Talk:Aconitum

message: I moved the following from the main article, so it can be worked into the article without making the article so much ugly andy 08:18, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Materials removed

message: I'll just come out and say it right here: I'm a Pop Cult hater, the information presented here is both arbitrary in the extreme (how does Wolfsbane is the codename for Rahne Sinclair, a mutant with the ability to change into a wolf and an in between anthro-like stage do anything more than confuse?) and, like so much in Wikipedia, uncited, unreferenced and banal. Coming from a horticultural point of view, I'm glad to see that 13 year old boys who know nothing about plants except what appears in anime and video games have been given the editing reigns. After all, this article, as it stands right now, is not really all that useful for anyone looking for, perhaps, gardening or agriculture information. And there lies the whole damaging problem of Wikipedia in general and why putting energy into editing these monstrosities that get passed off as "encyclopedia" articles becomes more and more pointless as time goes on -- by insisting that anyone, at anytime, can add anything regardless of lack of citations, usefulness to the content and/or spell-checking, we create a world in which anyone who actually cares about the subject have to work three times harder: first getting down actual referenced information, second by fixing all the random, non-referenced chaos already there and then going back to playing babysitter/edit war as anyone who can find the on/off button on their computer can contribute. I'm not even talking about editors who battle over which edition of "Gardener's Guide to Wolfsbane" is more accurate, I'm talking about a system in which 75% of this entire article, as it stands right now, by Wiki's own guidelines, fails criteria to be included here, and yet by nuking the whole Popular Culture section from orbit (it's the only way to be sure) you get charged with vandalism. Life is short and it's shame the powers that be at Wikipedia seemed to have failed English Composition 101: the Research Paper, which means the rest of us are doomed to repetitively attach  to these articles, through all eternity. Perhaps this is where bad English Comp teachers go when they die? Duende-Poetry (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Rahne Sinclair" (whoever that is) example you give isn't "confusing".  Excessive popcult crap is objectionable, but not on that basis.  WP readers are not, mostly, imbecilic simpletons whose brains fall out when confronted by a reference to a fictional character or scenario in a piece heretofore factual.  That doesn't "confuse" them.  Popcult crap is objectionable because it's non-encyclopedic, fanwanky blather, like adding which My Little Pony is blue to the article about the color blue.  It doesn't serve our audience's interests in WP as a encyclopedia – a curated collection of notable knowledge, vs. a willy-nilly directory of random, meaningless trivia. That said, some pop culture references are actually meaningful and noteworthy. That such sections exist in some articles is not in and of itself an evil.  What pointless garbage gets added to them when they're not watched is the problem. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  14:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning Wiki's Blight: Uncited Popular Culture References

message: Can somebody verify that the therapeutics section is accurate? The writing sounds rather archaic, like some early 20th century medical texts I've seen quoted elsewhere. Examples: AFAIK, "neuralgia" is an obsolete term; one of the dosages is given in "minims", a fluid measure fifty years' dead; the word "anodyne" is used instead of "anaesthetic" or "analgesic".
The same seems to be true of the pharmacology and toxicology sections, and possibly even of the chemistry section, now that I look at it again.
At the very least, it should be noted that this is historical information that is of dubious value today.
:Please sign your comments.  There is a citation at the bottom of the article that information was incorporated from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'm guessing the sections you mention were taken verbatim.  This sort of thing is exactly why many people are arguing against the use of the 1911 EB as a source: because people are copying and pasting without possessing the knowledge or wisdom to know which info is still relevant and which is obsolete.  Historical information has its uses, but if the basic data about a topic isn't given primary focus, then the historical data is, as you say, meaningless.  Please make corrections as you see fit.  Be bold!  I'm placing a template to indicate that the article needs verification.  Canonblack 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody check the medical section? 

message: I am trying to determine the most current name for Aconitum delphinifolium or delphiniifolium. In this article it is listed as Aconitum delphinifolium but the subspecies are listed as delphiniifolium.
The PLANTS database lists it as delphiniifolium  but GRIN lists it as delphinifolium 
Open2universe 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name for species Aconitum delphinifolium or Aconitum delphiniifolium 

message: I corrected the link to the pictures of aconite plants. Old one wasn't working cause they had changed the database on that site. 121.247.54.35 07:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected a link 

message: With reference to this poem from The Wolfman:
:Even a man who is pure in heart 
:and says his prayers by night 
:may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms 
:and the autumn moon is bright.
When does the wolfbane bloom? No mention of this data in this article...Colin4C (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When does the Wolfbane Bloom? 

message: I have a feeling that the following may be a very subtle form of vandalism:
"The wolfsbane flower was used to identify supposed werewolves. If the flower cast a yellow shadow on the suspected shape-shifter's chin, the werewolf test was positive." (in the section Traditional Uses)
Either there's a very interesting bit of folklore here or a very subtly clever joke (I suspect a reader of John Hodgman).  If it's real, then I think something this strange needs a citation (and a story, please).  If not, then I'd like to see some other interesting contributions by this user.
On second look, it appears to have been added on July 15, 2008 by Petchboo, which was a user who's permabanned for having an undeclared extra account.  A hint maybe?  I think I'm going to remove this if no one objects soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not vandalism but looks like a stupid quotation of the movie Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed. The movie usage could have been inspired by a real traditional use or simply inspired by the name "wolfsbane", pretending the name came from plant's usage. Personally, I think that the name comes from the poisonous characteristic of the plant. It may involve real wolf like whatever eats it and got nothing to do with werewolf. I would delete it. Lacrymocéphale 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional Uses" 

message: From the ancient Gr. name of the same plants "akoniton", from the Gr. "akos" (medicine, therapy). From akos we have the "panacea" (pan-akeia) that literally means "therapy for everything".84.205.255.20 (talk)
Neither this etymology nor the one currently displayed on the article are correct. The word most certainly does not mean "without struggle" (perhaps someone confused it with a variant of agon?). Nor, however, does it come from "akos"; that derivation makes sense neither semantically (why call a poisonous plant "a little cure"?) nor morphologically (the "-os" of akos is part of the root, and hence we would not see a shift to "n" before the suffix). The authoritative Greek lexicon (Liddell, Scott, and Jones) lists the derivation as uncertain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.212.130 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology of "aconitum" is unknown. It is a latin word, which is derived from the greek "akoniton," but there are only guesses as to where this Greek word came from. One theory is that it comes from the Greek word "a," meaning "without" and "konis" meaning "dust," due to the rocky, soil-free areas where the plant was thought to grow. Even Pliny the Elder struggled with the etymology in his encyclopedia. He though it may have come from the word "akon" meaning "javelin" because the greeks often used it to poison the tips of them. He also suggested that the word may be derived frome "akonae" meaning "rocky" because of the rocky ground in which it was thought to grow. Pliny writes of these rocky areas, to quote, "which are called aconae, and for that reason some have given it the name of aconite, there being nothing near, not even dust, to give it nourishment." Pliny also suggested that the word may come from Greek port-city of Aconae. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be way more helpful if all of this were included in the article with source citations.  I'm unclear on why you would bother with this level of "quasi-sourcing", which must have taken quite some amount of research, just to make a point on the talk page, when that same work could have been used to notably improve the article.  NB: The information provided, unfortunately sketchily, by Zaereth directly contradicts the alleged 'without struggle' etymology presently in the article, which is unsourced. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  14:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my typical M/O to answer questions, of which I have prior knowledge, on talk pages. I have a photographic memory, so doing that is not difficult. At some point, I may actually decide to go through my sources, find where I got that info, and include it into the article. That's a little more time-consuming, so I am in no hurry to do so. I am very busy in real life, and only have about ten to fifteen minutes a day to work on Wikipedia. Therefore, I tend to work quite sporadically. Like every article I work on, I add a little bit here, and a little bit there, and the main reason I like to answer talk-page questions is because it helps me to organize my own thoughts. If the mood strikes me, at some point, I probably will add this info. However, I don't think etymology is extremely important for an encyclopedia, which are about things not words, so it's not the highest priority on my list. Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Going to add a section on Symbolism. Any contributions? ShermanCory (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: I came here looking for some specific information on this plant.  The first time I left, concluding there was nothing more than the "overview" and the list of species.  Thwarted, I looked around elsewhere, but eventually came back here, and only then did I find that the article did not end with the long list of species.  I'm sorry, but having that list take up the middle half of the article serves the reader extremely poorly, and I'm going to change it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you forgot to add "so nya-nya-nya". ;-)  You don't need to threaten to change things, just do it and use explanatory edit summaries. If your changes are useful, they'll stick. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look at the article history, you may notice that HuskyHuskie did change the article on the same day this comment was posted, and it looks a lot better. Zaereth (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: We need to better differentiate the genuinely medicinal uses (i.e., those supported by actual medical science, via the scientific method of repeatable experimentation reported in peer-reviewed publications and subject to verification) from those of traditional and folkloric practice.  While it is politically correct to refer to ayurveda as "medicinal", we cannot commingle Western science and traditional practices in the same section as if they are equivalent and equally supported by reliable sources.  They need to be clearly separated.  Does anyone have any particular ideas about how to do this in a sensitive way?  The point would not be to denigrate traditional medicine, but prevent confusion that naturally results from "medicine" (and derived forms like "medicinal") being used in radically different ways. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  14:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was originally titled "Traditional uses." Back sometime in early January, Lenticel changed it to "Traditional and modern medicinal uses" and from there it morphed several times into what it is now. I agree with you. Perhaps the easiest way would be to revert back to one of the earlier headings. Another way, which is a bit more complicated, would be to divide them into two distinct sections. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicinal vs. traditional uses 

message: have I referred to it correctly? Osborne 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me. If not, someone will eventually come along and reformat it. (An improperly formatted reference is better than no reference at all.) All the relevant information seems to be there, so thanks for your help. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref to:  Reader's Digest

message: "Toxins extracted from the plant were historically used to kill wolves" "Historically"? Really? Doubtful if a potion of aconite ever actually killed a wolf, --bane being a common enough suffix for various toxic herbs and forbs: henbane, fleabane etc etc. No doubt the cited source does make this unconsidered assertion, but a more reasonable explanation of wolfbane would be : "The name arose because the plant was considered toxic enough to kill a wolf."--Wetman (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "wolfsbane" is a translation of the Greek name lykotonon. It was first used in the 1540s in medieval England, but was called that long before by the Greeks an d Romans. Depending on location, it is also calld badger's bane, bear bane, and a whole slew of other names. I don't doubt the sources, because it is a very common and effective poison which can be delivered in a number of ways, and killing predators was a common practice in ancient times (until very recently). The poison can be used in arrows and lances, or simply stuffed into a piece of meat and left for a predator to find. It is quite likely that the herb may have been used for just that, especially in ancient Europe. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm listening to the audio version of Rabid: a Cultural History of the World's Most Diabolical Virus by Bill Wasik that details the history of the rabies virus. The author mentions that the symptoms of Aconitum poisoning is similar to those of rabies, so ancient Greeks may have named wofsbane after the fact that so many dogs & wolves were infected with the virus. The exact quote is: "As the veterinary historian John Blaisdell has noted, symptoms of aconite poisoning in humans bear some passing similarity to those of rabies: they can include frothy saliva, impaired vision, vertigo, and finally a coma. It is not improbable that some ancient Greeks would have believed that this poison, mythically born of Cerberus's lips, was literally the same as that to be found inside the mouth of a rabid dog." --Hal3ko (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historic" wolf-killing? 

message: I removed the part in the Cultural significance section that said the character Kabuto from the manga Naruto was named after the Japanese name of the flower. As you can read in the chapter 582 of the manga he was named after the Japanese war helmet called kabuto, not the flower.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.34.224.118 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Naruto

message: No one has, as far as I can tell, made the effort to make a species gallery or anything that can be easily used to source the color range section. I have extensively researched Aconitum so the information I posted is accurate. However, sourcing it is certainly a challenge. Everyone likes to talk about how poisonous they are and where they grow but will lazily refer to them as "blue" half the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.137.121 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color range source issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aconitum. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20180101135309/https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/109955/i-Aconitum-i-Stainless-Steel/Details to https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/109955/i-Aconitum-i-Stainless-Steel/Details
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115224941/http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Aconitum+chinense to http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Aconitum+chinense
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Would someone be willing to fill in the missing species information and also check to see if the list contains all of the award-winning hybrids? I may do this eventually but currently lack the time. A cultivar is not a hybrid. A cultivar is the straight species, where one of its members displays some unusual trait(s). As I understand it, all of those in the list are hybrids, not cultivars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.137 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection confused hybrid with cultivar, still missing species information 

message: If, as the Talk section front material suggests, this is an important plant article, then there should be some oversight that stops the steady influx of edits presented without citation, which for that reason and otherwise, generally flaunt WP:VERIFY and WP:OR.
This goes beyond the earlier plagiarism of the 1911 EB in the medical section, discussed above, and is likely even more pervasive than the currect section and article tags suggests. (Every citation we checked was poorly presented or extracted, suggesting that sourcing is being done post hoc, finding a near enough source, and then affixing it without editing the sentence to reflect the actual source content.)
In particular, an entire section's worth of literary and pop culture material was errantly tacked on to Taxonomy, the vast majority as unsourced single statements, all of which are now called out. 
Registered editors, please feel free to do the bold editing, to remove much of it (which I do not do, to avoid being seen as a vandal). Cheers. 98.206.14.11 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Please begin to monotor this article for compliance with WP policies and guidelines

message: As I haven't the skill to do this, I'd ask that the bulk of the above, prior to a certain date and/or inactive, be placed in archive, so attention is given to current, ongoing discussions. Cheers. 98.206.14.11 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Please archive inactive Talk sections