Talk:Herbal medicine/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201231218/http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/crossroads/hong.pdf to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/crossroads/hong.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ekspedisi.kompas.com/cincinapi/index.php/detail/articles/2012/02/21/06231614/Jejak.Mataram.Kuno.di.Sindoro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915111213/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fpephed6.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fpephed6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427092000/http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/285 to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Phytomedicine
I'm proposing that the content of Phytomedicine be merged into the article on Herbalism which is the majority definition by searchable references. Although there are two definitions - one as plant-based therapeutic practices ("herbalism") and the other as plant pathology - the terms are not necessarily dissociated. It is reasonable to envision the one heading of "phytomedicine" discussing the most prevalent herbal practices as "herbalism", with a secondary subheading on plant diseases, would provide adequate information to encyclopedia users. This would be a manual merge which I volunteer to initiate upon consensus. --Zefr (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, as proposed at WP:FT/N, we could take a step back and look at the topic space. I can't see what the scope differences are between Phytotherapy, Phytomedicine, Phytochemistry, Herbalism and Medicinal plants: some differences, much overlap. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Open to that, although I offer that phytotherapy = phytomedicine = herbalism (subjects of merge proposal), whereas phytochemistry is defined by specific analyses, and medicinal plants are a category based on historical folk medicine discoveries. If we discuss scope differences here, is that the best process for WP:FT/N? --Zefr (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)I don't see a significant difference
 * Yeah, I agree that phytochemistry is its own topic (and definitely non-fringe as its core) since plant chemical profiles come up for various things like flavor, pest resistance, toxicity, etc. I would tentatively be fine with the others being merged though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * per phytotherapy as redirect to herbalism, so therefore this(Merge Phytomedicine with Herbalism) could go same process...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further Merge recommendation from Chiswick Chap here. From above, Kingofaces43, Ozzie, Doc James, and I agree on merging, with questioning scope differences, and no dissents. I have requested comments from other editors of Herbalism before proceeding. --Zefr (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. I don't see a significant difference between the two.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  21:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

German phytomedicine sources
Moved from the article on Phytomedicine, being merged to Herbalism, for preservation in archives. --Zefr (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Appel, O. 1923: Der Pflanzenschutz im Unterricht. In: Schoevers, T.A.C.: Report of the International Conference of Phytopathology and economic Entomology, Wageningen.
 * Aust et al. 2005: Glossar phytomedizinischer Begriffe. 3. Aufl. Ulmer.
 * Feldmann, F. 2004: Die Zusammensetzung der Mitglieder der DPG. Phytomedizin 34 (3), 41-46.
 * Grossmann, F. 1971: The concept of phytomedicine. Indian Phytopathology 24, 247-257.
 * Mühle, E. 1967: Phytomedizin und Pflanzenschutz. Der Pflanzenarzt 20, 115-118
 * Staar, G. Reinmuth, E. 1974: Phytopathologie und Pflanzenschutz - Phytomedizin. In: Klinkowski, M. (Hrsg.): Grundlagen und allgemeine Probleme der Phytopathologie und des Pflanzenschutzes. 2. Aul. Bd 1, S. 3-5.
 * Stichweh, R. 1982: Ausdifferenzierung der Wissenschaft: eine Analyse am deutschen Beispiel. Bielefeld, Wissenschaftsforschung 8.
 * Sucker, U. 1998: Anfänge der modernen Phytomedizin. Mitt. d. Biol. Bundesanstalt 334.
 * Further general Literature
 * Günter M. Hoffmann, Franz Nienhaus, Hans-Michael Pöhling:Lehrbuch der Phytomedizin. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, 1994.ISBN 3-8263-3008-0
 * Horst Börner: Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz. 8., neu bearb. und akt. Aufl., Springer 2009. ISBN 978-3-540-49067-8
 * Rudolf Heitefuß: Pflanzenschutz, Grundlagen der praktischen Phytomedizin. 3. Auflage, 2000, Thieme Verlag, ISBN 3-13-513303-6
 * Börner, H., Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 7. Auflage, UTB, 1997
 * Hallmann, J., A. Quadt-Hallmann und A. von Tiedemann, Phytomedizin, Grundwissen Bachelor, 2007, Ulmer, Stuttgart, UTB
 * Heitefuss, R., Pflanzenschutz, Grundlagen der praktischen Phytomedizin. 3. Auflage, 2000, Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart.
 * Hoffmann, G.M. F. Nienhaus, H.M. Poehling, F. Schönbeck, H.C. Weltzien und H. Wilbert, Lehrbuch der Phytomedizin, Auflage 1994, Blackwell Verlag, Berlin.
 * Schlösser, E., Allgemeine Phytopathologie. 2. Auflage, Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

Opening Statement
The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole. DocTox (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the article to actually fall in line with exactly what the reference (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/paraherbalism.html) says. I also removed the unrelated Chinese traditional medicine citation. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  03:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you clearly tell me your vantage point on my changes before you revert me again? --  EzekielT  '' Talk  03:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * several issues with your edit. 1) the statement in question, True herbalism encompasses scientific testing, honest reporting of the results, and safe use of effective herbs by informed practitioners and the public. It also includes the production and ethical marketing of herbal products. True herbalism exists as part of the science of pharmacognosy, is mainly plagiarized (copyvio, WP:CV) from the first 3 sentences of the Tyler Quackwatch article; 2) the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE; 4) the previous version before your edit was a more neutral statement about herbalism and de-emphasized the paraherbalism term, giving more attention to "phytotherapy" which is a more common term in the literature; 5) giving attention in the lede to "true herbalism" and "paraherbalism" appears promotional and may mislead non-expert encyclopedia users to believe these are valid terms and disciplines, whereas there is no evidence they are. The two lede paragraphs on true herbalism and paraherbalism, and the section on Paraherbalism (only one author's view) should be removed, as they are misleading and undersourced. --Zefr (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone just added the undersourced paraherbalism stuff and that Tyler source I removed back again. --  EzekielT  '' Talk  20:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Like a lot of herbs and medicines, sources can be used well or they can be used badly. Most of the Tyler piece is about pseudoscience and woo in the field and we are currently using it well.  Bits from it should not be taken out of context. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Tyler source does not mention phytotherapy, or that phytotherapy is equivalent to paraherbalism, however, and deleting multiple other sources is a questionable direction for us to take. --  EzekielT  '' Talk  23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no place where Tyler is used alone, so I am not sure why you are singling it out.   More generally your edits were not well sourced. Please don't cite britannica.  The "alt med in cancer" book from springer is really bad and i doubt that you would get consensus to use it for much of anything. The PMID 22678654 ref is interesting, but it is a review of research and says nothing about what is actually done by companies that sell these products or people who admininister them; we always have to be careful to distinguish research (which is very real) from what is used and done in real industrial and clinical contexts.... Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the Tyler article that doesn't say it, none of the sources used in the entire article state that phytotherapy is equivalent to paraherbalism. But don't worry, I just fixed the mistake. Also, there is no ban on citing Britannica, so... --  EzekielT  '' Talk  00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not good. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed an error, but you can't seem to understand why. I have reverted my edit. Because of this, I am now considering retirement from Wikipedia... I don't want fighting, I don't want reporting, and I don't want misunderstandings... --  EzekielT  '' Talk  00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So then just talk things through instead of trying to force changes in. I think i fixed the name issue here.  Just take it slow on pages like this that are controversial and have discretionary sanctions on them.Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply :). I'm sorry, I will take from what I've learned now to be more careful & talk things through. The equation of phytotherapy as simply being exactly the same as the rest of herbalism with no differences as mentioned in the ref seems to be an exception to the norm.        Science Direct states: "Phytotherapists have common cause with conventional physicians in insisting on applying EBM in its broadest and patient-centred sense.". It seems to be well established that phytotherapy is indeed science-based, unlike alternative medicine: http://www.phytosciences.org/en/about-us/what-is-phytotherapy. And unlike paraherbalism, which is pseudoscientific: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/paraherbalism.html. Also, there's the science journal Phytotherapy Research.  --  EzekielT  '' Talk  01:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Also remember what User:DocTox said:

"The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole."

And User:Zefr:

"the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE"

So to sum it up, here are the multiple flaws with the page now:

The lead now highlights what only one citation actually supports, the Tyler article is not peer-reviewed, one of the cited articles is about Chinese herbal medicine, thus completely unrelated to the sentence and does not prove the point the sentence is trying to make & says nothing about paraherbalism, and the equation of phytotherapy as being the same as paraherbalism is not supported by any of the cited articles or anywhere else on the Internet. Even the Tyler article does not mention phytotherapy even once. And there are zero sources that state phytotherapy is pseudoscience. Also, the only source that uses the term "paraherbalism" is the Tyler article.

User:Zefr told me to remove the paraherbalism section and every mention of it in the lead, saying:

"the two lede paragraphs on true herbalism and paraherbalism, and the section on Paraherbalism (only one author's view) should be removed, as they are misleading and undersourced."

And I did, and Zefr thanked me for the edit (before it got put back by CFCF and Jytdog)...

In my opinion, the paraherbalism stuff (from just one author) shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. Sure, we can keep a section on it if that's a good enough compromise. But we should completely separate phytotherapy from paraherbalism, because none of the sources state phytotherapy is the same as paraherbalism or vice versa. None of the sources say phytotherapy is paraherbalism, or interchange the two as synonyms. Also, the article misnames paraherbalism as phytotherapy:

"Phytotherapy differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds. It relies on the false belief that preserving a multitude of substances from a given source, with less processing, is safer or more effective — for which there is no evidence. "

The Tyler article says paraherbalism, not phytotherapy.

The Tyler article doesn't even mention phytotherapy at all. It says that paraherbalism encompasses such beliefs, not phytotherapy. "Phytotherapy" should be replaced with "paraherbalism" because that is the term the Tyler article uses.

(Disclaimer: I am not going to edit the herbalism page, I'm just going to state what should be done to fix it). I'm going to take a Wikibreak once the errors in the article are fixed. -- EzekielT  '' Talk  23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone add the following topic......
https://www.google.com/search?ei=Kk5_W-qrN9bm-Aa576iIAw&q=western+herbal+medicine&oq=western+herbal+medicine&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l6j0i22i30k1l3.127595.129771.0.131099.10.10.0.0.0.0.191.1416.0j8.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.8.1416...33i21k1.0.iwQ8eljRJvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a google search, not a target source (did not click). Please be more specific?  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lede?
I notice you reverted my edits - could you please elaborate on your "Rvt. damage / unreliable" reasoning? Whole plant extracts are widely studied and used in modern scientifically-validated medicine, particularly in Europe and Asia. The regulatory history in America is complex, but we either need to omit arguments from either side (re: wikipedia's philosophy of "NPOV") or someone needs to take time to convey the complexity of debate in the intro. "Medical Herbalism and Herbal Clinical Research: A Global Perspective" is a thorough primer in the scientific review of herbal medicines for anyone unfamiliar with the field. Kevingweinberg (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ledes should summarize article bodies. Please do not introduce standalone content into article ledes. Also removal of mention of the pseudoscience/woo aspects of herbalism looks like whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI policy. Sources for medical claims must conform to WP:MEDRS. In general, your edit summaries suggest you may be thinking of the topic in a way which more accords with our Medicinal plants article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sorry, I'm new to editing but trying to understand how to do it correctly. I'll try to make smaller edits that maintain that woo/pseudoscience practices exist, while filling in some of the scientific research that's currently missing. Kevingweinberg (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a supplementary medicine journal article is WP:MEDRS to claim that there is some evidence supporting the belief that whole plants are safer or more effective... — Paleo Neonate  – 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, it is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm new to editing. I don't fully understand the full implications of WP:MEDRS reference.  Would it be appropriate to cite evidence of the effectiveness or safety of whole plant extracts as compared to isolates in this talk page to justify removing the current claim in the article that no evidence exists? Kevingweinberg (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

FT/N
FYI, I have opened a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Medical Herbalism - European" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medical Herbalism - European. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelnhuang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rongoā Māori herbalism
An IP user made this edit which I reverted as being WP:UNDUE for weight. In the section under Traditional systems, we have 5 large-population regions included, whereas Rongoā Māori herbalism might be considered undue as too narrow to include. WP:PROFRINGE also applies. Let's see what others think. --Zefr (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's undue at all. So far, we have nothing at all from the Pacific (and next to nothing from Africa or the Americas). Having said that, the edit itself was so vague as to amount to "Māori stuff exists", whch I don't think is especially helpful.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding additional online sources for others to review: Museum of New Zealand, NZ Ministry of Health, Vice, 2017. Rongoā Māori herbalism exists, but a question remains about whether it is sufficiently encyclopedic as fringe content. --Zefr (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vice article may indicate it's not only known by direct proponents... If the section doesn't make health claims needing WP:MEDRS and only focuses on the fact that it exists and is practiced, it's probably fine.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: I'm not sure about keeping the book as a citation though, I didn't find much information on the publisher, "Ora NewZealand"... — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some info |here, it'd be "Ora New Zealand 2004 Limited", self-published via own company it seems. — Paleo Neonate  – 04:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

since when is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and unreliable or inadequate source?
I've made minor edits to this page to be rebuffed despite evidence from NIH and NCBI, how are they inadequate? I'm very new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallardmac (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If a reliable, secondary source directly says this is evidence that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective, then propose it here for discussion. It is not appropriate to use an example, as a specific claim, from a primary study. Secondary sources are in almost all cases preferable, and sources about herbal medicine as a topic are more important to this article than any specific study for a specific issue. Please review WP:MEDRS as well: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.
 * Further, please also review WP:FRINGE, as this applies to this issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no new idea being put forward. And no argument being made. But the statement that no evidence exists is flatly wrong. This is also directly evidenced in the fact that the wiki itself uses both of these sources provided. Refer to the article for Artesima Annua. No fringe idea is being presented, no medical advice given. But the simple statement that there is no evidence for the use of the whole plant is incorrect, and refuted in other parts of the wiki. Mallardmac (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, this article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_(genus) Mallardmac (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the provided reference (an opinion piece) predates cited primary sources. Mallardmac (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

" A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." From WP:PRIMARY. At least two articles exist confirming that whole leaf Artesimia Annua maybe more effective at combating Malaria in some instances. This is evidence, primary, yes, but still factually and irrefutably shows that the statement "no evidence exists" is false. Mallardmac (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit used these sources to a support a statement which was almost completely unrelated to the attached claim. Adding a source to the end of a statement implies to readers that this source supports that statement. Your sources do not support the attached statement. Neither of the two cited sources discuss "paraherbalism". Further, the Wikipedia article says A. Your sources say B. We cannot use this to say C, because that would be WP:SYNTH. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is original research, so yes, it is a new idea.
 * Additionally, neither source directly says that this use is safer or more effective because it is a leaf. Instead, they attempt to explain these findings in a way which could be standardized and replicated. As the lead of the article already explains, that is how plant based pharmacology typically works, and that's why it's different from paraherbalism. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just setting aside the very serious primary-source issues with this edit. I dispute that these dense medical studies can be fairly summarized without specialized knowledge. We do not assume that editors are qualified to share a mutual understanding of the bioavailability of artemisinin, for example. This is specialized knowledge, and would need a clear, direct summary from a reliable source to be included in a general-audience Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What statement was made for which the sources are not related? Mallardmac (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia article says A. Your sources say B. We cannot use this to say C, because that would be WP:SYNTH." The article says that no evidence exists for the use of a whole plant instead of it's isolates. I provide to articles which suggest there may be a use for whole dried leaf Artesimia Annua. Therefore the statement that no evidence exists is wrong. Your inference that by removing that statement I make a new, contradictory, synthesized, statement, is your own, and false. There may not be evidence that in general the use of the whole plant is better. It may also come that there is a better way to treat Malaria drug resistance than whole plant use. However, that face remains, there currently is evidence that whole dried leaf may be more effective than isolate. Directly disproving the statement that "NO" evidence exists. I would be more concerned about restating that "little" evidence exists, as that would leave room for inference and imply that the evidence that been reviewed. Mallardmac (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Please re-read the paragraph you changed more closely.
 * The paragraph is about paraherbalism as a subset of herbalism. The sources you have tried to add do not mention "paraherbalism", nor are they specifically about paraherbalism by some other term. You cannot use these sources for this claim, because the sources do not discuss this claim, and they therefor do not directly support or refute it.
 * This issue, alone, would be enough to revert your edits, but for clarity:
 * Artesimia Annua leaves may or may not be better than isolated artemisinin at fighting drug resistance. These leaves are not claimed by these sources to be more effective because they are leaves as an appeal to nature. By that I mean that these studies are not claiming that these benefits are intrinsic to being in a natural form, which is a common claim of paraherbalism and other pseudoscientific alternative medicines. These studies attempt to address why they are more effective and how this can be replicated. This is consistent with both mainstream pharmacology and herbalism as a broader topic.
 * Further, this isn't unambiguously "more effective". How effective a drug is at reducing death and suffering is still the primary concern. Your claim that this is more effective in general is not supported by any source. The best way to fight drug resistance would be to not use any drugs at all, but again, this would be much, much less effective at reducing harm. This is why we cannot rely on editors to interpret sources. We must use direct, secondary sources to draw conclusions. Since this is about biochemistry and medicine, studies like this are especially likely to be misinterpreted by Wikipedia editors.
 * If you have a reliable source which discusses this plant as it relates to herbalism or paraherbalism, you should propose it here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Because there seems to be a side of bias in how you are interpreting this modification I will attempt to break down this sentence.

"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4] "

Let's first remove the informative, but irrelevant, parts: "Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4]"

We can then break this down into to sentences that convey the same information.

"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."

and

"There is no evidence that less processing is safer or more effective."

Of these two statements, the first is correct. It provides relevant, true, information in regards to Paraherbalism. The second statement is false. There is evidence that using the whole dried leaf Artesima Annua can be more effective in certain situations. So, we must eliminate the false statement. Let's reconstitute the statement.

"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."

Add in the rest of the statement.

"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."

A now correct statement, that makes no additional claims, but does not mislead the reader. The reader does not know more, or less, from this change than they had before. Moreover, this very change has been mentioned before on this article indicating that it is obviously misleading. There are no conclusions being drawn from the provided articles, other than the conclusion that the articles exist, which any person of sound mind can acknowledge. Mallardmac (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I do think I understand your position, but you have not provided usable sources here. Appeals to common sense will only work if you first understand the reasons Wikipedia works like this. These rules and guidelines are not as arbitrary as they might appear at first glance. This is why I keep linking to WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE -it's not to be bureaucratic, it's because they are saying something important.
 * So repeating this argument based on these two sources will not fix the underlying synth/original research issues. It is up to sources to decide what is and is not paraherbalism. To elaborate on evidence and paraherbalism, you will need a source discussing evidence and paraherbalism. It is not appropriate to try and use a source which discusses plant-based medicine in some other context.
 * We cannot imply that paraherbalism has evidence, because it doesn't. Sources directly refute paraherbalism, while you have found some sources which may, depending on interpretation, indirectly support paraherblism. This is far too flimsy.
 * Reliable sources explain how paraherbalism differs from plant-based medicine, so removing this context would change the meaning too much. Per the article, paraherbalism's claim is that ...preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective. To be clear, sometimes it may be safer or more effective in some senses, but there is not evidence that this is a product of being less processed. Plants are not inherently safer or more effective. To put it another way, nothing in the sources you have proposed says that these substances are safer or more effective as a direct cause of being in plant form. Paraherbalism is the pseudoscientific claim that plants are inherently better medicine if they are processed less. Claims from pseudoscience aren't always wrong, but if they are correct, they are correct for unscientific reasons.
 * Again, the two proposed sources do not directly discuss this claim at all, so I suggest finding and proposing sources which are directly relevant if you want to continue this. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Without regard to the above dispute...
This article needs to link to herb in the first sentence. The article never links to herb as is. Wikipedia is a vernacular encyclopedia and if you must link to "pharmacognosy" over "herb" you've already lost the reader. Don't lede with five syllable workds. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So add the link.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)