Talk:Atropa belladonna/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Atropa belladonna (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 2 >>


Contents

[edit] Please note

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

What reference on Health Foods? Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RTFA. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, the mere fact that the Oxford Book of Health Foods includes the homeopathic use of a substance in a short characterization of the substance clearly establishes "prominence". WP:WEIGHT is therefore satisfied by including mention of its homeopathic use in proportion to how it is described in the source. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion is not the same thing as prominence. You can read the difference between the two concepts in most if not all English dictionaries. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That's was a pretty uncivil comment, SA. Not only does it misrepresents my statements (I'm saying that inclusion establishes prominence), it is also condescending and impugns my intelligence. I expect that PoupOnToast will be warning you about this as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion doesn't establish prominence. They are totally different ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is Probation?

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

That's your opinion. There are approximately 3-4 editors who watch over NPOV. There are a huge number of POV warriors. We'd lose under your scenario. I suggest that Homeopathy promoters get 1RR in total. That should work for me.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the use of "POV warriors" is in effect equivalent to "POV pusher" and thus is an uncivil term to use; especially given the probationary status of this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turning this on its head

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

It's hard to counter or support an argument that makes no sense. What are you saying or suggesting? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a new argument. Are you trying to say that homeopathy is prominent wrt Deadly Nightshade because of the 59,000 doses? If so, where's your source? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Have we seen any article say that conventional medicine is prominent wrt deadly nightshade? We know that 59,000 doses of homeopathic solution were withdrawn because of contamination fears. It is at least conceivable that the homeopathic use exceeds all medical uses. Where would that put the medical/homeopathic balance in the article? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources which indicate that the plant is used in conventional medicine actually document the use of the plant or an extract from the plant. However, there is no indication that this use happens in homeopathy. It's comparing apples and oranges. Remember, WP:PROMINENCE applies to minority opinions. The opinion of the modern medical community is not a minority opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You can make a bronze statue by carving a wax one, covering it with clay, melting the wax, pouring it out, filling the clay with bronze and then washing away the clay. Although no wax is left, wax was used in the manufacture of the statue. So the absence of any deadly nightshade in the homeopathic remedy does not imply that it was not used in the preparation of the remedy. Although the use of homeopathic remedies is a minority view, the fact of its use is a majority view, and so not subject to the minority section in WP:PROMINENCE. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you arguing that water memory is like making a mold? If so, where is your evidence that this works like this? Are you arguing that an article on wax should include mention the creation of bronze statues? This argument is beginning to sound more and more stretched: as though you are reaching for rationale. You admit to homeopathy being a minority view, which implies that WP:WEIGHT comes into play, but then contradict yourself and claim it is a "majority view" in the "fact of its use". Huh? It's either minority or majority. The fact that pseudoscience "exists" is a "majority view". Does that mean every article on science should mention pseudoscience without regards for undue? Grasping at straws, methinks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The question is more whether there should be a 'uses of wax' section in wax. This is analagous to there being a uses of deadly nightshade section here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't quite work that way because making a mold isn't a fringe theory. Let's take a better example: let's say that astrologers used channeled wax to make ouija boards. Would you want to include this in the article on wax? When does WP:UNDUE apply if not for such occasions? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Or even more analogous would be a "uses" section in an article on a particular type of wax which was indeed uses for casting molds of bronze statues (there are many kinds of wax just as there are many kinds of plants). Regardless, I believe that SBS's point has been clearly stated. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't quite work because mold making is not a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

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

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

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

When someone makes a nonsensical argument, you reply by pointing out it is nonsense. If they repeat that argument an additional 4000 times, it is not actually necessary to make 4000 additional replies. He took his nonsensical assertions about 'prominence' to the reliable sources noticeboard where they were rejected. Then to the NPOV talk page where they similarly failed to gain support. My advice o all editors is to relax, be calm, and be patient when it comes to seeing how article probation works out.Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But what do you do when that same editor uses his unsupported logic and effectively blocks anyone from including content else wise? We've reached an impasse. Perhaps an RFC is the next step. Everyone okay with that? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when talk page discussion has reached an impasse, an RfC is appropriate. Hopefully, if there is an RfC, already involved editors will refrain from disrupting it by arguing with every outside respondent who disagrees with their already stated position. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking about me in the third person is rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, please stop focusing on each other's conduct; it's not helping to solve the dispute. As a user previously uninvolved in this article, I have said that SA's argument makes sense to me. The way forward, as I say below, is to find sources that specifically say deadly nightshade is an important material in homeopathy. Without sources that support that specific assertion, homeopathy shouldn't be mentioned in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Close, but not quite. We need a source that says that homeopathy's use of nightshade is prominent with respect to nightshade. We can find plenty of homeopaths claiming that hundreds of plants are important to them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "prominent with respect to nightshade." Can you provide a (hypothetical) example of the type of source that would fulfill this requirement? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. A mainstream, independent source that said something like "most people come in contact with belladonna at the homeopathy counter of the local drug store". Or a soure that said, "50% of all belladonna that is cultivated and grown for harvest by homeopathic producers." ScienceApologist (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. In my opinion, that sets the bar too high; it would be enough for me to find a few sources that said that belladonna preparations were among those used most often in homeopathy. (Obviously, there would have to be some actual statistics behind that claim.) I list one such source below. However, in theory, a source such as the one you ask for could exist, and I would set the percentage lower--if someone can reliably establish that 25% (say) of belladonna was used in homeopathy, I think that would be worth mentioning here. (But the Oxford Book of Health Foods doesn't help with us with any of this.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I might be able to buy that argument, but I think we need to do more article-based research for this. I say, let's get List of homeopathic remedies up to snuff first so we can identify the most popular homeopathic potions and then decide on a threshhold. We need to be thorough before we decide how to do this (if we decide to do this) and should not apply it in a haphazard way. The percentage I used was arbitrary. Perhaps even 10% would be high enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)r
That sounds like a productive approach; centralizing discussion at Talk:List of homeopathic remedies might help cut down on the conflict that's spread across the plant articles, as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm all for that. Let's remand all further conversations to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies. Until such time as the article there can delineate the most prominent homeopathic remedies for inclusion on other articles we should avoid these discussions on these pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other editor's response

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

I don't think it's appropriate to have a place for editors "other than SA". You don't have the right to ban me from talkpage sections, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not banning you from anything. I am seeking clarity on how others feel about your argument and not how you feel about your argument. I am hoping that this will help resolve this dispute. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why that precludes me from responding here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what? Do what you you like. I'm only trying to help resolve this dispute. You actions here are disruptive to the process. So post where you want. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Small victories and all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

That's not my rationale, Levine. My rationale is that the source is not asserting the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant but instead is mentioning it in passing, anecdotally, much the same way someone writing an article on the Earth might mention modern belief in a flat earth in passing, anecdotally without asserting its prominence. The analysis shows that the authors do not investigate homeopathy even to the point of lacking a definition of the subject. It seems that they began including homeopathy to contextualize certain health-benefit claims for certain plants but then sometimes just threw anecdotal mention of homeopathic remedies without any systematic rationale. The fact that the five plants mentioned are not singled out by any other group with respect to homeopathy makes me believe that they simply were not interested in asserting prominence of homeopathy with respect to the plants. Indeed, they had a different editorial goal than we do at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, the mere fact that the Oxford Book of Health Foods includes the homeopathic use of a substance in a short characterization of the substance clearly establishes "prominence". WP:WEIGHT is therefore satisfied by including mention of its homeopathic use in proportion to how it is described in the source. It seems that you are making a generalization about the authors of the book based on your own WP:OR. Regardless, the authors found the homeopathic use of these substances prominent enough to mention in their respective articles. I really don't understand why you feel that the authors need to define what homeopathy is. I agree with you in that the authors included homeopathy to contextualize certain health-benefit claims for certain plants. That's exactly what we are doing here. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the mere fact of mentioning something does not establish prominence. I can mention a number of reliable mainstream authors who mention the modern flat earth adherents in anecdotal passing when discussing the vagueries of planet Earth. That does not mean they were asserting prominence. I am making an analysis of the authors use of homeopathy based on their book, so it's not original research, it's simply looking at how the idea is used. The fact that the authors don't even bother to define homeopathy is telling: it means that they didn't think it important. This strikes a major blow for anyone trying to say that they though homeopathy is prominent with respect to these plants since they don't care to even say what homeopathy is beyond a throwaway, non-descriptive definition. The authors may have wanted to include a broad range of claims from the prominent to the silly in their book. I don't know, I'm not sure what the authors motivations were. However, it is clear that they were not asserting that homeopathy was prominent with respect to these plants. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please quote from WP:UNDUE where you feel it suggests that a source must assert "prominence" on a topic with respect to an article in order to include the topic in an article? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll do even better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That didn't help me before to understand your point. What I am asking for is a direct quote from WP:UNDUE which supports your argument about prominence. That's all. I don't need your rationale to go along with it. Just the specific quote. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A relevant section would be:

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

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

As I and others have pointed out to you on multiple occasions, the fact that Deadly nightshade is used in a homeopathic remedy is not a viewpoint (held by a minority or a majority). It is a fact. Now then, if we were to say that homeopathic remedies with Deadly nightshade are effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome then that would be a minority view. But we are not saying that. We are merely citing its use; and we even go one further and cite the majority view which that there is no experimental evidence to substantiate claims of effectiveness. So I think it should be clear why that portion of WP:UNDUE does not apply. Is there some other part of WP:UNDUE which you think may apply here? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The supposed "fact" of the "use" of deadly nightshade is the opinion of people who believe that water memory or some other pseudoscientific mechanism can somehow allow for the plant to be used in homeopathic remedies even when it is not present in said remedies. Hardly a fact. Nevertheless, it may STILL warrant inclusion in the article if we can just show that this point-of-view is prominent with respect to the subject of the article (that's why WP:UNDUE applies in the first place). An attempt was made to show that a health foods book asserted the prominence of homeopathy with respect to this plant. On close analysis, it was shown that the book only haphazardly referenced homeopathy and didn't seem to show that it was prominent with respect to any of the plants that had homeopathy mentioned in their articles. In fact, homeopathy was not duly considered by the book at all; they didn't even provide a working definition of the topic. So we're left with one solitary source which anecdotally mentions homeopathy in the same way that some goofy professor might mention the Flat Earth Society when writing an entry on the Earth. Hardly asserting prominence, just connection with anecdotes. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We are going in circles here. I still feel that your analysis is without merit to Wikiepdia and groundless in these discussion. This is why I want to hear from others. So please sit back and let's see who agrees with your rationale as I summarized above. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you haven't been able to answer me yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there has yet to be any editors who agree with your rationale about WP:UNDUE. Most seem to think that you are setting the bar way to high. Are you convinced yet or do you think a proper RfC should be started on this matter? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. I basically agree with SA's argument. Why don't you let User:Stephen B Streater complete his research before you do anything? More sources are likely to help clarify what we should do. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I misread your response about "setting the bar too high" above. I definitely agree that we should wait for the research from Stephen B Streater, but I maintain what others here maintain and what RSN concluded, that the Oxford book is a satisfactory source for inclusion of the material and that SA's interpretation of WP:UNDUE is not grounded in the policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary. However, I disagree with you that the discussion on RSN reached a consensus; that discussion (in which SA didn't take part) contains more or less the same arguments that are here on the talk page, and it doesn't look like people came to an agreement. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple

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

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

Google search "Deadly nightshade" and uses yields as the first link The entire plant, harvested when coming into flower, is used to make a homeopathic remedy[232]. This is used especially in cases where there is localised and painful inflammation that radiates heat. It is also used to treat sunstroke and painful menstruation.[1]
Yeah, it is 'simple', however, there is no corresponding Wikipedia policy of 'prominence', WP:UNDUE is being misapplied, and I predict that he assumption that there aren't other sources that talk about this use of this plant will turn out to be completely wrong. Deadly nightshade is in reality used in homeopathic preparations; sooner or later Wikipedia will reflect this reality. How many blood vessels end up being burst between now and then is an open question. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think there are other sources, find them. It's not that hard, I think: this source says that belladonna was among the five most common medicinal products prescribed by homeopathic GPs in France: M Trichard, E Lamure, and Gilles Chaufferin, "Study of the practice of homeopathic General Practitioners in France," Homeopathy (2003) 92, p. 136.
The ibiblio site doesn't appear to have any editorial control. I don't think it passes WP:RS. On the topic of "prominence", SA's argument is well within policy: we don't write encyclopedia articles based on trivial coverage in other sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's my issue with this: one of the most common homeopathic remedies listed uses Muscovy duck liver. Does this mean we should have a link to homeopathy on that article by this rationale? Seems a little weird to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources that say that is one of the most common homeopathic remedies, then why wouldn't we state that in the article? Simply because it exposes Homeopathy to ridicule? So what? Homeopathy is quackery, why don't you want people to know that? I just don't understand this fetish with trying to protect people from seeing information about homeopathy. Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it exposes Muscovy Duck to ridicule. Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
WE MUST DEFEND THE HONOR OF THE MUSCOVY DUCK!! --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It may taste like a duck, but there's no way it should be exposed to quackery. Relata refero (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, I simply don't buy the "it does not harm to mention pseudoscience in completely unrelated places". That it makes homeopathy look silly is irrelevant, we aren't here to write silly things just for the sake of silly things. Homeopathy is not that prominent with respect to duck liver, I'd say. If you think differently, I think you have a pretty weird definition of prominent. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I quite agree that when someone mentions a Muscovy Duck to me, homeopathy is not in the list of the top 10 things I think of. (Till now.) Which is actually what I meant... Relata refero (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In other words... you used to not know that one of the most common homeopathic remedies uses Muscovy Duck liver as an ingredient, and now, thanks to ScienceAplogist, you know that. So for you at least, Wikipedia has worked: you have learned something. Isn't that what this project is about? Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, Wikipedia is governed by WP:FIVE, not the policies that one particular editor decides to invent. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2008 (UT, C)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

As someone with absolutely no interest in Homeopathy or Deadly Nightshade, I'll leave the research to someone else. I'm sure someone else will find other sources eventually. My interest here is in whether or not the Wikipedia model of collaborative editing works. As I've previously said, there is no Wikipedia policy about 'prominence' - it's completely SA's invention. If you agree with him that it should be policy, it is certainly within your right to work to change Wikipedia policies to match SA's ideas. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a straightforward application of the concept of notability to article content. Wikipedia editors argue all the time about whether something is important enough to include in an article or not, and if sources devote only trivial coverage to an aspect of a subject, that's a good indication that the information isn't worth including in a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot: Do you have an opinion about the link? How about the following links?
U of SF - those most commonly used in the treatment of headache pain are belladonna [2], Belladonna and Bryonia are classic homeopathic remedies often used for an inflamed appendix[3],
University of Maryland Medical Center, Ear infection - [4], Belladonna - for throbbing headaches that come on suddenly [5], Infantile colic - [6], sinus congestion and headache - [7] and 28 more - [8] Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
None of these say how common belladonna is, and they're basically brochures. There must be better sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that there is no doubt that it has been established by citations to reliable sources that this plant is used in homeopathic preparations. I urge you to ask in an RfC: "Based on the following sources [1] [2] [3] , should the Deadly Nightshade article state that it is used in homeopathic preparations?" Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Anthon01 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's not a joke. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why you would ask me if my comment was a joke. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the links are dead and when I look at edit page they said, yada, yada, yada. I understand now what you mean. It would be helpful to get your impression of a good link or two. Anthon01 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it has been demonstrated repeatedly that no source is going to be acceptable to some. And the shifting arguments and moving goalposts indicate to me that simple discussion is not going to resolve the dispute. Which is why I suggested an RfC. Although I'm not sure how strong my faith is in that process, either. Dlabtot (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we already go through an RfC in the Thuja O. article where the large majority said to keep the reference in the article? I don't think the reference and text has made its way into the article yet. Anthon01 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversations on homeopathic ingredients

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

No one is stopping you from posting to Talk:List of homeopathic remedies... go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, so you agree? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, I agree with everything I've said. If you want to work on the List of homeopathic remedies article... go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

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

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

[edit] Plan

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

Sounds good. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For some non-reliable sources (ie Google hits) about 2% of deadly nightshade article mention homeopathy by name. I would be looking for a weighting of homeopathy in this article similar to the average (ie mean) weighting in the deadly nightshade references we can come up with. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What you need to look for is claims of prominence. That's what is most important. I don't like word counting because some sources can revel in anecdotes and tangential discussions which doesn't help us build a tertiary source encyclopedia. Bring us some really good sources on deadly nightshade and list the quotes that assert the prominence of homeopathy with respect to that plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a quick recce today. My library has quite a few books on plants and flowers, and I picked out about half a dozen. Only three mentioned Deadly Nightshade or Belladonna, typically about 10-20 lines each, and none of these mentioned homeopathy. I will compile a definitive list of references and content when I get a chance. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


According to "Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition" by Stuart A. Vyse: Belladonna is a popular homeopathic medicine made from the poisonous deadly nightshade... [9] -- Levine2112 discuss 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit weak to me. Popular by what measure? Also, this indicates that it is popular for inclusion in List of homeopathic preparations. Is it prominent for discussion in an article on the plant? This source is not a source about plants at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a surprise. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
By the same logic, we cannot include the content: The fictional character Sally in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas uses Deadly Nightshade several times in the movie to get away from her master Doctor Finklestein. - without first citing a source about plants? The same goes for: The British rock band Queen used the lyric "Well I've loved a million women in a belladonic haze" in their early song Keep Yourself Alive. - and pretty much 80% of the content currently used in this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:TRIVIA. I think you'd have some support for removing the items you mention. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:TRIVIA is applicable: This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Nor do I think we should be excluding this material as they - like the homeopathic usage - represents relevant and notable knowledge about Belladonna. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects." Sure, the guideline is about formatting, not inclusion; but there's broad support in the communtity for removing trivial information from articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
How are we to determine "trivia"? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd advocate composing a clear actionable sentence, e.g. "use of this article's subject as an ingredient in homeopathy is relevant and should be included" (or, "trivial and should be excluded") then have "agree", "disagree", and "comment" replies, and get a consensus. We plainly won't have an undiluted consensus (no pun intended) but it would be wiki-proceduralistic. Don't you think? I love it when specifics are addressed, patiently. The debates about our cross-purposes can be ultimately circular. Pete St.John (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should endeavour to actually find some evidence before giving a verdict, but then we could gauge the consensus. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I in fact want to pursue that, I have a link to explore; but frankly, I consider the burden of proof to be on the defendant in this case: I consider the scienfic community to be squarely (if not unanimously) opposed to homeopathy per se as a body of contemporary medical methods. So IMO it can be treated as pseudoscience, superstition, clinging to outmoded beliefs, wishful thinking, variously; and not in any way as scientific (by contemporary standards). There are honest scientists doing honest research in Psi, for example, but until they come up with something we can consider that topic as not science. Not evil, not quackery (always), not fruad (always), but certainly not science. Until there is some science. Currently there isn't, but there are suggestions of some scientific effects (less than the full statement of homeopathy, of course) that I want to explore. But we should consider homeopathy as not science for the time being. Pete St.John (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] New Shortcut

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