Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive18

Tree-content fork
Hi. As the tree article is within the scope of Wikiproject Plants, I thought I'd notify the project members of a discussion occurring on Talk:Tree due to the creation of a parts of a tree article that was recently created and then redirected, reverted and redirected again. Full disclosure: I am one of the edittors that redirected the "parts of a tree" article to the morphology section of the tree article. Regards -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know; I've responded at Talk:Tree. Kingdon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Juniperus virginiana
I need an outside pair of eyes on this article, partly because I rarely edit on Wikipedia anymore, and partly because any further edits to this article by me are likely to escalate to an edit war. In particular please look at the diffs in the series of edits by me and by User:MPF in the last few days regarding the common names of Juniperus virginiana. I have taken issue with MPF's characterization of "Eastern Red Cedar" as an "incorrect" common name. Of course this is a bit of a semantic quibble as the not-very-different "Redcedar", an entirely invented and still not widely used form of the common name, is apparently acceptable.

One thing I find particularly puzzling is that MPF continues to stress "Eastern Juniper"--still a rather uncommon common name for this species--as the first and apparently primary name, and using it throughout the article, thereby slighting the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature, the very same authority he cites in claiming that "Eastern Red Cedar" is an "incorrect" name, although their publication offers "Eastern Redcedar" as the standard common name. (Flora of North America provides "eastern redcedar" as the only common name in English but apparently nobody has tried to tell the French what to call it as this publication accepts cèdre rouge as the French common name!)

As an aside, the publication MPF cites to reject "Eastern Red Cedar" does not say what he claims it says, as far as I can find; they offer "Eastern Redcedar" as a standard common name without saying anything about the merits or correctness of "Eastern Red Cedar", and with no comment about whether or not it is a true cedar. As another aside, this publication was a bit controversial and encountered quite a bit of criticism when it was published, and has had only limited acceptance of its "standard" common names. MrDarwin (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelsey & Dayton page 95. - MPF (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I refer to this as cultural imperialism. I grew up in Oklahoma, within the natural range of Juniperus virginiana, and everybody called them "cedars". One of the research sites for my MS thesis was called "Lone Cedar Cemetery". Now I suppose you could say that we were all a bunch of rednecks (or in BrEng, "colonials"), but I knew of the tree as Juniperus virginiana, and that it wasn't a true cedar, even before I read either "Easter Red Cedar" or "Eastern Redcedar" (which Firefox tells me is misspelled).


 * MPF plays the "Oh, poor us, stomped upon by the US hegemonists who want to force us to call our broom 'Scotch'", and honestly I see his point there, but his forcing British made-up "common" names on all us colonials I find incredibly offensive.


 * As I've said before, Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that, in eastern North America, deer are called "elk", elk are called "moose", and junipers are called "cedars" needs to be faithfully recorded, not suppressed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Record, yes, but we shouldn't be promoting misapplications as valid fact that should be used! - MPF (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a valid fact that people in Oklahoma call them cedars. It doesn't make them Cedrus, and no one is saying it does.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can engage in a bit of a rant of my own, it's against what I call botanical imperialism. Common names predate both botanical nomenclature and phylogenetic concepts by centuries.   (Heck, even Linnaeus didn't labor under phylogenetic constraints!)  There's a bit of hubris in botanists appropriating certain vernacular names or Latin or Greek words as botanical names (e.g., "lotus", "cedrus", "cactus"), then turning around and telling non-botanists that one name or another that has been in use for hundreds of years is "correct" or "incorrect".
 * As an aside, it's interesting to note that "Standardized Plant Names" was originally intended to standardize names of plants in American commerce. The names are a decidedly mixed bag.  One of the more ridiculous recommendations is "falsecypress", apparently because "false cypress" didn't sufficiently indicate that the plant was not a true cypress!
 * Oh well, I guess I need to go home and tell my parents their house is shingled in "eastern juniper" and not "cedar" as they thought. Then I'll head down to the flea market and tell all the vendors that they are selling "juniper chests", not "cedar chests"! MrDarwin (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied at Talk:Juniperus virginiana. Kingdon (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm not misleading when I say MPF is notorious amongst project members for those disputes (which erupted on Verbascum thapsus shortly after it became featured). At least the Latin names convention removes the risk of move wars. Circeus (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You would think so, but when I replaced "Eastern Juniper" with "Juniperus virginiana" in several places in the article, MPF reverted them to "Eastern Juniper". MrDarwin (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I just looked at what MPF did to the disambig page for Cedar. MrDarwin (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I cited material from a valid authoritative reference, even if you personally dislike it because it conflicts with your POV? - MPF (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because your edits perverted the entire concept of a disambiguation page in order to push your own POV. MrDarwin (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out, that reference is far from authoritative, and because words like "incorrect" and "misapplied" are just fanning the flames. These issues are hard enough without that kind of thing and the previous wording ("strict botanical sense" and all) made the point just fine. Kingdon (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "far from authoritative" in the opinion of one contributor here who has a clear dislike of the concepts of botanical education within it. I don't accept that as an unbiased opinion! - MPF (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is what is puzzling me more than almost anything: you've granted their authority in rejecting "Red Cedar", then turned around and rejected their authority by emphasizing the rather obscure "Eastern Juniper" rather than their recommended "Eastern Redcedar" as the primary common name for this species. (This is doubly puzzling in light of your often-stated principle of emphasizing common names that are in use in a particular species' native area.) MrDarwin (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you so vehemently opposed to calling something what it is, a juniper? If it is a juniper, it should be called a juniper, and not something else. I think your objection to fact is quite disgraceful. Or can you provide the evidence that it is not a juniper? - MPF (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief Michael, are you listening to yourself? I'm going to assume you can't support your own position because you've chosen to make a personal attack rather than address the issues I've raised.  MrDarwin (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sabina virginiana (L.) Antoine. Poof!  It's not a juniper ;o) . MrDarwin (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is insane. Eastern red cedar is a juniper. Blue gum is a eucalyptus (and not a liquidambar). Butternut is a hickory and peanut is a legume. Norfolk Island pine is an Araucaria, and she-oak is a Casuarina. Blue dicks was a Brodiaea, and now it's a Dichelostemma, but it's still blue dicks. The Mexican poppy is either Hunnemannia fumariifolia, or Eschscholzia californica ssp. mexicana, or one of several Argemone spp., or else Kallstroemia grandiflora, which is not a poppy. Cowboy rose is a mallow. Common names are exactly that: common. Some countries and some disciplines have chosen to regularize them, but refactoring or replacing all of them to form a system parallel to Linnaean nomenclature seems to me both a horrid waste of time and a way to enforce cultural uniformity.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Curtis, as you well know we've been around and around this issue enough times to make us dizzy. Unfortunately I don't see that we've gotten any closer to a resolution than we have the last dozen or so times we've rehashed it. MrDarwin (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In some respects I think MPF's edits to the disambig page were even more egregious. It's a page that links to articles for a word that is used ambiguously, not an article itself (good grief, how many disambig pages cite references?), and his edits rather missed the whole point of it being a disambig page in the first place: that "cedar" is used as a word (and not as a part of another word like "redcedar") for various different things. MrDarwin (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Has anyone really stopped calling flowers "chrysanthemums" just because they've been placed in a segregate genus?  Do we balk that a horse chestnut is not in the genus Equus?  Or that Dutchman's breeches grow outside the Netherlands? And what should we use as the common English name for a pineapple, which is neither in Pinus nor Malus?  Names are often inaccurate in their application, and this isn't even limited to common names!  Juniperus virginiana is not restricted to Virginia; Dicksonia antarctica does not grow in Antarctica; and Orchis does not have testicles.


 * Goodness, the phenomenon isn't even limited to names of organisms! Greenland is icy, and Iceland is green.  Puerto Rico is an island, not a port. The American "Indians" are not from India. And not everyone named Thomas is a twin.  These are all names, and names are intended to identify objects, not to describe them accurately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The American "Indians" are not from India". Q.E.D. In wikipedia, they are now called Native Americans, precisely to avoid this confusion. What's wrong with doing the same for Juniperus virginiana? Why is it such a terrible crime to call a juniper a juniper? And b.t.w., I got the name Eastern Juniper from American sources, not British; I'm not trying to push a UK-POV here as I've been accused of above. - MPF (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Indians, see this. As for J. virginiana, no one (besides you as a straw man) is saying that we shouldn't call it a juniper, but rather that we should acknowledge that some people call it a cedar without subjecting them to ridicule.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like some acknowledgment in the article that "red cedar" (or some variant of that name; I will accept, though reluctantly, "redcedar" as a compromise) is (1) the most widely used common name for this species within its native range and (2) is the common name most widely accepted in most North American horticultural references, field guides, and floras. And as I will point out for the third or fourth time, even the authority that MPF himself injected into the article uses "Eastern Redcedar", not "Eastern Juniper."  MrDarwin (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you on all else above, I'm not especially keen on this unless you have a source in hand that states such facts. While it may seem simple and on the path of common sense, independently looking at those many horticultural references and analyzing them, coming to the conclusions you have above could be a violation of WP:OR (especially see WP:SYN). It may be a borderline case, though. Just a thought to keep in mind. --Rkitko (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue, and what I should have emphasized above rather than the application of one primary common name (which to me is a side issue here), is simply that "cedar" has been used by many different people, in many different places, in many different contexts, for many different things.  Same thing with names like "ash" or any number of any other "misapplied" common names.  Well, news flash: botanists are not the only users of the English language, nor even of plant common names, and they are rarely the originators of those common names.  For botanists to come along later and pronounce that cedar is "incorrect" or "wrong" when applied to anything other than a member of the genus Cedrus is, as I pointed out above, breathtakingly arrogant (what I call "botanical imperialism" above) because common names arose independently of, and in most cases prior to, any concepts of botanical nomenclature or classification, or most of all, phylogeny.  (Although as shown in the Cedrus article, there's good evidence that the Greek word was originally applied to a member of the genus Juniperus and only later applied to Cedrus!  I have since learned that Citrus is apparently also based on the same root.) It's just too bad that we have to have this exact same conflict and exact same conversation--usually involving the exact same players--every few months.  MrDarwin (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One last comment: I just discovered that MPF recently removed the well-established common name "prickly cedar" from the Juniperus oxycedrus article entirely, despite the fact that the epithet translates almost literally into "prickly cedar". 'Nuff said. MrDarwin (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cedar" is Cedrela. All the other uses are weird. Imagine, calling a coniferous tree "cedar". Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What about a common name infobox?
Names that are in any sense official would be bolded.

If other editors think the general idea is valid, we could figure out the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis Clark (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two questions come to mind: (1) Where on the page would this box be placed? (2) What happens for widely distributed taxa, like Pteridium aquilinum, which would have common names in hundreds of languages? In the past, translations into other languages have been relegated to Wiktionary instead, and Wiktionary could easily accomodate all the translations for "bracken". --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the second question first, one could argue that no non-English names should be included. People are less likely to remove aboriginal names, though, since most of them don't have their own Wikipediae. I could certainly agree with a policy that aboriginal names should only be mentioned in "Use" sections.


 * As for the first question, see Doberman Pinscher for an infobox that the dog folks use that is placed left and below the TOC. I don't especially like the way it looks, but that would be one approach.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider going for the V. thapsus "consensus:" Latin name throughout, except for a paragraph detailing conflicting recommandations and usage (and NO USE of "official" or "correct"). Circeus (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Official names are worth recording, and of course a single plant might have several. "Official" is not POV, as it can be documented. "Correct" has a meaning for scientific names, but not for common names except in those cases where "official" names are expected to be used. I guess what I'm trying to say is that common names need not be controversial if we don't try to suppress some and promote others.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to be more careful. "standard" and "correct" tend to be lobed around a bit too freely in these debates. Circeus (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Circeus, scientific names are always preferable, as they are universal and generally (should) have only one correct form. I think we should list only English common names, we have a Wiktionary for translations. Other names may be included only when they're particularly remarkable. Aelwyn (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-native speaker, English common names are not my forte. I have to rely on textbooks or reliable websites, esp. the website "Trees of North America" (Laval University, Quebec, Canada) which not only gives an appropriate scientific description, but also the common names with indication of the region or country where they are being used. As to Juniperus virginiana, this Canadian website gives as first common name ...  	"eastern juniper". But my handbook "Trees of North America" (published in the USA) clearly states "Eastern Redcedar". I think this discussion can go on for a long time unless we state in the article where each common name is being used. This is a neutral position and also NPOV that can satisfy everyone.  JoJan (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, regional context is extremely important when it comes to common names. "Eastern juniper" makes sense if you're in North America but in a global context, it makes little sense as "eastern" is ambiguous (east of what?).  "Eastern Red Cedar" or "Eastern Redcedar" then makes more sense and is more precise because "red cedar" is used as a common name for certain North American species of Juniperus.  As another somewhat amusing example, various common names given for Thuja occidentalis are "Eastern Arborvitae", "Eastern Whitecedar" and "Northern Whitecedar", even though the botanical names actually means "western Thuja"! MrDarwin (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And Thuja plicata is western redcedar. But wait a minute, it's not a Juniperus, so how can it be a redcedar? Maybe we should call it the Western False-Redcedar, or to use its epithet, the Folded False-Redcedar.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh :-). Now you're just piling on. Kingdon (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this level of detail on common names seems a bit much for encyclopedia, more like a wiktionary or even wikispecies kind of thing. Part of the reason for doing common names inline in the lede paragraph is that it quickly tells readers if they actually arrived at the article they wanted, particular if they've come from a redirect and find an article with a gobbledlygook Latin title :-) . So the lede really only needs the most common names, particularly those that are redirects, and mainly English, possibly a native name for plants of restricted range. It's harder to imagine readers wanting to consult a table of possible names further down in the article. Nevertheless, documentation of all names is a worthy project, and would actually work well in wiktionary, which includes all languages on an equal footing. (Incidentally, one of the interesting features of FishBase is extensive tables of vernacular names for fish species; I've used it many times.) Stan (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exclude common names inline, and I wouldn't see a common name infobox as a normal feature of every plant article, just of those article where there is enough (1) information about different common names and (2) confusion about their use to warrant it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. First, many Wikipedia users will not have botanical backgrounds and will start searching on common names rather than botanical names.  Second, common names are often regional and the common names for a single species can vary quite a bit from place to place, and the articles should reflect that.  I don't think it's our place to promote or suppress any common names that are relatively well-known, merely to be as accurate, informative, and NPOV as possible with regard to those names. MrDarwin (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea, but any list of common names should seek to include all (verifiable) common names. Anything less is unencyclopaedic. As for English versus non-English names, in the example above, a large proportion of Latoka are going to be primarily English speakers, so you could consider their usage "English". On the other hand, many Neotropical species are known in the US primarily by Spanish names; perfectly good English names exist in the Caribbean, but American readers would probably be more familiar with Spanish names.

Oh, and I'd put the table at the end of the page, or at the very least below the lead. Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the question, too, is what English-speaking Lakota call it. "Moose", "skunk", and "wapiti" are American aboriginal names that are in wide use, but I'm not convinced that even the Tongva who identify themselves as such call Salvia columbariae pashí rather than chia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe all Engish common names from reliable sources should be listed in an article and individually referenced. Also redirects to the main article should be created for every one of these names. In terms of the infobox, I would be wary about the statement of use eg: "Manuals and floras in North America", we can easily assume the uses, but they need to be referenced to avoid WP:OR - for example do some manuals/floras use the name, do the majority of manuals/floras use the name and who has done this research of all North American manuals/floras?. On the other hand the references column provides the opportunity to list several references of useage (for this example) in various manuals and floras in North America (and elsewhere), which may effectively demonstate regional useage while avoiding assumptions/OR as well as POV issues. --Melburnian (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Libocedrus and Juniperus oxycedrus
Okay, I have to appeal to other editors as I am at the end of my rope. It's not my intention to begin intensively editing Wikipedia again, much less get into edit wars, but it's clear that any article that MPF has worked on needs to be reviewed carefully. MPF has completely removed the common name "prickly cedar" from the Juniperus oxycedrus article; apparently we are to pretend that this common name, which can be found in numerous references (and is more or less a direct translation of the specific epithet), doesn't exist. I'd also like some input from anybody from New Zealand; several references I found used "New Zealand Cedar" for species of Libocedrus so I added this (neutrally, I thought) as a common name to that article, which MPF has qualified as "formerly they were sometimes called New Zealand Cedar" (ironically, with the edit summary reduce pov-pushing); I have no idea how widely the Maori names are now used but "New Zealand Cedar" seems to remain in use, even in New Zealand. MrDarwin (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I refuse to pile on; MPF knows my opinion and I believe you're correct on this. We've been over this several times in several different places with no change in behavior. I, personally, would support taking this to WP:RFC where other, non-plant project editors could take a look and give objective opinions. Feels like we're just spinning wheels here, even though we may see consensus among the participating editors regarding common names, perhaps MPF doesn't. RFC seems like the first step beyond WT:PLANTS and might help bring the conversation to a resolution instead of repeating a pattern. If you don't have the time to open an RFC, I'll gladly help. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RFC seems appropriate to me, and I think you'd do a good job at the (difficult) task of writing up an RFC, Rkitko. Kingdon (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's opened and awaiting certification. See Requests for comment/MPF. I hope the outcome and process is productive. --Rkitko (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a literature check, and simply couldn't find 'prickly cedar' (so deleted it as unreferenced, which is legitimate); I did find 'sharp cedar' mentioned as an old variant name (Dallimore & Jackson; Prickly Juniper as the main name in bold, with sharp cedar in italics with the synonyms). But it certainly isn't a common name; Prickly Juniper outnumbered all other variants (including 'cade juniper') by about 10:1, and was universally given as the first choice. Ditto on Libocedrus; you may detest it, but New Zealanders are quite strongly in favour of the Maori names being used, and you won't find much recent literature that uses other names. - MPF (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being just a wee bit incredulous because anybody can do a 10 second Google search and find either common name quite easily, and Google Scholar makes it easy to find numerous references in the botanical and other literature. For example read what one New Zealand botanist has to say about Libocedrus, New Zealand Cedar in a recent article published on a NZ government website.  So I'm sorry, but I'll take a New Zealand botanist's word above yours (although we should also note that New Zealanders are not the only people in the world who may refer to these species). MrDarwin (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, regarding the latter genus, the Maori names and "cedar" names seem to co-exist in Aotearoa/New Zealand: --Melburnian (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Frugivore edits
Hello everyone. Would someone like to review the material on humans as frugivores at the bottom? There's been a little bit of dispute about it but the article is largely unwatched so I need some external input. I think the material probably either needs to be rewritten or removed, though I'm just looking for an impartial editor to provide input. Richard001 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PGIP - anyone interested?
Hello Plant project people,

I was wondering if anyone here would like to make a request at the Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests page?

I have been wanting to make the suggestion of botanical illustrations but I'm not knowledgeable enough to back up the request. I am aware that botany is one of the few places where hand drawings are still preferred by the professionals (botanists etc.) over photographs - as a drawing can capture all stages of a plant (flower, fruit, seed, new and old leaves...) in the one place whereas a photo only gets one season.

I also note the length of your Category:Plant articles needing photos...

Is there a list of "important" plants that would benefit from a proper botanical illustration? I'l love to see some of that project going towards botany.

Best, Witty Lama 10:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant to do this at some point anyway, but here are the results of some category intersections between and the importance assessment categories:


 * Top-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images: Plant embryogenesis
 * High-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images: Antarctic flora, Aquifoliaceae , Asterids, Bulliform cells, Cladoxylopsid, Crown (botany), Endosperm, Etiolation, Euphyllophytina, Flora, Floristic province, Kaempferia galanga, Megaspore, Microspore, Monilophyte, Nutation in plants, Nyctinasty, Pedicel (botany), Pericarp, Pericycle, Perigon, Plant respiration, Rhyniophyta, Secondary cell wall, Trimerophytophyta, Urban forest, Vascular cambium, Wild carrot
 * There are 279 mid-importance articles that are currently tagged as needing images. The rest are all low-importance or unassessed (the bulk of which were tagged by User:Polbot as it created new imageless pages.
 * Regardless of whether or not someone suggests a good article from this list that could utilize the PGIP project, it at least alerts us to our most important articles without images. Certainly crown (botany) should be an easy one to pop a photo in there. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from browsing Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and from our past experience, the hard part is figuring out what the illustration should show (in some detail). Exmples of non-free images, photos, and/or "paper napkin sketches" along the lines of what we are looking for would be helpful, for example. As would a detailed list of features to be shown on each diagram. Kingdon (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja and homeopathy
There is currently an edit war going on at Thuja about whether or not to include information on its homeopathic uses. It looks like one or two anti-homeopathy editors resent any mention of the homeopathic uses and are removing any such mentions, however neutrally worded. A quick web search turned up plenty of information on Thuja's use in homeopathy (BTW a discipline which I consider quack medicine, so I can hardly be accused of having a pro-homeopathy POV) and this was supported by at least one notable citation within the article itself, so in my opinion it should be at least briefly mentioned in the article. I'm raising the issue here because I imagine this controversy is being played out, or will be played out, at any number of plant articles. Edited to add: a quick check of the editing history of one of the edit warring editors, User:ScienceApologist reveals that User:Hardyplants has already been contending with this issue in the Aconitum napellus article; this edit is representative of what is happening. MrDarwin (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More going on at Arnica montana. In my opinion, what User:ScienceApologist and User:PouponOnToast are doing is nothing short of far-reaching vandalism in attempting to delete all homeopathic references, however neutrally worded,  from numerous Wikipedia articles. MrDarwin (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen some recent removal of homeopathic information ( and ).  But those mentions lacked cites completely, so they are different from the Thuja case.  The homeopathy wars are notorious (I've seen at least one nasty arbcomm case, but I'm sure it would not be a good use of my time to try to find chapter and verse ;-)), so if we can keep the spillover modest, we should (insisting on sources is always a good first step). Agree that we should mention medicinal uses of plants (subject to due weight and all) even if not supported by evidence, modern medicine, etc (as discussed in more detail by MrDarwin at Talk:Thuja), including at least some mention of homeopathy on Thuja. Kingdon (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'm not handling anything; I only noticed this because it came up on an article on my watch list (for other reasons entirely) and only upon doing some checking did I realize how extensive this was. I simply don't have the time to get into this battle.  I agree that some of the descriptions of homeopathic usage are either woefully unreferenced, or worse, pro-homeopathy in their discussions but homeopathy is widely accepted (for reasons that mystify me) and the fact that various plant species are so used in homeopathy should be at least mentioned in articles about them, and neither such mentions nor citations from the pro-homeopathic literature to document such usage represent an endorsement of homeopathy.  Unfortunately I doubt that the two anti-homeopathy editors can be convinced that any mention of homeopathic uses, however neutrally worded, can be justified in the articles.  I believe the botanical editors should keep an eye on these articles to make sure that relevant information is included and remains NPOV. MrDarwin (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also look at Aconitum napellus, I am not going say any thing about it because I am frustrated and discouraged.  Hardyplants (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever happens to the homeopathy mention, you improved the article quite substantially (in ways having little to do with homeopathy, some of them not even related to anything medicinal: example diff). At this stage, it might be wise to just "declare victory and get out" (George Aiken's advice on the Vietnam war). If I think about it too hard, I can convince myself either that the various species articles should mention homeopathy, or that they shouldn't. But if I take a step back, it doesn't seem so important one way or the other (especially if there is no link to active ingredients, the history of the study of the plant, etc). Besides which, you'll have to admit the humor value in someone calling Annals of Emergency Medicine a "fringe journal". Kingdon (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is what's going on at Thuja standard practice on Wiki? It seems that about six editors without the slightest knowledge of plants or medicine, but with an obvious axe to grind, have descended upon the article and are going to bully their version in come hell or high water.Number48 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, just my 2c worth, one of the problems with homeopathy and mentions thereof in general is that it appears that most sources used to support it are rather unreliable. Personally the above reads like victim mentality rather than engaging on the particular subject. I think what needs to happen is that a better source for the mention of (say) Thuja (or any particular plant) and it's use in homeopathy needs to be provided - in particular say a third party source - ie/ a book about homoepathy that mentions thuja (or whatever). At the moment the problem appears to be that the sources supporting thuja and homoepathy are self published from individual self proclaimed homoepaths. Such sources fail RS regardless of the particular subject matter (primary source, self published etc. etc.). Or how about a source on plants that mentions it's use in homoepathy (doesn't need to mention what the use particularly has to be). Now with regards to other matters, it's quite obvious there is little consensus for inclusion, so (unfortunately) matters need to be thrashed out. Preferably on talk pages. Number48, this includes your "six editors without the slightest knowledge of plants or medicine, but with an obvious axe to grind" because they are still editors and a lot of them are very experienced and some are admins. Shot info (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to add trivia to articles. Saying "X is used in homeopathy" is trivia, for the most part. Just about everything is used in some homeopathic "remedy" or another. Mention of these things goes in a List of homeopathic remedies, not in Thuja. After all, there are hundreds of documented uses for lots of plants - I have seen a compilation of Native American uses - if we were to add that to every article they would be swamped. When it comes to homeopathy, the compound isn't really being used anyway - maybe one or two molecules per litre. It isn't the same as "active compound Y has been isolated from species Z". It's bad form to add trivia sections to articles. Napoleon is one of the characters in Civilization IV. Worth adding to the Civ IV article? Maybe. Worth adding to the Napoleon article? Of course not. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, saying that "X is used in homeopathic remedies" is a POV statement. "Homeopaths claim that X is used", but the claim that homeopathic remedies should be considered anything other than water (or wax, in the case of Head On) is claim that is challenged...and easily disproven by anyone who can calculate a simple dilution. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But wait Guettarda! Homeopathy explains what water makes you urinate: It retains the memory of urine!  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy: NPOV tutorial
Hi all,

It may be that many members of this project are not aware of Wikipedia's various policies for dealing with minority (or fringe) opinions. It's not often that plants become a battleground for such. However, I'd like to offer a quick tutorial so everyone can see where the rationale for excising mention of homeopathy from plant and chemical articles is coming from:

First of, realize that homeopathy is not herbalism or naturopathy. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience that was developed in the 19th century and exists today as an alternative medicine that has no scientific backing. One of the major problems with the technique is the true belief that diluting a substance makes it more effective. This idea was developed before atomic theory and so basically the people developing it didn't realize that substances that were diluted actually decreased in potency in a strict physical sense. To preserve this mythology, modern day homeopaths invent pseudoscientific theories such as water memory and the like to explain how a substance diluted beyond the point where no atoms are left in the solultion can be so "potent".

This is why it's so problematic to mention homeopathic remedies in plant articles. Basically, the remedies do not contain any of the plant in them. This is intentional.

That is not to say that homeopathy should never be mentioned in plant articles. However there are policies and guidelines which outline how pseudoscience needs to be treated in Wikipedia articles. In articles that are not devoted to pseudoscience as their subject (such as articles on plants) the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy comes into play. I encourage everyone to read this and think carefully about the qualification: what is prominent about homeopathy with respect to these plants?

In order to establish prominence it is necessary to find reliable sources. Unfortunately, most of the sources asserting how these plants are used in homeopathy are not independent, neither are they mainstream. However, if you find such a source that asserts that the homeopathic use of the plant is prominent, then inclusion is justified. Simply citing it to a book on homeopathic remedies written by a homeopath is not an independent source and according to the guideline I linked to should not be used.

Hope this explains this to everybody.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, a condescending and completely wrong rant about NPOV is not helpful, even if ironically labeled a 'tutorial'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think SA's comments about dilution deserve a response. It is one thing to make a note that a certain plant is used in herbalism, since those uses occasionally cross over into the mainstream, and some herbalist publications are worth study for hints about possible future drugs. Since we know something about the dilutions that homeopaths use, saying that a certain plant is used in homeopathy, that gives us great confidence that no drug makers will come knocking, since are probably no molecules coming from the plant in a typical dose. So saying that this plant is used by homeopaths is more of a psychological comment than a plant comment. Since placebos work, maybe psychology works, but don't ascribe the benefits to the actual plant used. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention in being drawn into a completely irrelevant discussion of the merits of homoepathy, which, imho, is pure poppycock. Nevertheless, it does exist,  and homeopaths do in reality use plants to prepare their bogus 'remedies'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "use the plants to prepare their remedies" may be a bit of a stretch, since approximately none of the plant actually ends up in the final product. Whatever container they use probably contribute orders of magnitude more to the 'remedy'.  Homeopaths make claims about the effects that plants have.  These claims are basically without merit.  So why should the be included in the article about the plants?  Because they can be verified?  If Answers in Genesis makes a statement about a plant, should it go in the article about the plant?  I don't know if it still says that, but the Conservapedia article about the kangaroo used to say that it originated in the Middle East and migrated to Australia after the Flood.  Assuming that we could find a reliable source for that statement, would it belong in the kangaroo article?  I don't think so.  Homeopathic claims are similar pseudoscience, but unlike creationist claims about the origin of a species, the "ingredients" of homeopathic remedies are only "ingredients" if you buy their claims about "water memory".  The reality-based statement about homeopathic remedies based on plants would be to say that the plant isn't a component of the remedy.  Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I didn't say "use the plants to prepare their remedies" did I? Dlabtot (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not irrelevant. NPOV requires verifiability.  So, if editors can provide a verified source that a homeopath uses a plant, I have no problem.  Once you start to write, "to cure XYZ", it must be deleted.  So I partially agree with everyone.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If folks want to read a real 'NPOV tutorial', they should go here. Dlabtot (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin has got it. As I've said many times before, if we can mention homeopathy on domesticated sheep we can mention it anywhere. We just need a mainstream, independent source that is about the subject of the article that asserts that homeopathy is important to the subject of the article. Bam, homeopathy gets mentioned! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If none of the plant ends up in the remedy, then how can it possibly not be undue weight to mention it? It seems like the very definition of undue weight, no matter how many independent reliable sources there are. Because they are all essentially saying that the plant is not used, because it is involved in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. Someone explain how it's not undue weight. MilesAgain (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MilesAgain, are you sure you have thought threw your argument? A lot of different chemical ingredients are used to make paper or boxes, but they do not end up in the final product. Homeopathy is makeing some type of "magic water" that starts with ingredient's, so it is true to say the "X is used by homeopathy" just like its safe to say that "H is used to make paper" even thought it is not in the finished paper you use or read. Hardyplants (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there are a lot of things used to make paper, like electronics and machines and workers and buildings. But those things don't actually end up in paper, and paper is not mentioned in their articles because doing so would be WP:UNDUE weight. MilesAgain (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough most of those things you list above ARE in the article on paper and the articles on making paper.Hardyplants (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be misunderstanding the analogy:

homeopathic plants : homeopathy :: electronics etc. : making paper


 * It's perfectly reasonable to mention the plants in the article on homeopathy and the equipment in the article about making paper. It is absurd to mention homeopathy in an article about on of the plants which do not end up in the "remedies" just as it is absurd to mention paper making in the electronics article. MilesAgain (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just making an observation, I am trying to find a solution to the problem. You failed to respond to my answer but brought up a different question, and this seems to be the way the purging group makes their arguments and objections, can't get a clear answer to any question on what would constitute a valid inclusion; when you do, some one comes along and says thats no so. Again Its my belief that your argument is invalid - the so called remedies start out with the ingredients which are used to make the finished "product" without the plant there would be no plant based remedies, it does not matter how much is left in the final form. Those that want to include homeopathic remedies and there ingredients might have to make a page that lists them and then link to the plant pages, hate to make a suggestion that I am not willing to work on, but I have no interest in the topic. Hardyplants (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this source found While looking for other material:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/arnica-000222.htm Hardyplants (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Without the plant there would be "plant-based" homeopathic remedies, because those so-called remedies are exactly the same as water, and no reliable source says otherwise. It doesn't mater if some sources refer to the use in homeopathy, it is still undue weight to mention homeopathy because no part of the plant occurs in the remedy. How did I fail to respond to your answer? MilesAgain (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not any of the plant actually ends up in the diluted "remedy" is irrelevant if the diluted solution begins with an actual plant and produces an extract from it. If homeopaths truly believe what they're doing--and I suspect that the majority do, however wrong-headedly--then the plant must be used to produce the "remedy."  I have neither the time nor the desire to wade back into this but if the Natural History Museum's Plants and fungi used in homeopathy database or the book Plant Names in Homeopathy--both produced by professional botanists--don't count as "mainstream" or "reliable" sources for the names of plant species used in homeopathy, then I suspect that the anti-homeopathy editors will not accept any source as mainstream or reliable. MrDarwin (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, I agree with MrDarwin. If an anthropological reference said that healers of a Northwestern North American tribe waved Thuja branches over a patient during a specific ritual, would we remove the information because no part of the plant ended up in the patient? Like MrDarwin, I think homeopathy is quackery, but plants are used for the things they are used for, and suppressing this information is a form of intellectual quackery, because, like homeopathy, it masquerades as being intellectually rigorous.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Curtis, I don't know how to handle this but this topic clearly needs some discussion among the plant editors on whether, and how, to address such usages of plants in the articles about them. Do we have any ethnobotanists who might weigh in?  I don't accept the POV that any and all references to homeopathic uses of plants, however neutrally worded, must be deleted from all plant articles--and this systematic deletion is decidedly not NPOV, I would argue that it's part of an extreme POV agenda.  For better or for worse, several plant species are prominent in homeopathy.  Several of the non-partisan plant editors seem to agree that it's possible to acknowledge such use without endorsing or validating homeopathy--and most of us are not making an argument for homeopathy--but that fact seems lost on several other editors who seem intent on the summary deletion of any and all such references, however worded and however referenced (without otherwise editing or improving the articles, I might add).  In the meantime I've been accused of engaging in personal attacks for posting comments supporting another editor (while expressing my own opinion), and for pointing out inconsistencies in what some of these editors say and do.  Needless to say, I'm feeling rather frustrated right now. MrDarwin (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MrDarwin, you always engage in personal attacks. It's just that those of us who edit plant articles have learned to ignore your abrasiveness.  You can't expect everyone to do that.
 * As for "used in the preparation" - then why don't we list glassware? The containers used in preparation make a far more significant contribution than do the plants.  Saying that the plant "is used in" creates undue weight, because it gives the impression that the plant somehow is part of the "remedy", which it demonstrably isn't.  Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and list glassware, if you can find a reliable source. What has been shown beyond any doubt, with references to countless reliable sources, is that certain plants are used in homeopathy. It is not our job to censor this information.Number48 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fritillaria imperialis
This plant is currently listed as Crown Imperial rather than its botanic name. This is confusing since a good chunk of the heavily German ethnic Upper Midwest in the US uses the term Kaiser's Crown. I have a hunch this got renamed in some regions that originally used Kaiser's Crown after the World Wars. Regardless, an encyclopedia is supposed to explain without bias, so could the article please be listed either of these two ways:

1. under its botanic name with redirect pointers from the two common names, or 2. with two identical articles under the common names - Crown Imperial and Kaiser's Crown - with a disambiguation statement immediately under the header, pointing to the other name?

I realize that more people probably now use the Crown Imperial term, but for those of us who spent many hours trying to track down the plant our German grannies talked about, having that info available up front would help others avoid the same frustration and make our work worthwhile. ThanksKrumhorns (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your request and per WP:NC (flora), I moved the page to Fritillaria imperialis. You can do the same via the "move" tab at the top of the page. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for WikiProject Plants editors
By now anybody who is involved in editing plant articles and is not in a coma has probably seen the above discussions on this page as well as the vigorous editing that is currently going on at several plant species articles with regard to the use of those species in homeopathy. I'd like to get some sense as to what the other project editors think about whether, and how, such usages should be reported in articles. Does this fall under our specifically stated goal, "For species, describe botanical properties, distribution, multiplication, usage (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information" (emphasis added)?

I'll make my own POV clear up front: I don't buy into the suggestion that any and all reporting of homeopathic use should be deleted from any and all plant articles. Numerous plant articles include sections on how those plants are used, and for better or for worse, homeopathy is one of those uses. I guess I need to make clear here that I am not endorsing homeopathy or supporting it in any way; other uses of plants are in folk medicine, witchcraft, literary symbolism, etc. and articles can and do report such uses, neutrally and factually, without it representing any kind of endorsement. I simply do not see how a single sentence along the lines of "Species X is used in homeopathy" gives undue weight or represents anything other than an NPOV statement of fact. So... thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? Any chance of consensus? MrDarwin (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At first sight, it's rather simple. Just use the principles of Wikipedia : NPOV and reliable references. We report, but we don't judge. And if no reliable references can be produced, there should be no entry on homeopathy. The problem however is the reliability of the references. References from Nature, Science or medical journals are peer-reviewed and can be trusted. Others, however, are another matter. These should be judged on a one-by-one basis. But such a judgment is open to lengthy discussion with other editors who may have a different opinion. This can be avoided if the sections with homeopathic treatments are treated in their own page (with a hyperlink on the botany page). Discussions can then be pursued in the new articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants editors should only be involved if they choose to do so. JoJan (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Even a peer reviewed medical journal published by the OUP has been rejected, and previously the Annals of Emergency Medicine was called "a fringe journal". No source is good enough for some editors here because they use the very mention of homeopathy as a definition of "fringe". There is no point discussing any of this because the debates are not genuine - even if a journal above reproach could be found (which is impossible), the argument would then move on to some other point and the whole thing would start again.Number48 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Listing homeopathy as a "use" is POV...plants aren't used in homeopathic remedies. Nothing but water or wax is used in the remedy.  It's like saying that paper is used in modern medicine, because doctors learn by reading off books.  When a plant is used in witchcraft, it's actually used.  If you wave a branch over someone, you are waving a branch over someone.  Saying that a plant is used in a homeopathic remedy is an endorsement of a fringe POV, which is trivial to disprove.  If we have a reliable source that says that Species X is present in front of the town hall in Y, do we report is as a use of species X?  The "Survivor Tree" at the Oklahoma City National Memorial is a notable "use" of an American Elm.  It might even warrant its own article.  But it doesn't warrant mention in Ulmus americana.  And this is a tree that is actually there.  If there was a reliable source reporting a claim by a cult that the ghosts of those who died in the attack, would that belong in the human article?  It might belong in the article about the cult, it might belong in the article about the memorial (maybe), but it wouldn't belong in human.  It's not just trivia, it's demonstrably false trivia.  Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We can say, "plant X is used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy" because: a) they are; b) reliable sources tell us so; and c) because people might actually look up a plant article to find out about it's medicinal or homeopathic use. I doubt anyone would look up the article on humans and expect to find listed every thing that anyone has ever done.Number48 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also note that the argument has now immediately moved on, as predicted, from one about sources (spurious) to another about fringe POV (equally spurious). What next, Wiki server overload?Number48 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Guettarda. Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV. I'm sure that many sites are available for those with an interest in homeopathy. I don't think WP need lend its imprimatur to it. In addition, I would cite the Undue weight section of NPOV. It is my opinion that managing homeopathic content to comply with the undue weight provision would lead to endless conflict with those seeking to expand it, were it to be permitted at the minimal level that Number48 suggests. It may attract WP:SPAs seeking to add such content. Also, I foresee conflicts based on the WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:N policies and guidelines. Further, some may remember the Nature review of a year or two ago. Inclusion of homeopathic uses would detract WP's standing in such a review, in my opinion.


 * I object to the comment "Please also note that the argument has now immediately moved on, as predicted, from one about sources (spurious) to another about fringe POV (equally spurious). What next, Wiki server overload?" I don't think that is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so it wasn't Wiki server overload, but "bad things will happen in the future". My mistake. We are talking about one line in an article stating a widely known fact and sourced to a bastion of the scientific community. Number48 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The level of dilution in Homeopathy is huge, there are NO organic molecules retained in solution from the original plant, compound, pieces of the berlin wall (yes, pieces of the berlin wall), or anything left in solution. So it is a complete fabrication to state that homeopathy, a pseudoscientific fringe theory, uses anything but water.  Maybe a few glass molecules from the vessel holding the water.  So, in fact, none of these plants are in a homeopathic solution.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things here: one (not that it matters), you can't dilute something out of complete existence, so some homeopathic solutions will contain some of whatever has been diluted. Two (and this does matter), we can say, as noted above, "plant X is used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy" because it is.


 * Please also note that the argument has moved again. Now we are on to the quite irrelevant point of homeopathy's methods and efficacy.Number48 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things here -- the remnants of the original ingredient are trivial, and are thus mathematically zero; an extract from the plant is used, not the whole bloody plant itself.
 * Why homeopaths, herbalists and the rest insist on putting trivial nonsense into these plant articles is beyond me: I sometimes use an empty beer can as an ashtray, as do many others, shall we add that to the article on beer? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two further things here: one, irrespective of how little is there, there is something there - you can't magically make things completely vanish by dilution (not that that point matters anyway). Two, the last time I looked the Natural History Museum did not have a project called "things used as ashtrays by Jim62sch and others", nor did it have a database of things so used. This fundamental difference is what makes these pointless analogies, well, pointless.Number48 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, deep -- missed the point, no doubt, but really deep. I'm guessing that your knowledge of math is trivial. The dilutions are such that it is unlikely that any of the original element remains in a given dose.  For example, if we have 1,000 molecules of NaCl and 100,000,000 of H2O, what is the likelihood of NaCl being in any random grop of 100 moleules? (see real math below) Homeopaths know this, which is why the concept of Water memory was developed by homeopaths.  Really.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You miss the point, in some of the samples there will be some of the original thing. You can't just magic stuff completely out of existence. But, as noted above, this is completely irrelevant because all that is being said here is "x is used to prepare homeopathic remedies". If you disagree I suggest you take it up with the Natural History Museum.Number48 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first point is incorrect. You are implicitly assuming a pre-atomic view of matter. If you start off with 1020 molecules, and dilute 1050 times the chance of any molecules being left is vanishly small (10-30). Lavateraguy (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So where do you think the original components have magically disappeared to?23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number48 (talk • contribs)
 * They don't go anywhere (if I am reading this correctly) but if you have ten bottles of "material" the chance that 9 of them have no molecules of components is very high (99%+). Just like if you have ten apples and 10,000 trucks to deliver them in, there is a chance that some trucks will have no apples to deliver :-)  Shot info (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have one apple and a hundred billion trucks you will still have a truck somewhere with an apple in it!Number48 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. And if the apple is invisible, which truck is it in? You now have a probability situation that potentially it could be in any truck, that probability is very small (ie 1/100,000,000,000,000) but still a chance that it is in that truck just over there. Now when you get into these sorts of probabilities, you may as well say that there is no apple (simple maths, when a value approaches zero, it's simplier to assume that it is zero). Shot info (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is 48 claiming that homeopathic remedies have molecules other than water in them? More to the point that this is critical for theor function. If so, he is basically proving that homeopaths are frauds, which would be strange for one of their supporters. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 This is a ridiculous conversation. I'm going to request another block of this tendentious editor. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. At least there's a non-trivial possibility of 1:1 that he's editing this page in a trivial manner. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not zero, is it? Anyway, this is way off track, let us simply assume I am wrong and dilution magically makes the original substance disappear completely. Who cares? The point, the main point, supported by a sound scientific source still stands: x is used to prepare homeopathic remedies. Fact!Number48 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is zero in any given potion bottle. Clue: most of it gets chucked down the drain. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "supported by a sound scientific source"? ROFL. See my explication re extract above.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are off topic, and as OM suggested above, it is rather tendentious. FWIW, if you carefully look back through the edit log, you will see I agree with a brief mention backed by a reliable source. This is really what the current discussion is about is establishing that source to the agreement of all. Matters of homoepathy per se are irrelevant here. I personally would prefer an actually third party source (ie/ not one produced by a homoepathy organisation, practitioner or likewise) that says "X is used in homoepathic practices" (etc). Surely there are botanical text books out there? And if not, then we have our answer. Shot info (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The source provided was the Natural History Museum! Not some pro-homeopathy organisation. How many times does this point need to be made. Here it is again Number48 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And the info on it's use within homoepathy? (I cannot seem to find it in the link provided). Shot info (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You said, "I personally would prefer an actually third party source (ie/ not one produced by a homoepathy organisation, practitioner or likewise) that says "X is used in homoepathic practices"", and I provided a link to the Natural History Museum database of Xs-used-in-homepathic-practices. What is it you want now?Number48 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting back into this since I've already stated my opinion clearly on Talk:Thuja, but I thought I'd provide the link I found to be the most compelling as a reliable, peer-reviewed source published by a well-known entity. This is for the benefit of Shot info who may have not seen this before in the jumbled, fast-paced debate here/elsewhere. . Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That source has already been rejected as a "stinking pile of horse-manure".Number48 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can see why people have a problem with this link. It is merely listed in a database.  This doesn't make it really a source, mainly as it just doesn't say "X is used in homeopathy remidies".  Instead the reader must wander around the site (like I did - looking for the information).  No, what is needed is a sources that clearly and unambigiously says the words "X is used in homeopathic remidies" (or similar words).  The NHM is almost there, but doesn't really cut it for a source in this particular regard, particularly when attempting to form a consensus.  The moral is, if information is to be included, it has to be well sourced - per WP:RS. BTW, this is in the context of all plants used for any purpose.  Not just Thuja and homeopathy. Shot info (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I had found this holy grail with the book "Medicinal Plants of the World", written by two professors (one a botanist, the other a pharmaceutical biologist) and which has been favorably reviewed in the botanical literature--yes, it clearly and explicitly states for several species "X is used in homeopathic remedies, and no, it doesn't make any comments favorable to homeopathy"--but when I tried adding that reference to the Thuja occidentalis article, even that was shot down by [[User:ScienceApologist] as having been published by a "fringe publishing press"]. I have to conclude that there are no possible sources that he and the other editors will consider reliable. MrDarwin (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting back on topic, I can see why there is a problem, namely most references are either published by small (possibly dubious - other's comments not mine) publishers, or homoepathic organisations. Now normally these would suffice, but a portion of the community (and it isn't a small portion BTW) would like to see better references.  FWIW I recommend a botanical reference, not a homoepath reference, that says it is used in homoepathic preperations (etc.).  By relying on databases, references published by would could be suggested are dubious organisations or from producing info from homoepathic sources is the problem.  While it shouldn't be, it is, so how are we going to work our way out?  Yelling at the "other side"?  Or by producing a source that is acceptable to all?  Shot info (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel it must be mentioned that said publisher, Timber Press, is frequently used for academic books in the realm of carnivorous plants. Most recently, Barry Rice wrote a book published by Timber Press. They have published some of the most authoritative books by the most highly regarded scientists in the field:
 * Schnell, Donald E. (2002). Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada. Second Edition.
 * Rice, Barry A. (2006). Growing Carnivorous Plants.
 * And the English translation of one of the most comprehensive books I've ever read on the topic: Barthlott, W., Porembski, S., Seine, R., and Theisen, I. (2007). The Curious World of Carnivorous Plants.
 * All this to say that Timber Press is certainly not a fringe publishing outfit. Rkitko (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, for the purposes of moving forward, lets just say that some editors say "yes" and others say "no". So in otherwise, there is no consensus for inclusion.  This is why I keep suggesting that a better source is found.  Rather than defending positions already established, the best (the only really) way forward is to "convince the other side".  Unfortunately this means more work but in the long run Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia for it.  Shot info (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The flip side of that is that there is also no consensus for exclusion and that several editors have been removing content that was previously in articles without attempting to reach such a consensus. In the meantime, several "better sources" have been offered but all have been summarily rejected as unacceptable. MrDarwin (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that's fair, with all due respect. In such a case, anyone with an agenda against inclusion of any material can always continue to ask for better references when the ones already located are sufficient. Having provided sufficient references, the onus is not on us to find better references when opponents take a minute to look over the ref and declare it not sufficient. That could go on forever where one party continues to "move the goalpost." To move this discussion along, I have requested an RFC for Thuja occidentalis, since that seems to be what this is centered around. See Talk:Thuja occidentalis for more. It seems as if there's no consensus so an RfC seemed like the next step. --Rkitko (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it isn't just one or two or even three editors. It's quite a large number.  Of course their opinion can be outright dismissed (which for the most part it seem to have been, rather than engage with them) and now we have the problem of no WP:CONSENSUS.  However, I don't mind the RfC (and was thinking about recommending it anyway).  Mind you, the onus is on the includer of the material to have excellent references.  Shot info (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the information in this hulk of an argument, but for the sake of giving my opinion, I will say that I support the inclusion of information about homeopathy assuming a third party source. In the article I helped out on about Ailanthus altissima there were many references to that plant's use in Chinese medicine, all of which are extremely dubious from a scientific perspective, but are nonetheless essential pieces of information from a cultural perspective, which is how homeopathy should be seen. And Timber Press is certainly a leader in scientific books in the field of plants. The source seems to be fine to me. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole interchange would be funny if it weren't so scary. The scariest part to me is the statement, "Mention of homeopathy violates NPOV." Wikipedia can have entire articles about creationism, the Raelians, Scientology, Mesmerism, breatharianism, and who knows how many other things regarded by many editors as fringe, but the mere mention of homeopathy is POV? We can state that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, and Duane Gish is a creationist, but not that Thuja is used in homeopathic preparations? And it's so disingenuous to say that there's none of it left after the dilution. As far as I can tell, no lions or witches, and perhaps no wardrobes, were used in the preparation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and no Reformed Egyptian remains in the Book of Mormon. But we must never mention homeopathy. We can write about the luminiferous aether, phlogiston, and leprechauns, but the mention of homeopathy violates NPOV. This is one of the most outrageous cases of censorship that I've run across in a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems useful to me to ask the total number and fraction of plant articles are potentially affected by coverage (or not) of homeopathy uses. I didn't find this above. Is it the case that approximately 800 articles are at issue? What I'd like to know is how many articles are potentially affected. Also, I'm curious if anyone has a tally of the total number of plant species with enwiki articles? Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a good idea. At least it will help the process go forward (I hope :/)  Shot info (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the number is important as this is a matter of principle, but there are at least a fair number. I can think of maybe 5 that I've read or written, but given the vast number of plant articles it's hard to guess how many times more than that number exist. But again, it's irrelevant. I think Curtis Clark summed up the logical conclusion to this argument perfectly, and it is truly difficult to comprehend why there is a debate going on. DJLayton4 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Curtis has it right. We report but we don't judge. There is no censorship in Wikipedia. When one states in a botanical article : "an extract of this plant is used in homeopathic preparations", then that is a certifiable fact. I used the word "preparations" and not "remedies", because the latter would involve a judgment on the efficacy of the preparation. Whether molecules of this plant extract are still present at the end of the preparation after a succession of dilutions, is another matter. But this should not be discussed in botanical articles. Let's leave such discussions to the proper homeopathic articles where the pros and cons can have a field day. JoJan (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that this section is called "Question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants editors", it would interesting to know whether a single "WikiProject Plants" editor has yet opposed inclusion. From a brief check of some of the users in the discussion above it seems the plant editors support inclusion, and it is the members of some other outside group who have come here in droves to abuse, ridicule and condescendingly lecture anyone who disagrees with them. By checking a few of the users above I found this . Look familiar?Number48 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even after all these years, it still surprises me that fundamentalism smells the same, regardless of the "principles" considered fundamental. But I did see one thing among the kilobytes of stereotyped, reactionary drivel that would be of use to us plant editors, were we allowed to edit our articles without the "help" of the fundies: Almost every plant has the potential to be used in a homeopathic preparation (thus, at an extreme, we could have in every plant article "this plant could be used in the process of making a homeopathic preparation"). It seems to me (and fundies need not respond; I'm already aware of your arguments) that we should approach homeopathy in an anthropological context: If the practice of homeopathy were as deprecated as the practice of animal magnetism, we could still study it as a cultural phenomenon, and part of our source material would be the classical literature on the subject. Again in parallel to animal magnetism, to count a modern book supporting the use of animal magnetism as being equal to works from the days of Mesmer would be undue weight. There must be classical works on homeopathy. We should look to them for references. Sadly, looking is all we will be able to do, since the fundies will still delete such references. But at least we will have the knowledge that we acted as scholars.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And what about a a source like the one gave above? Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've summarized my thoughts on the matter here. I don't expect to get involved in this discussion again--for that matter to edit at Wikipedia--for quite a long while. MrDarwin (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted a complaint about User:ScienceApologist's behaviour on the administrator's noticeboard. Number48 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Love it, thanks for the laugh. This is better than most of the articles. Extraordinary amount of energy expended here on being right and righteous, phsychoanalysts dream! I'm going to pop a couple of Ginkgo tablets doubled up with some St John's Wort to stop my head spinning. And just for the kiddies - see if you can spot where Homeopathy changed to Homoepathy in this exchange. Is that a subliminal term for empathy for gays? Watch the "fundies" jump on that as a reason to exclude, or whatever. Love that, "fundies", hilarious. . . . . :-) HelloMojo (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that the "fundy-in-chief", while claiming that the Timber Press, The Annals of Emergency Medicine, and the Natural History Museum were unacceptable sources for Wiki, is now claiming that a complete bunch of lunatics (a group of global-warming-is-a-conspiracy and how-to-get-rid-of-swallows self help group ) are of sufficient standing that they can be considered a reliable spokesperson for "scientific educators" worldwide.TheLaPesca (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TheLaPesca (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of plants for Biblical gardens
This list is being considered for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of plants for Biblical gardens Melburnian (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a few people who could profitably spend more time at botanic gardens and less time on wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Kingdon (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ZipcodeZoo
I was wondering what people's thoughts on this common external link are. Seems to me like it's more often wrong than not. Am I right in removing it from pages entirely if used as a reference? Take, for example, ZipcodeZoo's page on Utricularia olivacea:. It lists Thuja species as synonyms! Impressively wrong. Should we blackball this "reference"? --Rkitko (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that they are using bots to gather the information and its not checked thoroughly to see if all the data they are mining is correctly integrated into their pages. I would call it unreliable. Hardyplants (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with removing the external links, but if it has been used as a reference, we would need to replace it with a more authoritative reference(s) before removing it, making sure that the reference(s) cover all the material in the article. --Melburnian (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I wouldn't dare leave something unreferenced :-) Rkitko (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found zipcodezoo to be dreadfully inaccurate at times. A little while ago they had a page on Cyrtostylis that conflated the orchid genus with the Banksia series. Gosh that was a bizarre read! I emailed them and they have corrected it, to their credit. Still, the fact that they have a modus operandi that introduces and accepts such gross errors disturbs me. Hesperian 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Egads! I just did a quick look and found this page  which says there are 148 species in Class Andreaeopsida, but 119 in Order Andreaeales.  The distressing part is that Andreales is the only order in the class!  In any case, the most recent estimate of species in the group puts the number at 45. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It includes "subspecies", I do not know anything about moss subspecies or this group of plants, so can't comment on the number. But I did notice that there was a notice saying that some of the information is coming from Wikipedia, - it does not seem safe to use as a source, it maybe useful to track down more reliable information from other sources - at best. Hardyplants (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)