Talk:Ruta

message: I sorted the list of species according to their names in English. To me, that seemed like the most logical approach considering that this is the name mentioned first, and also the intended names of the specific articles. It also has the benefit that the only species we currently cover, common rue, comes first in the list. This was reverted without any explanation. Is there a policy on this matter? In that case, could someone please point it out to me? / Alarm 16:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're alphabetised by scientific name - MPF 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this specific case or as a general rule? If there is a general rule to do so in lists in the article text (and not only in the taxonomy boxes), could you please point me to it? Also not that e.g. the list of citrus fruits at Citrus is alphabetised by English name (and does not even mention the scientific names). To me it seems incredibly counter-intuitive not to order a list by the first term mentioned on each line.  / Alarm 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any hard-and-fast rule either way, but generally, alphabetic by scientific makes more sense, as in many / most plant genera, English names simply do not exist for a lot of the species, or if they do, are contrived, invented for the sake of having them, even though in practice they're hardly ever used. This applies to the rue names; my books only give the scientific names, except for R. graveolens which is just given as 'Rue'. Citrus is a very different case, as there most of the names refer to cultivars and hybrids, not species; the three species in the genus are listed alphabetic by scientific name in the taxobox - MPF 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Then, I think it would look better to list the species in the taxobox with the scientific name first (as in the Citrus taxobox), and in the article text just skip the list and have something along the lines of "The most well-known species is the Common Rue". Would you agree with that? / Alarm 11:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, good idea - MPF 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It took some time, but now I've finally got around to doing this. Please check that it looks OK, since I'm not very familiar with taxoboxes. / Alarm 17:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting of the list of species

message: For some reason some vandalism regarding the Nintendo Wii was in this article.  Removed it.  DasGreggo 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism removed

message: I don't think this is appropriate for the article, but some might find it interesting. At the university where I used to work, one of the drugs we were developing was an immunosuppressant that was derived from a compound found in Rue (R. graveolens). The research was started based on anecdotal reports of people using tea made from Rue to reduce inflammation. From there, the active ingredient(s) was isolated and identified, and numerous derivations of the chemical were tested for potency and side-effects (mainly ex. situ but also in vivo). The drug we developed is thought to be primarily effective by blocking an ion channel found on white blood cells, by the way.
Please note that what I wrote above should NOT be taken as any sort of advice to drink tea made from Rue. The drug we've developed and are testing is not found in Rue, but is merely chemically related to a class of compounds found in it -- a lot of work has gone into making our drug both more potent and less toxic than the compounds found in Rue.
--DanHomerick 05:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rue as an anti-inflammatory

message: While there's a good case that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE mean that there should be no mention of this fringe use, including it at all under Medicinal uses requires balance per WP:NPOV#Balance and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, so I've added appropriate clarification. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Deadly nightshade. No adequate sources have been able to establish the prominence of homeopathy to these plants. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no such policy as 'Prominence', and there is no  consensus at Talk:Deadly nightshade to support your false assertions about this nonexistent policy.  Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing someone of making "false assertions" is very close to a personal attack. I once got in trouble for telling someone that they were lying. Just FYI. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have a independent, reliable source that shows that rue is commonly used as such, please show us. For example, maybe you have a record for the amount of Ruta sold at US pharmacies in comparison to more mainstream medications? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: I've protected this article to stop the tag-team edit war.  Please start a requests for comment or choose another method from dispute resolution to settle this.  An uninvolved administrator should review the history and feel free to place all the participants on editing restrictions, such as 1RR, per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman  Talk 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: I just found a mention of a Ruta fruticosa and there does not seem to be any mention of other species of ruta or even a plan to mention other species of ruta on this page.  Is it how it seems?
An aside: is one side writing about how to make attenuated doses from rue and the other side siding with Avogadro on this?  What a weird place to have a homeopathy edit war!!  Even when I was gardening, I did not consider making my own homeopathic doses of things.  And why rue?  When there is Apis and Lycopodium and so many other very much more interesting remedies -- bug the bug people! Heh.... -- </yawn> getting back to tales of climax and plant domination communities in Canary Islands carol (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgive me for interfering with an edit war, but

message: Mentioning in the article that there is a Ukrainian legend about it will make the reader question if red rues exist. It should be stated if they do or don't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynyfrik (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can it be red? 

message: I've heard that some people are much more sensitive than others - is particular, that white-skinned people are often more sensitive than Guatemalans, who hit branches of against their skin where they have hot baths. I couldn't find any references for these claims, and so only added a point about some being more sensitive than others. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photosensitivity and race 

message: Reference number 2 discusses a case of severe dermatitis caused by a combined exposure of skin to Rue  oil and Ultraviolet A radiation.
However the article refers to reference 2 at the end of the following sentence:
"Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal.[2]"
This reference is much more appropriate at the end of the previous sentence:
"Applied to the skin with sun exposure, the oil and leaves can cause blistering."
This means that currently the paper does not have a reference to the claim that "Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal." 
This is a very strong claim and as someone who really likes Rue, I would like to see a reference to this claim.  
Workers of the world, unite! (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no response to this I took the following -- "Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal" -- out of the article. If anyone knows of a real reference for this claim, by all means put the claim back in the article with a reference. Andrew Dalby 20:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad referencing