Talk:Fomitopsis betulina

Page Title
The following discussion from 2005 only makes sense if you know that the title of the page at that point was "Birch Bracket"

A better title would be Birch Bracket fungus or Birch Bracket Fungus. Is there a general mycological Wikipedia naming convention operating against this? --Wetman 06:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume that the page title was fixed by the first person who created an article containing the words "Birch Bracket fungus" and who only enclosed the words "Birch Bracket" in double square, er, brackets (braces?). It might be significant hassle to identify all the pages in Wikipedia that refer to Birch Bracket and alter them to Birch Bracket fungus. On the other hand, I'm new to this game and there may be elegant ways of doing it...? --Timonroad 06:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edibility
The mycobox says that the mushroom is inedible, but the article says otherwise, and it's in the "edible mushrooms" category. Could someone fix that?

This fungus is not generally considered edible. Although it is not poisonous, it is too tough to be suitable for eating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkaley (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some think that this fungi can be used to make fire.But this in not correct.The heat needed to start a fire is to high. Therefore the fungi; Ganoderma, is used. Uzi the iceman carried therefore pieces of ganoderma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annendael (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The iceman carried two pieces of birchbracket as medicine and tinder (Fomes fomentarius, not Ganoderma) for making fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.163.197 (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (See also http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/manske_bria/facts.htm for a photo of these two pieces of Piptoporus betulinus Timonroad (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

F. betulina source
The WJMB has an impact factor of 1.25, which is insufficient to justify its use as a medical source per WP:MEDASSESS. The sentence stated below and the report contain spam peacock language like "confirms the health-promoting benefits", "evidence supporting the antibacterial, anti-parasitic, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and immunomodulating activities", etc. The source is misleading and does not meet WP:MEDRS, so is removed without substantially affecting the article. --Zefr (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * F. betulina is under preliminary research for its potential antiinflammatory or antibacterial effects.


 * This is not what the sentence said; it said "Fomitopsis betulina has been widely used in traditional medicines, and has been extensively researched for its phytochemistry and pharmacological activity." This is non-controversial, and does not need a source that complies with MEDRS. Polyporales (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So tell me Zefr, what's wrong with using this source for this statement? Polyporales (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The journal and article content are unreliable. That is what a low impact factor reflects. The WJMB article contains unestablished content and WP:PEA language about this mushroom, so is misleading to common users of the encyclopedia. Find a better reference, although I sense one not exists, as I have searched unsuccessfully for reliable evidence (if not WP:MEDRS, then WP:SCIRS) that this species has such significant regard for its use in folk medicine. Also, if you have a conflict of interest concerning the WJMB publication or anything else concerning this article, you must reveal it (your user name) per WP:COI. --Zefr (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)