uncontroversial. But anything that could cause someone to actually use the product needs a bit more care, since Wikipedia is, unfortunately, used as a medical source by people. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think that this is the heart of our disagreement. Let me take an example. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says "Historically, bilberry fruit was used to treat diarrhea, scurvy, and other conditions." There's no implication in the source that it works, and the text in this article is a faithful restatement of what this (reliable!) source states. It seems that you feel like the source means something beside what it states. That's your prerogative to make that assumption, but it's not in the source, and is therefore not in this article. If a reliable source states that a certain plant was used historically for a particular purpose, it's absolutely reasonable to state that here. There's no cherry picking involved at all. If the source states it was used, we state it was used. If the source states that it doesn't work, we state that it doesn't work. That's what "neutral" means. We state what the source says, without adding our own point of view to the mix. That's what I've been doing all this time, and it's what you should do, too.
I'd be perfectly happy to strengthen the statement in the header that, just because something was used for a purpose, this doesn't mean that science has verified that this usage is effective. I've tried to do that more than once, and other editors have removed what I wrote. To be honest, I'm just trying to do the best job I can of writing the best article I'm capable of, all while working congenially with other interested editors, and I'd rather spend my time on that than on us battling each other. Waitak (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a rather deceptive example. That source makes minor claims for diseases people probably wouldn't try to treat with bilberries now. How about trying to justify:
  1. The promotion at Jamaica dogwood ("Scientific studies have underscored the plant's medicinal potential." [Link to a study FROM 1948 which I'm pretty sure noone here has read, but just copy-pasted in from http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/jamaica-dogwood-000258.htm (the other reference)]
  2. The clusterfrack that is the entry at Grape, including claims of grapes curing cancer based on rank speculation in a single promotional source.
  3. Licorice root for hepatitis, ignoring the source says the data is for an injectable form of licorice root (and which I strongly doubt is very widespread).
  4. Everything from Soucce #8, Natural Medicine in the Tropics., an almost certainly unreliable source apparently self-published (""Note about anamed publications: We publish all these books ourselves, because...") by this company, who appear to be way out there.
  5. Sage. Source says, "Results of another small clinical study suggest that a sage extract was better than placebo at enhancing thinking and learning in older adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease." This article says "shown to improve cognitive function in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease". Those statements are NOT equivalent. Small clinical studies do not show something, they may hint at something, or give mild evidence, but they certainly do not prove it, which is what "shown" means.
  6. Cayenne pepper. Yes, the source says it was used as medicine for 9000 years. However, 9000 years?! Check your history of Mesoamerica - the oldest civilisations are about 4,500 years ago, and are very poorly documented. The statement only serves to discredit the source.

You get the idea. If you removed the rather questionable University of Maryland pages, and the extremely questionable Natural Medicine int he Tropics source, that would get rid of most problems, though. I'll admit the more recently-added entries are mostly reasonable, though one may quibble about a few, and once the bad sources are removed, it wouldn't be too hard fixing the remaining problems. 86.185.3.153 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I get the idea. I could nitpick here, but my basic response is: so fix them, already. I've asked any number of times for help in improving the quality of the article. Where there's a genuine conversation to be had about an entry, let's have it here in the discussion page. That's mostly what it's for, after all. Where there's a clearer way to state what the source says, by all means, contribute away.
As an aside, if you'd extend a bit of grace on Natural Medicine in the Tropics, it'd be much appreciated. It's a source that I know very well, and respect. The principal author is an MD, and their team has done a huge amount to contribute to health care in Africa. You're right that it's self-published, and I accept that that raises suspicion. The reason for self-publishing, however, was so that they could basically give the book away to the people they're serving. Their motives and track record are spotless. Nonetheless, I'll go back to the things I've drawn from it, and look over the primary sources that they cite, and see if I can't beef up what I've drawn from there a bit, or find other sources.
Incidentally, could I repeat the request that's been made a number of times that you participate in these discussions via a registered account? Thanks. Waitak (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you want to debate them, care to start with the six I've brought up? As for the self-published source; Wikipedia:SELFPUB probably isn't optional here, but it could reasonably be used as a source of other studies. 86.185.165.215 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure:
  • Jamaica dogwood: I think that the statement is about as mild as they get, and the abstract of the article makes it clear that the plant does have noteworthy medicinal properties. I'll add a URL to the article. Take a look at the abstract, and see if you have any qualms about the statement.
  • Grape: You're going to have to be more specific about what you're having trouble with here. The summary does a pretty good job of describing what the source has to say about medicinal uses of the plant.
  • Licorice root: I'm interpreting what the source says as follows: Licorice root has been used for a whole laundry list of things, including hepatitis. (See What licorice has been used for in the source article.) The only form of licorice that's actually been studied for hepatitis is an injectable extract. The article doesn't make any claim to efficacy at all. If you'd like to add one, specifying that it's only with respect to this very special form, I don't have any objection.
  • I've already commented on Natural Medicine in the Tropics
  • Sage: Okay, why don't you change the phrasing to something that you feel is more accurate?
  • Cayenne: Beats the heck out of me. The source says so, and I know that there have been archeological proofs that certain things were used in a comparable time frame (beer, vegetable oils, other things). I would have no objection to changing the 9,000 years to "thousands of years" if you like.
Waitak (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disclaimer[edit]

We've had a lot of disagreement over how or whether mentioning uses imply efficacy. WP:MEDICAL notwithstanding, the best thing for the health of this article seems to be to have a very clear disclaimer at the header. Please feel free to modify it if you like, but please don't delete it. Waitak (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the following to the beginning of the article:
*Please note that Wikipedia does not give medical advice, and that the information in this article is intended to be solely for informational purposes.
Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about a format change[edit]

I've been thinking that changing to a tabular format might help this article a lot. I'm thinking of columns like the following:

I'm inclined to eliminate all reference to efficacy studies, but if people want that it would need to be another column. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been in tabular format for mach of its history. The last such revision is revision at 01:14, 28 September 2011.--Salix (talk): 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Personally I'm inclined to go back. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before diving in, I'd like to encourage you to read through the existing entries with a new format in mind. The existing prose format gives us a lot of (needed) flexibility. It seems to me that there's too much variety in the nature of the entries to accommodate a tabular format. As well, I think that it's fair to say that if we'd left the article the way it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the article wouldn't have survived the AfD. Waitak (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking about this a bit. I'm not sure that a table is more user-friendly than a list with letter headers, like we've got, but if enough people feel strongly about it, I'm certainly not going to get in the way. I would propose, however, that we change the columns to something like this, if we make one:
  • Common name
  • Taxonomic name
  • Traditional use
  • Contemporary use, if any
  • Discussion
The one that I'm least sure of is contemporary use. Grouping everything that's not in one of the first four categories into a catch-all column has two advantages:
  • It gives us flexibility to accommodate a number of different types of entries:
  • Plants that were only used traditionally, but that are pretty much ignored by modern medicine
  • Plants that were used traditionally, and that are used differently now
  • Plants that haven't ever been used medicinally, but that are (perhaps unjustly) popular now
  • Plants that were used for all sorts of things
  • Plants that had one or two very specific purposes
  • Plants that are actually toxic, and so on...
  • It avoids making it appear that a focus of the article is validating medical claims. That's what nearly took the article out in the first place, and I really can't see any way to avoid that happening again if we go that way. As it stands, the article is very careful not to make any claims of efficacy unless they're specifically backed up by reputable scientific study.
To reiterate, though, I'm not sure that a format change is a good idea in the first place. What's everybody think? Waitak (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreliable sources removed[edit]

We've discussed this: One source was self-published, the other clearly promotional with major exaggeration (to the extent of claiming we knew 9000 years of Mesoamerican medicine, among other things.

By cutting these sources, we're at least left with a reasonably well-sourced article that we can reasonably discuss. 86.** IP (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for using a non-IP account. As I've said, I'll look into other sources for the plants I drew from NMitT. You can't dismiss the University of Maryland Medical Center as a source because you conclude that they must be wrong about the 9,000 years. I'll remove the reference to the time period, as I mentioned. It's particularly not reasonable to remove the entries altogether because of such a conclusion. It's a Medical Center, for goodness sake. Waitak (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a decidedly promotional site, with major disclaimers. It's more than just it being wrong once. It should stay out. 86.** IP (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:POV. Your personal opinions do not trump reliable sources. Wikipedia is not soapbox for your pet grievances. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your personal pPOV does not make an unreliable source reliable. 86.** IP (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently "a Mexican cave has yielded pieces of dried red peppers over 9,000 years old" according to Dr. T. Umberto of the Union County College of New Jersey.[4] Not sure what his source is for the information, but it looks at the very least like it wasn't simply invented by the University of Maryland Medical Center. That doesn't constitute any knowledge of what it was used for, but does show that it was used by the Aztecs. "Chili" is actually the Aztec word for cayenne. Waitak (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which says absolutely nothing about medicine, showing that the site exaggerates claims and lacks respect for facts. 86.** IP (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted all references to Natural Medicine in the Tropics, and all of the entries for which that was the single reference, with the single exception of neem, for which I've added an annotation. I've also incorporated a good number of the edits that you made to existing entries. I don't agree with a number of them, but frankly, this is wearing me out, and I'd rather spend my effort doing something more fruitful. I also changed the "9,000 years" reference to "thousands of years". We can discuss the University of Maryland Medical Center site, but it's by no means a given that it's not reliable. I've reinstated the entries that depend on it until there is a consensus as to its validity, as per WP policy. I'd like to suggest that you consider improving the entries, rather that just deleting them. You can look for better references just as well as I can, and actually contributing content is a better way to contribute.
As you said, "we discussed this". I asked you to please extend a little grace on Natural Medicine in the Tropics and give me a little time to find better references. I thought you'd agreed, but apparently you've changed your mind. Waitak (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was over a week ago. I put it off for a week specifically to give you time. How long do you expect people to wait after a request for a "little time"? 86.** IP (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a fair point, and one that I think I've more than adequately addressed by deleting the plants whose sole source was NMitT. I'm re-adding them over time as I find other sources. I'd love to hear you respond to the other point I made above, regarding contributing by improving content, as opposed to simply deleting it. It's hard to consider you a valued contributor if the only thing I see is throwing away things that I've spent time contributing, and using excessively harsh language to describe both people and the work that you don't agree with. That's not at all what WP:CIVIL is about. Improving content (by, say, doing the hard work of finding better references) takes more time and effort, but contributes a whole lot more to Wikipedia. As an example, you deleted the whole entry for asthma weed because the reference used the Filipino (English) word instead of the more common Western word. If you had bothered to click on the WP entry for the plant, you would have seen "tawa-tawa" in the first sentence. Helping out with the hard work by, for example, finding and adding a reference showing that the name is the same would have been really appreciated. I haven't given up on considering you a real asset to WP in areas of interest that we share, but you could make it a lot easier. Waitak (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but the arguments seem to be circular. I bring up a point, you say how much you want to discuss it, then latch on to one minor point out of many raised, and ignore all the major points raised. It's getting incredibly frustrating, because you keep declaring that everything's done, when, when checked, it's not. 86.** IP (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had enough of this nonsense. The citations demonstrate that plants have been used in herbalism not that said herbalism is effective. We've been over this time and time again, including in the AFD for this article. The fact that you don't believe they work is irrelevant. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suriel, read what they're actually used to say and stop trolling. We KNOW FOR A FACRT they're inaccurate when it comes to claimed history of use, because there's no way you can prove that 7th-'millenium BC Mesoamerica was using chilis for medicine. Yet the UMM IS USED TO MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT DATES in most cases. It's a garbage source, both because it's unreliable for most of the type of material it's used for, and also because the POV pushing means that it may well be promoting novel uses for the herbs, which aren't being used anywhere else, and aren't notable. 86.** IP (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly my point and one that has been made numerous times to this particular editor. It's simply POV-vandalism now, including use of IP-socks to send phoney warnings. I'm taking it for administrative intervention if it continues. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The source you provide is about the Center for Integrative Medicine. It states that "the National Institutes of Health ... has named the clinic a Research Center of Excellence". That source generally seems positive about the clinic and the dissenters just seem to be angry bloggers. But what's any of this got to do with this article? As explained above, the source used in the article here were written by a different institution - a provider of encyclopedic medical data. Warden (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Salzberg is not just an "angry blogger"; he's the Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at UMCP, as is readily verified. But at any rate, the problem is intrinsic to the material, and it simply contaminates everyone who passes it along. URAC certification doesn't apparently mean much, as outlined in this page from Quackwatch: they do not check the information itself, and have a history of letting pass known-to-be-false claims for alternative medical treatments. The problem in the end is that there are enough flaws in the material that I do not feel that we can trust it to have interpreted its supposed source material correctly, regardless of the way it is packaged and branded. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Barratt is another angry blogger - his piece is self-published and seems to be neither reliable nor neutral. Note also that his operation may be a commercial rival to URAC, as his site seems to advertise and promote rival sources of online medical information such as Natural Medicines. Anyway, the essential point here is that chilli pepper is clearly used medicinally and it's not just the UMM which says so - you can read similar stuff at Kew for example. Do you dispute this? Warden (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Kew page isn't making the kind of outlandish claims that the ADAM material is; indeed, Kew makes no claims at all of any kind of historical usage, and it gives the names of specific modern medications that contain capsaicin. I don't have a problem with Barratt endorsing a rival site; indeed, I would expect him to if he feels it is superior. Also, I can find endorsement from within the field of his site, e.g., this news report concerning a paper in Annals of Oncology which specifically picks out his website (along with another) for its highest praise. In any case there's really no getting past the issue that there really is no way that some of the ADAM material is true, no matter whose authority stands behind it. Show me the primary research that demonstrates that hot peppers were used for medicine in 7000 BCE, and if it isn't total junk, I'll accept it. The ADAM page doesn't do that, and it's too far-fetched a claim to take on authority alone. The fact that the claim is made without proper citation diminishes ADAM's authority and anyone else who repeats it credulously, including CIM. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Kew site has several pages about chillis and has a separate page for traditional medicinal usage. Your personal view on whether the usage documented by such sites is plausible or not is irrelevant as we are not here to conduct original research using primary sources or present our own opinions. Warden (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, however, that page doesn't make outlandish claims, although it lacks any kind of citation apparatus. And no, my personal analysis is not irrelevant. Formal reliability isn't good enough, when push comes to shove. When a source says things that can be demonstrated to be untrue, or when it misrepresents its sources, then it is unreliable. Formal reliability is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here's what I've been able to find out about the "9,000 years" claim. Biologist T. Ombrello[5] from Union County College in New Jersey has the following: "They have been cultivated in North and South America for thousands of years. Fragments of dried pepper fruits have been found in ancient Peruvian ruins, and a Mexican cave has yielded pieces of dried red peppers over 9,000 years old."[6] A 2007 article[7] references a study funded by the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in southern Mexico where "ten different cultivars (cultivated varieties) of chili peppers were found among the well-preserved plant remains." The article says that the "cave Guila Naquitz has yielded many well-preserved plant remains, some of which date back approximately 10,000 years to the beginning of squash cultivation in Mexico." This appears to be the study that the UMD refers to. So, in summary: the claim that cayenne has been used by people for 9,000 years appears to be well-founded and well-attested, but there is no way to know exactly what that usage is. Strong claims about the (un)reliability of UMD based on the number of years appear to be unjustified. On the other hand, claiming medicinal use in particular over this period, as the UMD article does, is not justified by anything I've been able to find so far. I haven't found the original Smithsonian press release on which the cited article is based, and it would be worth doing both that and reading whatever scientific articles the archeological team may have published on the subject before drawing any stronger conclusions than these. The authors do draw some conclusions about usage of fresh vs. dried peppers based on the breakage patterns in the peppers themselves. Waitak (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Unindent] No, it is completely justified to criticise the UMM: That humans did something with htem 9000 years ago, sure. That doesn't at all justify claiming a medical tradition. The claim does not follow, and is just making shit up well beyond the facts.
You can't claim the UMM is unassailable because their flights of fancy have some grain of truth buried under all the bullshit. There's still a heap of cow dung in the room, messing up the place. 86.** IP (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote: "claiming medicinal use, as UMD does, is not justified". You responded "you can't claim that UMM(sic) is unassailable". Are you unable to see that I'm trying to find what the facts are, rather than trying to justify any particular POV? You really don't need to respond so harshly, and you certainly don't need the foul language to get your point across. Be WP:CIVIL. It's policy. It's also more effective. Waitak (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've begun to replace references to the UMMC site. I hope to finish within a week or two. I maintain the position that UMMC is a reliable source, in spite of the kerfuffle over the "9,000 year" issue, but in the interest of harmony, I'd rather just remove the source of contention. Hopefully this will also reduce the number of unpleasant exchanges in this talk page. Feel free to help (and to be clear, deleting entries will most emphatically not be considered "help"). Waitak (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I'm unable to find a second source of the list of countries in which comfrey is banned. If you'd like to delete the mention of it being banned, please feel free to delete the UMMC reference upon which it's based. Waitak (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All references but the one mentioned above have now been removed the article. As far as I'm aware, there is no long anything in the article that any of the participating editors consider as justifying the tags with which the article has been tagged. If there's anything further, please mention it here, in enough detail so that another editor can respond, or just fix it yourself. Waitak (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No, this does not deal with the problems, because you left the dodgy information in, when it wasn't in the citations in several cases. Also, this does not solve the problems tagged - we can't even begin to discuss the evidence basis for herbs until we deal with the sourcing issues. 86.** IP (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me be more clear then. All of the sourcing issues that you've raised have been addressed. All of the information in the article comes directly from the sources. There is no claim, anywhere in this article, that a plant is effective in any medical usage without a reliable source that says so. Not one. There is a more than ample statement at the very top of the article stating that no claim of efficacy is made. So I repeat: if there are any further specific problems with the article, please raise them. I've dealt with everything else. Waitak (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do believe that's your intent, but I'm afraid you can sometimes be a little sloppy when swapping out sources; not making sure that all the old material is removed. I think the missing information and npov tags should stay, but I wouldn't object to doing a review of what's left, to see about removing the source tags. 86.** IP (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be really frank, the assault that you've been mounting here and in WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard has created a whole lot of pressure, and attention to detail suffers as a result. I suppose that you must have thought that if you didn't turn up the heat, nobody'd listen, but that's pretty much the opposite of the truth. When you act with a degree of respect and honor, as you have more lately, what you say is really considered, instead of dismissed along with the vitriol. If the article weren't under siege, the quality would benefit. It's hard to consider things carefully when you're dodging bullets. That's one thing that the more collegial and cooperative atmosphere that I've been lobbying for (and to which you've been responding - thank you) would accomplish. Waitak (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Comfrey.pdf - "In 1993, the American Herbal Products Association recommended that comfrey only be used externally. No U.S. regulations were found for comfrey or symphytine. However, a number of other countries, including Canada, Brazil, Australia, and the United Kingdom, have severely restricted or banned the use of comfrey." - it's undoubtably a reliable source. 86.** IP (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, I'll use that. Further in the article (section 8.0) it makes it clear that the restrictions deal with the internal use of comfrey, so I'll leave the first phrase in the sentence in the article. Waitak (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to reiterate that all of the objections that have been raised here - at least as far as I've been able to see - have been addressed. If there are any further issues that merit the tags on the articles, could they please be raised explicitly so that we can get rid of the tags and move on? Thanks. Waitak (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been over a week since I asked for any further issues, and none have been raised. On that basis, I'm removing the tags on the article. Again, if there are specific things that any editor would like to see addressed, please raise them and we'll deal with them. Thanks. Waitak (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

From the source:

The name “belladonna” means “beautiful lady,” and was chosen because of a risky practice in Italy. The belladonna berry juice was used historically in Italy to enlarge the pupils of women, giving them a striking appearance. This was not a good idea, because belladonna can be poisonous.
Though widely regarded as unsafe, belladonna is used as a sedative, to stop bronchial spasms in asthma and whooping cough, and as a cold and hay fever remedy. It is also used for Parkinson's disease, colic, motion sickness, and as a painkiller.

The text that was removed:

... although toxic, was used historically in Italy by women to enlarge their pupils, as well as a sedative, among other uses. The name itself means "beautiful woman" in Italian.

For astralagus, from the source:

Historically, astragalus has been used in traditional Chinese medicine, usually in combination with other herbs, to support and enhance the immune system. It is still widely used in China for chronic hepatitis and as an adjunctive therapy in cancer.

The text that was removed as not fitting the source:

has long been used in traditional Chinese medicine to strengthen the immune system, and is used in modern China to treat hepatitis and as an adjunctive therapy in cancer.

And similarly for alfalfa. I've reverted back to what it originally said, which is (as above) amply supported by the reference cited. Waitak (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess what concerns me about this list is the term "is used for". At one level, when someone says that, for example, "alfalfa is used to lower cholesterol", one assumes that it has been demonstrated that, in fact, alfalfa does lower cholesterol. That would be my interpretation. However, I understand that in this list the term "is used for" means that someone somewhere has used the particular herb for a particular purpose, even without evidence that it does what is claimed. Is that about right? It seems to me that the list would be more useful if each entry had the "uses" but with an additional sentence relating the current scientific consensus. For example, for alfalfa, the ref says that it is "possibly effective for lowering cholesterol" and no evidence for other medical uses. There are also some pretty serious potential complications of combining alfalfa with prescribed drugs. I think that these kinds of additions would make the list much more useful. My last point is that the main alfalfa article does not mention cholesterol.Desoto10 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for stating your concerns so clearly. It's tricky. The intention behind every entry here has been to look at what medicinal usage has been made of plants within historical and present traditional medicine. We've tried really, really hard to make it clear that an attested use of a plant for some purpose should not be taken as meaning that it actually accomplishes anything when so used. Where plants have been demonstrated by evidence-based medicine to have an effect, we've noted that as well, and where science has shown that a plant actually is ineffective in its historical usage, we've noted that, too. The idea of adding notes on efficacy is appealing, but earlier attempts to do that nearly trashed the article. Instead, I've tried to opt for the approach that I just outlined. That said, if, for any of these entries, there is science that talks about whether the plant is useful for one of the purposes noted here, it would be absolutely great if you and others could add them. My one request, though, is to please not delete attested historical uses because they haven't been evaluated by science. That's not the purpose of the article.
Thanks as well for being gracious with having had your edits reverted. WP needs more of that. Waitak (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this section doesn't go far enough. I think the common name should be changed to deadly nightshade, or at least mention made of it and the fact that it is not just toxic but highly toxic and likely to be lethal in anything but homeopathic doses and is scheduled in many countries. I'm not sure where it forms part of the practice of herbalists, the only references I've seen are that it is used by homeopaths in very tiny doses. Here is the allowable dosage in australia according the poisons regulation:
ATROPA BELLADONNA (belladonna):
(i) in undivided preparations containing 0.03 per cent or less of total solanaceous alkaloids when labelled with a dose of 0.3 mg or less of total solanaceous alkaloids and a recommended daily dose of 1.2 mg or less of total solanaceous alkaloids; or
(ii) in divided preparations containing 0.3 mg or less of total solanaceous alkaloids per dosage unit, when labelled with a recommended daily dose of 1.2 mg or less of total solanaceous alkaloids
source: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00128
The scheduling and dosage legalities also need to be incorporated onto the main Atropa belladonna page.

Gudzwabofer (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnes Anderson Phillipson recommended[edit]

I have this: Herbal Medicines, 3rd Edition, Joanne Barnes, Linda A Anderson, J David Phillipson, ISBN 978 0 85369 623 0. Be warned that they are biased toward strictness and potential harm. Badanedwa (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not "used in medicine"[edit]

These plants are listed on the basis of herbalism claims, not modern medicine. That is why this article is titled under the former and not the latter. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article seems more complex than necessary[edit]

When I went to this article, I expected a simple list, like the list of culinary herbs and spices. I didn't expect to see descriptions for each plant or references. A lot has been expected of this one article and it seems to me this only needs to be a list, and the articles for each individual plant can go into depth on the descriptions, usages, and references. 71.231.138.222 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comfrey[edit]

Why was Comfrey (Symphytum officinale) removed [8]? It is a classic plant known for thousands of years to treat bruises, bone fractures etc. – the German word "Beinwell" means it will make bones healed. The word "officinae" in the scientific name means that every pharmacist used to have it in his shop's storeroom ("officinal"). This is ranking a plant up to nobility. Today it is used by pharma industry in a lot of cremes. One of the effective drugs inside is Allantoin. -- Grigorowitsch (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is listed on the list of herbs with known adverse effects. It seems that "its toxicity has led a number of countries, including Canada, Brazil, Australia, and the United Kingdom, to severely restrict or ban the use of comfrey." Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for the hint (there was none for the edit in the history).
In the mentioned list ("known adverse effects") I see only "Liver damage,[4][5] cancer[4]".
Source 4 is gone. It not archived on archive.org
Source 5 says: You can have the article for 35.95 USD.
But I remember, there is a discussion about pyrrolizidine alkaloids.
From my point of view: the list should be complete for traditional or now used plants. Concerns and restrictions in countries should be mentioned.
I will have a look onto the pyrrolizidine alkaloid discussion. -- Grigorowitsch (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Germany it is still used. It is recommended to keep it away from open wounds.
https://www.kytta.de/de/produkte/die-effektive-wirkung-der-beinwellwurzel/
So it is a plant currently used in herbalism. -- Grigorowitsch (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please let us keep the discussion open, there may be other opinions. Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please consider, it is a descriptive list, not a recommendatory list. -- Grigorowitsch (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of plants used in herbalism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khat and Cathinone reference[edit]

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/khat_en

the article is in itself a reference to khat’s chemistry and contains a list of references to other articles discussing khat Seán D. Middleton (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table - "description" and sources[edit]

With this edit, I removed from the table primary research and altmed sources for the mislabeled column named "description". Objective, science-based sources would not identify many of the supposed medical uses as a description, but rather a purported use in herbalism practices.

For an article about herbalism, the WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS sources should be objective reviews or summaries from reputable sources. As an example, although lab research and altmed quackery purport dietary garlic as an "antiobiotic", there is no reliable medical source to indicate such an implausible effect, and the NCCIH source doesn't even mention it. The column heading should be "Purported effects" and the content revised, abbreviated and sourced to reflect statements in reliable - not altmed - sources. Zefr (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories