Talk:Strychnos nux-vomica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AzureaJT.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cancer
The following sentence needs to be cited or removed: "However some Chinese studies have reported that Strychnos can kill cancer cells grown in laboratory dishes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.160.239 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy
The homeopathy claims in this article didn't appear to have any current notability - no source from this decade mentions it's use? Additionally, most of that esoteric notation is not appropriate for a general use encyclopedia. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This: No reliable scientific or clinical evidence can be found to confirm the validity of homeopathy.

I cannot find that text in the page indicated in the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? It's right there, the bold heading being "Herbal Medicine and Homeopathy: Critical Distinctions," paragraph 4, last sentence, right above the next subhead. PouponOnToast (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cancer society
Why is the cancer society used as a reliable source for this plant/homeopathy? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would not a publication of the American_Cancer_Society be a valid source? We could simply attribute the assertion to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would the above not be acceptable in this article? Are you disputing that these assertions are not verifiable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the American Cancer Society employs no botanists, for one. They are a valid source for cancer treatments, and I encourage you to include it on the Unproven cancer therapy page, for example. But inclusion here demands that we measure the prominence of the claim, and a huge document simply listing every single alternative cancer treatment ever used is not exactly encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we have a very different understanding of WP:V. I am opening an RfC about this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are these sources relevant?
Feedback requested about this text and sources:

Can these publications, be used as a source for this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the question is, "Is a exhaustive, non-evaluative comprendium of alternative cancer treatments a reliable source for how a tree is used: especially when there is no claim of WP:PROMINENCE of the treatment to the tree in question and the person writing the document is neither an expert in the trees nor, in point of fact, the use of the treatments?" ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:PROMINENCE is not policy, but a shortcut. What you may be referring to is WP:NPOV, that reads: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right, the prominence of each view needs to be determined. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes these clearly meet the requirements of WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been no medical uses for strychnine in the last 60 years and the medical uses given are as obsolete as bloodletting and leeches. The treatment of cionvulsions likewise has improved a bit in the last 60 years. I have tried to bring the information a bit more up to date. Bart. Bart (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)