Talk:Thuja

message: Information regarding "homeopathic" use of this plant requires reliable sources. Please don't include this information without such. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find it here Number48 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Do you think the use of the plant by Marysia Kratimenos to treat Sinusitis is notable? PouponOnToast (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular use in that particular case is probably not notable but the general use of Thuja, as described in her article, is. That's why I wrote in my way rather than yours and would be grateful if you could change it back. Number48 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd happily do so, if there were sources that supported your version. All your source discussed was one adherent using it for one case. If you could find reliable citations that supported your source, I would consider it - I would have further problems with it, of course, relating to notability, but verifiability is policy, and notability is guideline.. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted above the source deals with the general case as well as the particular. There is therefore a perfectly reasonable source for the information I included in the article.Number48 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article you cited is titled as follows "Dr Marysia Kratimenos describes how Thuja helped one of her patients suffering from sinusitis."  I read the article in it's entirety, and while it stated that "This is applicable on the physical level with the warts, verrucas and the cysts that are prone to infection because of a greasy skin," such a statement is not reliably sourced to a popular magazine - it would require a peer-reviewed study, or better a survey study that showed the effectiveness of Thuja against specific ailments. While a popular magazine is certainly a good source for what an individual said they did, it is not a good source regarding the effectiveness of a drug. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line of the cited article is this: Practitioner 'A' chose to treat patient 'B' with homeopathic remedy 'C'. Conventional medicine likes to see more evidence than that before documenting that a certain practice is reliable and effective. I know that NIH has a program that gives research grants for work on alternative therapies, and I doubt that they would find it convincing if the grantees came back and reported such slim results. They probably expect more data, and we should too. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody said thuja had been proven to be effective. I said that thuja is used in homeopathy to treat various conditions and the source clearly supports this. You seem to be changing your tune re what you want here. Can you be explicit about what kind of source saying what kind of thing you would require for the statement "Thuja is used in homeopathy to treat X". Above you seemed to only request a reliable source saying this, but once I found one you now seem to want a source that proves it efficacy. Can you please clarify. Thanks.Number48 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a number of comments regarding the Homeopathy section. Please do not assume if one of my concerns is adressed you have adressed them all. I am looking for a reliable source that shows this plant is used for more than sinusitis. The article as presented does not do so, unless I missed something. To source "Thuja is used in homeopathy to treat X," we will need a reliable source saying this. Your reliable source showed it was used for sinusitis, and unreliably said that it is applicable to warts, verrucas and the cysts. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly states that thuja is used to treat a variety of physiological conditions (e.g., warts, verrucas, cysts and post vaccination ailments). It also discusses the emotional and psychological conditions it can be used to treat - that is why she prescribed it. Whether it works or not, the bottom line here is that this is how the drug is used in homeopathy according to a homeopathic practitioner writing in a journal of a society recommended by the BMA as a sound source of information on homeopathy. Number48 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathic 

message: New users who found this article minutes after my change to it may not be aware, but Edit Warring is patently unacceptable at wikipedia. If you continue to revert changes to articles while discussing them, you will promptly fall afoul of others. The best course of action is to discuss changes before making them. As such, I have asked to have this article protected whilst we discuss. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me! But you changed the article while discussing it here. I presumed you did this because you hadn't properly read the source and so changed it back to the reflect the general point the source was used for. I fail to see how I can be guilty of something if you are not. After all, I would have had no need to edit the article during discussion if you have not done exactly that. Number48 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are aggressively reverting to your preferred version. I am attempting to find a compromise. This is the difference. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not "aggressively" doing anything and would be grateful if you could refrain from such accusations. I made an edit which you saw fit to change even though the source clearly supported it. Then you changed you tune regarding what kind of source you wanted and what you wanted it to say.Number48 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is important that you remain calm. I will return to this discussion in 24 hours. When you revert an article in less than an hour, that is typically considered "aggressive reverting." Reverting generally is unlikely to win you anything but blocks at wikipedia. You should work with your peers to reach consensus. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly calm. You're the one who appear to be getting wound-up and making all sorts of accusations and threats (blocks, edit warring, aggressiveness etc.) on the basis of one well sourced edit. Perhaps you should try some thuja.Number48 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree and think this is an excellent solution. If we could agree on a set of fairly respectable sources then we could use mention there as a test of notability.Number48 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is, is the homeopathic use of thuja prominent for an article on thuja? Can we find an independent mainstream source about thuja that characterizes how prominent the homeopathic derivatives are? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  a google search using "thuja homeopathic" yields a huge number of hits so it seem it's use is prominent. It looks like mostly the occidentalis variety is used. and is widely available. I think whats on this page now is excessive but it probably does deserve one sentence for the sake of being "encylopedic". What I would like to see is a reference to which species is used for that purpose. That has more bearing in this article than what maladies it supposedly cures or whatever. I don't have a particular viewpoint here. No offence to any of you other editors but your own POV's are showing. Lets try to do the right thing by the article. Cheers.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding POV is generally not a good idea. Best if everyone puts their biases right out on the table since we all have them. Anyway, there is now a new proposal going on at Talk: Homeopathy#List of homoepathic remedies that may make this discussion moot. I don't particularly trust google searches, but if someone can come up with a book on Thuja, for example, that mentions that homeopathic uses are one of the main reasons people know about the plant, that would be a great justification for mentioning homeopathy in this aritcle. This was how we decided to mention homeopathy in the article on domesticated sheep. What we need are mainstream sources that are independent of homeopathy since homeopathy is controversial; WP:REDFLAG definitely applies. I have done some preliminary searching to no effect. Let me know if anyone else finds a mainstream, independent source that connects homeopathy to thuja. Regards. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with SA that the best way to show notability to the plant of it's homeopathic use is to find mainstream sources discussing such. This should be a general guideline. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit botanical articles, primarily from a botanical point of view (and that is my professional background).  Let me start by putting my own POV regarding homeopathy right up front: I think it's a great big ball of crap.  But this needs to be said over and over: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Despite my opinion of homoepathy, I still think this article (or perhaps the species article if the homeopathic "remedy" is tied to one particular species) merits a mention of the homeopathic use(s).  One doesn't have to agree with homeopathy to acknowledge that homeopathic practicioners recommend or use this or that species of plant, and it only has to be prominent within the homeopathic literature to merit a mention in the article.   It's not a whole lot different from describing the old "doctrine of signatures" usages in articles, and nobody (well almost nobody) accepts that anymore.  What might make it more interesting and far more relevant in the context of the article is the history behind that usage; homeopathy often adopts pre-homeopathic usages for many plant species, in some cases going right back to the doctrine of signatures. MrDarwin (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in complete agreement with MrDarwin. I thought I might add, from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of your view of homeopathy, it is, given proper sourcing, correct to say that "_____ has been recommended by ____ as a homeopathic treatment for ____." That can be verified and the statement structured as such is also true. It's just a matter of accurately describing the verifiable information. Rkitko (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, verifiability + notability.  Not every verifiable bit of trivia about any species of Thuja belongs in the article.  Anyway, we haven't yet reached the "verifiable" threshold".  Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course notability as well. Just didn't mention it since it's been mentioned elsewhere. Rkitko (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Homeopathy is fringe theory that is not substantiated by reliable sources and cannot be verified.  You are attempting a back-door approach to avoid those substantial issues.  There is no way to "verify" Thuja or any plants use in homeopathy, since homeopathy itself cannot be verified.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief, reporting the usage of a particular plant species in homeopathic remedies, even the illnesses those homeopathic remedies supposedly treat, is not an endorsement of homeopathy, it's a simple reporting of fact (and I don't believe including one or two sentences to that effect is undue weight).  Fringe or not, a huge number of people subscribe to homeopathy (a whole 'nother discussion) and for that reason alone the information should be included, regardless of whether those treatments are medically effective or homeopathy is scientifically sound.  If there are further concerns about whether such information should be included, please come discuss them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, where several editors meet to discuss the content of plant-related articles. MrDarwin (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not attempting a back-door approach anywhere. I don't intend on editing this article, but thought I'd add my voice and something I hadn't seen mentioned yet. I repeat, regardless of your opinion of homeopathy, it is indeed verifiable to say that notable person Y recommends plant X for condition Z. It doesn't matter if the claim that it can heal that can be verified or not because such claim should not be presented in a POV way in the article. Mention the use, mention who uses it/recommends it, make sure such information is notable and related to the article's topic and that its sources are reliable and it's ok for that to be in the article. It doesn't matter if homeopathy can't be verified because we'd only be using sources to establish that it is used or recommended for such ailments, not that it should be used. I completely disagree with you that you can't verify that plants are used in homeopathy. It'd be easy to verify their use! It's not verifiable that they actually have any impact. BIG difference there. Rkitko (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We wouldn't allow that POV in the actual article about Homeopathy, because it would be unverified.  It is NOT notable to state that some person uses it for some ghastly purpose.  I do not revert every edit that claims that this plant or that plant cures cancer, treats erectile dysfunction, or grows hair, as long as it is published in a reliable journal.  But even stating that it can be used is a violation of undue weight OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I just did a cursory search on google scholar and found plenty of medical journals that mentioned a Thuja species extract being used in homeopathy. It seems entirely verifiable to me to say that it is used in homeopathy. I'm not proposing we describe what it cures but if stated somewhere reliable, I see no problem with stating what it has been claimed to cure in NPOV language. I don't buy your WP:WEIGHT argument at all. As for a source, see : Arbor vitae (Thuja occidentalis L.) is a native European tree widely used in homeopathy and evidence-based phytotherapy. First sentence. Citing that abstract with a sentence worded in a similar NPOV fashion would be reasonable in the article. Rkitko (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So why does a specific usage of T. occidentalis belong in this article?  Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't and I was thinking about suggesting that. I was speaking in general above and then looked into it, finding only references for T. occidentalis. If other species of the genus were also widely used, then specifics on the genus page would be appropriate. I still think a simple mention that T. occidentalis is used in homeopathy is warranted on this article and thus I disagree with your complete removal] of all the info. Like I said, specifics should remain on the species page, but mentioning the various uses of all species in the genus is what the uses section is for here. Only one species is widely used for making guitar soundbouards, should we remove mention of it entirely on the genus page? --Rkitko (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that in general information that only applies to single species shouldn't be in the main article.  Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  This plant may or may not be a prominent homeopathic treatment. Do you have evidence about it's notability in Homeopathy? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reverted your reversion. I suggest that you seek mainstream sources stating that this is a notable Homeopathic remidy, and reaches a level of notability for articles about plants, rather than articles about Homeopathy. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note you are now "aggressively reverting" to your version even though a clear majority here have set out clearly why homeopathy should be mentioned. I am not sure where you got the idea for the new Wiki rules you and ScienceApologist keep citing, but it seems clear that most people here don't think they are very good ones.Number48 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no compelling reason to mention homeopathy here. Homeopathy is at best a fringe topic that makes claims for almost every botanical substance in existence. Linking them on every article is undue weight even if we had good sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not a botanist nor a homeopath. I believe in plants but not in homeopathy. From the research I have performed today on the web (and as near as I can tell to be true), Thuja - in terms of homeopathy - almost always refer to the species Thuja occidentalis. Thus, any discussion of homeopathy and Thuja should happen on Thuja occidentalis. However, given that "Thuja" is also the name for a popular homeopathic remedy made from Thuja occidentalis,  a disambiguation link should be provided at the top of this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  FeloniousMonk reverted my disambig. attempt citing UNDUE. Please explain why. The term Thuja is the name of a popular homeopathic remedy. Short of including disambiguation at the top of the page, our alternatives are mentioning this fact in the body or creating an actual Thuja disambiguation page. Right? -- Levine2112 discuss 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a link to the daughter article on the page.  People use generic names to refer to species all the time.  We don't disambiguate genera into species.  That's just silly.  Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet we do just that at Aloe. Suggesting similar treatment. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I buy and sell thuja plicata all the time. People say "western redcedar". It's such a small genera I don't think people are realy using the generic that much. A disambig page with so few items on it seems silly. Us emy suggestion and don't make the species name a link as per the sentence about thuja plicata being used for soundboards. What is the problem with that?Darrell Wheeler (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aloe?  Nope.  No hatnote disambiguating species based on how they are used.  Note sure what you're talking about.  Guettarda (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stress again that I agree that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, but don't believe that automatically disqualifies mention of homeopathic uses from plant articles and I'm disturbed to see a small number of editors systematically deleting any such references from articles, which strikes me as POV-pushing.  I do agree with Guattarda that any such uses that are tied to a particular species should be discussed on the species page, rather than appearing on the genus page, and it was a good call on his part to move any such info (although in some respects that simply moved the battleground to Thuja occidentalis).  The problem is that "thuja" is thrown around in homeopathy and other alternative treatments without a specific epithet attached (I tried "thuja oil" several years ago to treat some intractable warts but without any success, surprise surprise); thus anybody looking for information about it in Wikipedia will probably end up on the genus page ("Arnica" is a similar case).  I'm not sure what the solution is, except to perhaps include a single sentence along the lines of "Some species, e.g., T. occidentalis, are used in alternative medicine".  Hopefully that would guide users to the relevant article.  One last comment: "alternative medicine", "natural treatments", "herbal remedies", and "homeopathy" are not all synonymous and articles should be careful to distinguish between the various uses.  MrDarwin (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes down to it, this stuff is trivia.  Levine has been adding stuff to lots of articles about their use in homeopathy.  Now, think about what would happen if we listed every use to which a plant is put.  There's a book by Moermond (or something like that - I'm almost certain I've got the name wrong) which lists plants used by Native Americans.  Some plants, had hundreds of uses.  I wouldn't list them all in the species article, I wouldn't list them all in the genus article.  Only the stuff that's really notable.  Since homeopathy uses just about everything, saying "X is used as a homeopathic remedy" is trivia.  It belong in a list of homeopathic remedies, but not in the main articles unless it's really notable.  If Napoleon appears in a video game, we mention that in the video game article, not in the article about Napoleon.  In one context it's interesting information, in the other, it's a matter of giving undue weight to trivia.  Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  By that same logic we shouldn't include: the wood of Thuja plicata is commonly used for guitar soundboard here but rather include it in the guitar article. The same goes for the fences and poles information. But yet, I don't see the same editors out to remove every mention of homeopathy from Wikipedia removing information such as this. This is hypocritical. And I resent the claim you make about me above, Guettarda. I have not been adding stuff to lots of articles about their use in homeopathy. I have rather re-included information deleted by editors with the POV that homeopathy shouldn't never be mentioned on any article. I have done this on a total of 3 articles, though they have removed from many more articles. This is simply antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a collection of human knowledge. Again, personally I don't believe in homeopathy; however, I defend the principal that mentioning homeopathy on articles about certain genus or species of plants from which homeopathic remedies are made is completely in the scope and guidelines of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy is pseudoscience. Guitar making and fence pole construction are not pseudoscience. Therein lies the difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me a policy where the difference in treatment as exercised at this article between an alleged pseudoscience and something which is not is outlined. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not a Fringe viewpoint that Thuja is used as a homeopathic remedy. It is, however, a fringe viewpoint that Thuja provides an effective homeopathic remedy. See the difference? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since homeopaths routinely dilute Thuja so much that none of the plant is in the remedy used with Thuja on the label, it is a fringe viewpoint that thuja is a homeopathic remedy. There are no effective homeopathic remedies in existence, so that viewpoint is manifestly false like the viewpoint that the moon is made of green cheese. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I beg to differ. If there is a significant opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, I do not see that reason why not to mention that in the article about Moon. Actually, read Moon#Human_understanding in which it is presented that "In 1835, the Great Moon Hoax fooled some people into thinking that there were exotic animals living on the Moon." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How the Great Moon Hoax is handled on the moon page is a wholly different issue from how homeopathy should be handled on pages devoted to plants. After all, there is considerable mainstream, independent literature connecting the moon to the Great Moon Hoax. So far, no one has pointed to mainstream independent sources that connect Thuja to homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience is a good place to start. WP:FRINGE is another wonderful guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Thuja occ is used as a homeopathic remedy is not a Fringe or Pseudoscientific POV. That's all we are saying. If we were to say that Thuja occ is an effective remedy for such-and-such, then we would be making a fringe POV statement. As Jefffire correctly states below, "if it can be established from a reliable source that a major use of this particular genus is a particular purpose then its entirely appropriate to mention it." -- Levine2112 discuss 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Use" in homeopathy is a POV statement anyway.  Its only "existence" in the homeopathic "remedy" is in the form of "water memory".  You can't say that something that isn't present in a remedy is present in it.  Quite apart from the fringe issue, there's the factual accuracy issue.  No one is claiming that it's a component of the "remedy", but rather that a tiny amount of it is used in making the "remedy".  I'm sure they use glassware in preparing their dilutions.  Do they say that glass is "used in" homeopathic remedies?  Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jefffire, I would be curious about your thoughts on any of the 15 sources I enumerate on Talk:Deadly nightshade‎ satisfying as a reliable source that a major use of this particular genus is a particular purpose. These include clinical studies, other encyclopedias, published books, and newspaper articles. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such issues will be addressed on the relevant page. Jefffire (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I understand. And I am inviting you over there to comment. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that's what I was saying. Jefffire (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I added some info on thujone, one of the constituents in the volatile oil of thuja. If anyone wants to keep digging, some notes I have say it also contains fenchone, camphor, cineole, flavonoids (quercetin), tannins and immune stimulating polysaccharides. --travisthurston+ 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: I reverted Anton01's edit because it somehow broke the article (cut off the references section, and more). Feel free to reinsert it, but please use preview before saving changes. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anton01's edit 

message: I don't like the title of this article.  The article clearly states that the name of this tree is Arborvitae, not "Thuja".  Who calls it "Thuja"?  No one in the Arborvitae business, apparently.  What's the argument in favor this title?  I don't see it here on the talk page anywhere.  
I will change it if no one explains this.
Chrisrus (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expect in this, but it seems a matter of precision.  Thuja refers specifically to the genus.  Arborvitae, on the other hand, is more likely to refer to Chinese arborvitae or even a Russian Arborvitae than Western Redcedar.  When I hear arborvitae, I think Thuja occidentalis or maybe some hybrid but certainly not a redcedar.  I would leave the name as is, though maybe clarify ambiguity a bit. Bennetto (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not "Arborvitae"?