Talk:Ethnobotany

message: Hello all. Does anyone here know of the core texts on ethnobotany. Preferably the most up to date? Harristweed 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for sources

message: Does the study of alcohol production from one group to another fall under ethnobotany or would it be something else?
For instance different apples or pears used for cider/cidre, herbs used in liqueurs, fruit used for distillation, etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.14.18 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol Production 

message: Ethnobotany and ethnomedicine are certainly very interesting fields, especially considering the complexity of botanical knowledge "primitive cultures" had or still have (see Claude Levi-Strauss publications). Some of those plants indeed made it into modern pharmacy. However, there are very few effective drugs that were recently discovered through ethnobotanical research. Taxotere (or taxols) for example, one of the most effective natural products in cancer therapy had no ethnobotanical use. Certainly in the area of OTC drugs and dietary supplements many new medicinal plants have been introduced but so far the hit rate for effective drugs through ethnobotanical sources have been lower than expected. One of the major exceptions is maybe artemisinin from Artemisia annua (Qinghao) from TCM, which is now a very effective anti-malaria drug. So the relative failure of modern ethnobotany to find effective drugs is obvious. However, natural products are still important resources for drug discovery programs. The best sources for new drugs came undoubtedly from TCM (including huperzine), but even this acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor did not make into the final stages of drug development, and was abandoned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.227.104 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnobotany and drug discovery 

message: http://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/ise-ethics-program/code-of-ethics/  could add some ethics here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.65.77 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethics 

message: Article does not give me an impression of what the field is currently, what sorts of significant findings are made, and how these affect people. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better titled "History of Ethnobotany"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ethnobotany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160115230345/http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/projects/warmsprings/index.html to http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/projects/WarmSprings/index.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For anyone who is watching this page, I would like to explain the significant changes I have recently made to this article. As previously explained in my last post, many many many facts about the history of ethnobotany were directly copy and pasted from this source without any citation what so ever. I have removed every instance of plagiarism that I caught, but there could obviously be more so please keep your eyes open. Second, I have entirely re-written the "roots" section and re-named it "The History of Ethnobotony." It is by no means extensive, all inclusive, or in-depth, but it does give readers a brief and instanced-based history of the science. I have also re-written the introduction to eliminate another source of plagiarism from this source and give, what I believe, is a more accurate description of ethnobotany. The original definition described the science as a sort of ambiguous relationship between plants and humans; I believe my new definition enforces the nuance in that ethnobotany is one culture learning from another culture about its particular and unique local fauna and the practical application of that fauna. Finally, I added a host of new sources, added links to sources which previous did not have them, and eliminated some frivolous / dead link sources.
Thank you for your reading. If you have anything else you would like to discuss about the edits, I'd be happy to. 
Constantine III (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . eplantscience.com appears to be copying Wikipedia. Their article is dated 2012, but the text that is identical there and on Wikipedia was present in Wikipedia in 2011. Both articles had (until your recent edits) an extensive description of the journal Latin American and Caribbean Bulletin of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Wikipedia tends to accumulate overly detailed descriptions of subtopics of minor relevance; the shared text on this journal further indicates that Wikipedia is the source of the text on eplantscience. Thanks for your work on this article, but don't worry about plagiarism; Wikipedia is being plagiarized, not doing the plagiarism. Plantdrew (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining Significant Changes 

message: The references in the article seem to be from unbiased, reliable sources and the article itself is neutral in tone. However, the lack of citations in the middle and end of the article is concerning. Additionally, I think that some ideas are underrepresented and should be elaborated on, including but not limited to the "Issues" section. The link for the #4 reference is dead, and this citation is used for a quote early in the article.
Keldanie (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation

message: A strangely large portion of this page is dedicated to explaining the backgrounds of the cited authors, in particular Mark Plotkin (who, it might be noted, has more citations in this article than the "Medieval and Renaissance" and "The Age of Reason" sections combined. I'm also concerned about the usage of a YouTube video as a source in this article (the current source 19, "Howard, P. gender bias in ethnobotany" leads to a 2013 YouTube video).
Crenton (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of content