Talk:Aloe arborescens

Medical claims
Making any claim of a "medical" use requires sources which meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. The claims made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aloe_arborescens&oldid=559304886#Medicinal_uses here] clearly are not supported to these standards, so I removed them. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed this statement "It is the only other member of the Aloe family that is claimed to be as effective as aloe vera for medical uses." Impossible to verify, and unsupported.Darorcilmir (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the removed text should be trimmed and put in the article. It should be changed to medicinal properties instead of uses. Keep the test findings, but remove instances where it associates the findings of the tests to what it may imply for human use. The primary sources were all with pubmed. Medrs allows primary sources, but they can't imply the results to human potential, nor can there be any kind of other assumption. I have questions on whether the wound test is ethical. - Sidelight 12 Talk 08:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone is willing to sort the text so that it does conform with WP:MEDRS, great. I'm in favour of the biochemical properties of plants being discussed more often, but calling a section "medicinal properties" explicitly says that the test findings have medical uses, i.e. human uses. Any such implications require good review sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the re-write seems ok to me. However, I find this area quite tricky: balancing between not misleading readers looking for effective medical assistance and not censoring. So I've asked for opinions at WT:MEDRS in the hope that this example will clarify for me what we should and shouldn't write in plant articles. This action on my part is emphatically not intended as a criticism of your re-write. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy to try a rewrite. I already did, and I hope this works better. - Sidelight 12 Talk 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed text, "Recent research in cancer treatment with A. arborescens in a clinical trial involving 240 patients led to the conclusion that... "
 * I have to look at it again. - Sidelight 12 Talk 11:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I find the rigid policy of "no primary sources" (as repeated by Jytdog at WT:MEDRS), which seems to be the standard response of those involved in WP:MEDRS, overly wikilawyerish and not taking account of what the sources are used for. The result is that I really don't know what should be acceptable in a plant article in which this kind of material is secondary but still relevant. I personally find what you've put there now to be ok, but... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)