Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medicinal botany


 * The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created

Description
The medicinal botany taskforce is to organize and expand botanical pharmaceutical/medical research from traditional origins and modern science.

This is to make it easier to document and preserve information on traditional medicines (Ayurveda, Amazonian, etc). There must be reliable documentation: it may not be feasible to document verbally passed down information unless it was reliably documented. Scientific medical papers sometimes lightly mention traditional uses, as to why rigorous scientific research was done, and this is adequate for many cases. The origin of the traditional information is to be disclosed, ideally under its own section. Traditional accounts have been the catalyst for modern studies on individual plants, so for this reason traditional accounts shouldn't be readily dismissed.

Reliable unbiased modern scientific published sources are a requirement to indicate safety, as always.

This project emphasizes removal of biased insertions, and convenient assumptions for or against the idea of medicinal plant properties.

Pharmaceuticals derived from botanical sources are also of major interest for this project. The idea for development of many modern medicines originated from traditional uses or knowledge of certain plants.

Ethnobotany, and modern science are included. Fungal and algal botanical strictly medicinal articles can be included. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
 * medicinal plants (number of pages in the category: 1,149 )
 * medicinal plants by tradition(number of pages in the category: 4 )
 * pharmacology (number of pages in category: 342 )
 * pharmacology (number of pages in category: 342 )


 * List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
 * Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.




 * Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
 * There is no project covering this specific subject, and it would draw a lot of attention. Mainly to preserve folk/traditional/passed down information on medicinal plants, if it has been reliably documented. Reduction of biased edits. To accomplish these tasks while keeping a priority on safety using modern unbiased research. - Sidelight 12 Talk 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
 * 1) Sidelight 12 Talk 01:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Original description and reasons:
 * project to organize botanical pharmaceutical research from traditional origins.This is to make it easier to document traditional medicines (Ayurveda, Amazonian, etc) that are passed down verbally and not written down. Include ethnobotany. Sidelight 12 Talk 01:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no project covering this specific subject, and it would draw a lot of attention. Mainly to preserve folk/traditional/passed down information on medicinal plants, while disclosing this. This rather than quickly erasing it, because the medical community says so, while keeping a focus on safety using modern unbiased research. - Sidelight 12 Talk 06:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Main concern (other than the fact that this project was launched without waiting for approval here) is the fact that this proposal seems to be proposing that we do original research. Which, for obvious reasons, won't fly. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was too eager to start on it, while I had the idea. Sorry for that. I thought it would gain interest. Its impossible to distinguish hearsay from passed down information. It wasn't to bypass reliable documentation; reliable documentation is always a requirement
 * Another note, it wasn't against the medical community as a whole, only bias within it. I over emphasized no bias. Bias needs to be removed from any direction, whether for or against medicinal plants. I noticed on Wikipedia how there were edits associating kava, which has dangers, with plants used for stress like Erythrina mulungu, which does not have the severe danger. I am not for conspiracy theory. If this is to keep, it needs to be a taskforce linked from already wikiprojects. Those were fair criticisms. I will mark the page as paused, to alleviate those concerns. Sidelight 12 Talk 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would support such a project, provided it insisted on published sources of adequate scholarship and reliability, including only sources that conform to WP:MEDRS for efficacy and safety claims; but the way it's presented it sounds like you'll be relying on oral reports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that you should probably join WP:WikiProject Alternative medicine, which covers this area. If you decide to form a task force (which still requires more than one person), there are instructions at WP:MEDTF from when a bunch of medicine-related groups formed task forces.  There are probably too few editors interested in this area to form a group specifically about such a narrow subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, alternate medicine, pharmacology or plants would be the place for the medicinal botany taskforce, then link to the taskforce from the others. Wikiproject plants doesn't appear to have taskforces to disassociate from topics. Some of this subject lies outside of alternative medicine (modern medicines originating from plant sources). Pharmacology would include everything, but the alternative medicine aspect still has doubters. The plants that are already the source of pharmaceuticals (outside of alternate medicine) already has extensive coverage. Botanical can include algal or fungal, which lies outside of plants, but this can conveniently be dropped. Alternate medicine or plants wikiprojects are still suitable.
 * Reliable published sources are always a must, primary medical sources should be allowed if secondary or tertiary don't exist. The scientific articles indexed from any (Canadian, European, US) Pubmed site already make light mention of the traditional aspect, which seems adequate. A published book or reputable resource on Amazonian medicines, if one exists for example, would be the limit, and used sparingly and under extreme care. For safety and efficacy claims, WP:MEDRS is the only way. Sidelight 12 Talk 22:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.