Talk:Medicinal plants of the American West

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Medicinal plants of the American West 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.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

)

First, this article sounds like a cross between an admonishment for teenagers and a case for how we should use more plants from the American West. Second, it's focused on said region and should be under that name. I'll try to fix these... --Alynna 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generally considered safe

BY WHOM? This is a legal classification, which requires a federal stamp of approval in most countries. It is sometimes referred-to as Generally regarded as safe (GRAS). Therefore a portion of the content of this article is illegal in many countries. [1] [2] [3] Jerry lavoie 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write this, but my impression of the intended meaning is that they're generally considered safe within the American Indian communities where they're used. I also don't have access to any of the sources that were used for this article, so can't check that assumption, but perhaps somebody else could? Waitak 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uhoh yerba

The entry on yerba at the bottom of the page states it was eliminated because companies lacked motivation for a patent.

The wikipedia entry on the plant states that its use was discontinued because it was a SUSPECTED CARCINOGEN.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.49.243 (talk • contribs)

It was redirecting to a different plant. I made it into a disambiguation page, but Eriodictyon still lacks an article.--Curtis Clark 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

never heard any cancer claims, but added eriodictyon article Wiki wiki1 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and Factual Accuracy

Someone tagged this as Totally Disputed a bit ago. Someone want to give any justification? If there are specific problems, they can be fixed. If not, I'll remove the tag. --Alynna 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged about 3 hours ago. I wouldn't consider that "a bit ago." There are specific problems, namely nothing is sourced (general references at the end of the article are not sources), there is nothing written that's scientifically acceptable, and, in fact, much of the information herein could be construed as dangerous. Orangemarlin 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that non-controversial articles will almost never get this tag, no matter how inaccurate or unreferenced they are.

IMO this article should be more anthropological than medical; that way it is less likely to attract POV-pushers on either side of the medicinal herbs issue.--Curtis Clark 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I didn't mean to come across confrontational. I just didn't know why the tag had been placed, and incorrectly assumed that a lack of immediate comment meant nobody was going to elaborate. (I meant "a bit" literally, as "a short time".) I agree that the lack of sources is problematic. I've added a couple links, but any plants that can't be sourced should probably be removed from that list. I think it's understood that Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, but if there's a way to make the article sound less like a list of things the reader should try, that would be good. I agree with the anthropological suggestion. --Alynna 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To Curtis, then don't make any medical claims, and I'll agree that it should be anthropological. But there are medical claims of efficacy, and that's POV. To Alynna, yes. This should NOT be a herbalism article, but it is linked to there, unfortunately. Orangemarlin 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think that this shouldn't be an herbalism article? Could you justify that belief? Wiki wiki1 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)