Talk:Bloodroot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Bloodroot is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Project Banner

This project tag seems hugely inappropriate to this article, and ripe for removin'? Heathhunnicutt 07:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this topic isn't at all specific to South Dakota. Tag removed. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As the person who put the banner on, I can say that it was only put there because the bloodroot is included in the category Category:Flora of South Dakota, and I have no objections to its removal. However, I do think that having some project, preferably one with assessment, tag and hopefully monitor this page would probably be a good idea. Badbilltucker 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Having one project on an article doesn't stop others from doing the same. Spiesr 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That's disingenuous, Spiesr. Having a South Dakota project direct South Dakotans to this article will lead to a POV that has nothing to do with the article. Bloodroot is found all over North America, and it has nothing to do with South Dakota. It's like the people of South Dakota are grasping around for topics to claim as relevant to their state. Not that South Dakota is boring in the winter, or anything. Heathhunnicutt 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

Why were the red links put back in? Spiesr 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect as a signal to others that there needs to be a redirect or a new article. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. And that is what I wrote in the edit history. If you don't like seeing red links, write new articles. I agree with you that the need for an article on Dan Raber is less urgent, and that link might as well go. I also removed a hated "date/year" link. But encouraging new articles is the reason I put the red links there in the first place. You may go back in the edit history and find that I wrote the bulk of this article. Like any good encyclopedia article, the goal is to be encylopedic in balance with visually appealing presentation. The red links are visually unappealing also specifically to encourage article writing...
The fact that the plant produces sanguinarine is probably the single most interesting thing about it. As an example, sanguinarine is chemically related to reticuline. It would be nice if there were an article on reticuline, too. Heathhunnicutt 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No headings that say "medicinal uses"

I feel it is not appropriate to use section headers such as "Medicinal Uses", considering that bloodroot and extracts are poisonous and disfiguring. Please keep in mind that it would be a bad idea for someone to return to the traditional uses of Bloodwort. Heathhunnicutt 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

± Hi, my vet has just prescribed an ointment with Zinc Chloride and Bloodroot for a large lump of proudflesh on the front of one of a rescue horse's hind legs. I have to put the ointment on a dressing and bandage it over the proudlesh, and leave it for 48 hours. After doing this twice, the proudflesh has reduced by half. The smell of rotten tissue is dreadful, but I think it will save this poor horse having to have surgery. I had never heard of this herbal remedy until now, but it certainly seems powerful. I will let you know the final outcome.Kizzywizzy 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

    • What you're referring to is a drug called Neoplasene. I'm starting a page on that drug and any input would be welcome: User:Otherlleft/Neoplasene —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic section

I removed the paragraph below... lesser celandine is not at all related (though greater celandine is). The referencing link leads to an error message.

The genetics of flower development in bloodroot have been studied. Specific differences were found compared with poppy species Papaver nudicaule (Iceland poppy) and P. californicum; and related species Ranunculus ficaria (lesser celandine) and R. bulbosus; and species Dicentra eximia.[1]

--SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please see the Nature article, which included Candensis in the study. Ficaria is genetically related to it. Nature took down free full-text access, but I assure you that the journal article specifically mentions Canadensis. Please check on it. Heathhunnicutt 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadensis? The problem was more with Ranunculus ficaria. The referenced journal article led to an error message, so I couldn't check to see which "celandine" was being tied in. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6732/abs/399144a0.html This does not belong in this article. But in the flower one instead. Hardyplants 08:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It is silly to mention this paper, or its findings, in articles for specific species, because they are trying to figure out the evolution of flower genes across all angiosperms (or at least eudicots). Eventually this kind of research might belong in family/order/etc articles, but even that depends on how much it ends up being specific to certain taxa. Kingdon 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)