Talk:List of plants used in herbalism

message: Let's start a new section to make sure we're not stepping on each others toes.  Just start a subsection if you want to discuss it.  Orangemarlin 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of herbs to get consensus

message: Give me a few minutes on PMID.  Digitalis is like one of the original anti-arrhytmics out there.  I just need to find the best source!!!  Orangemarlin 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foxglove

message: To "List of plants used as medicine" which removes pov issues of effectiveness and gets ride of the only-herbs issue. JoshuaZ 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea, as the title makes no claim as to actual medicinal properties. --Salix alba (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Used as Medicine is ambiguous. It begs the question "used by whom?". Some readers may assume "by mainstream medicine." If it means by anyone, anywhere, anytime it borders on meaningless.I'd prefer a title that is not open to misinterpretation. Maybe "List of plants claimed to have medicinal value" Its a bit longer but it should be clear to anyone that a claim may be true or falseCayte 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a paragraph describing the criteria for inclusion? The article needs one in any case to describe the categories. ornis (t) 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested title change 

message: I don't understand what the 'Falsified pharmaceutical properties' and 'Unconfirmed pharmaceutical properties' columns would contain. Perhaps the table should use a standard EBM heirarchy like the following to convey the quality of evidence for each herb:
*Level A: consistent Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial, Cohort Study, All or None, Clinical Decision Rule validated in different populations. 
*Level B: consistent Retrospective Cohort, Exploratory Cohort, Ecological Study, Outcomes Research, Case-Control Study; or extrapolations from level A studies. 
*Level C: Case-series Study or extrapolations from level B studies 
*Level D: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or first principles 
If the quality of evidence is not known, they we could just record 'Level: unknown'. In my experience, it is almost always a mistake to say 'no evidence exists': it is always better to say that you havn't been able to find any. If we adopt a system like this, we would have to agree what 'Level' applies to historical 'tried and true' sources of information (King, Culpepper etc). I'm thinking they should be considered a "D".
206.47.252.66 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of evidence 

message: So, based upon this format that has been graciously handed down by marlin, are we to equate medicine and pharmacy as mutual and exclusive? that is to say, the way that categories have been drawn out makes it appear that the only medicine in the world that is existent or effective is that of pharmaceutical medicine. Wiki wiki1 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only medicine that can be said to be effective is that supported by scientific evidence, else efficacy is unknown or disconfirmed. Folk medicine is fine if you want to establish use, but not if you want to establish effectivness.JamesStewart7 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does science know that a given molecule comes from a plant and not a drug factory? Science knows no bounds: it can certainly be used to establish efficacy of folk medicine. 206.47.252.82 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific and pharmaceutical

message: The 'evidence' column of the table violates the no original research rule. It is one thing to provide references that show (or fail to show) efficacy of a given herb for a given indication. It is also alright to note that you havn't been able to find much evidence either way. It is not ok to pronounce a given indication 'confirmed' or 'denied'. This is the job of metea-analysis. A thourough, exhaustive search of all availible literature, with pooled statistical analysis, published in a peer reviewed journal may determine that a particular herbal indication is 'confirmed' or 'denied': a single wiki editor who may have only spent a half an hour googling the subject should avoid judging/analying the evidence in this way. The 'confirmed' and 'denied' statements are nothing more than unverified opinions of individual editors. Besides, such judgments lead to endless debate/argument over how individual studies 'should' be interpretted. I may interpret the literature as having 'denied' the cholesterol-lowering effect of Allium sativa, but another editor may see the literature as having 'confirmed' it. It will have to be enough to cite actual original research and then let the reader decide.
Naturstud (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation: 'No Original Reseach' 

message: Can someone explain why was the acute hepatitis source removed on this edit? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association of Konjac to acute hepatitis is not relevant? 

message: Whoever knows the latest status of the materials, please update the edition accordingly--222.64.29.57 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The column of Pharmacopoeial status has been added.... 

message: unless there are proper references (including images) cited in the wikispecies--222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not link wikispecies to the content of the article, other than the use in the section of external link 

message: with the following
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1999/9241545178.pdf
--222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a (long) comment on the Astragalus propinquus page concerning this. The WHO pamphlet is wrong. There are two choices here. We can talk about a "Radix astragali" as being from a single species, in which case, the scientific name is Astragalus mongholicus. We can talk about there being two (closely related) species, in which case they are A. mongholicus and A. propinquus.  We can not (by the rules of botanical nomenclature) use the name Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge as the WHO pamphlet does (A. propinquus is the "legal" name for this species).  For sources, you can use  for the two species position, or  for the single species position.192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The common name and synonyms of ''Astragalus membranaceus'' may need to be harmonized.... 

message: List of chemicals used as medicine has been added based on the info from Diethanolamine and its discussion page--222.64.29.135 (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of.... 

message: I'd recommend grouping to the malady that it treats.
A proposed divion is:
* Exterior antiseptic medicine (treatment of burns, skin infections, boils, ...)
* Treatment of mouth problems (tooth ache, Aphthous ulcers, ...) 
* Wound treatment and skin rehydration
* Ear treatment medicines
* Eye treatment medicines
* Treatment of respiratory problems
* Treatment of fever (colds, ...)
* Digestion relaxing medicines (stomach, intestins)
* Medicines promoting blood circulation (against clogged and or showing veins, headaches, ...)
* Plants hindering pain receptors (eg against headaches, pain of wounds, ...)
* Plants inducing sleep
* Medicines promoting detoxification (blood purification, sweat inducing plants, diuretics, ...)  
Note that wound treatment is on a different section than the treatment of skin infections, ... this is because the first is a oil/creamish substance (prone to attracting bacteria/infections) and the second is desinfectant alone (not prone to attracting bacteria but with slower skin regeneration properties). Respiration and fever may be combined but most plants work either on 1 of the 2, so perhaps this is best left as is. Headaches may be aleviated by 2 types of medicine, one working on the root cause and another simply disabling the pain receptors. 
Some references need to be found first, I made division based on the book "Bush food:Aboriginal food and herbal medicine by Jennifer Isaacs", and modified it based on own experiences/knowledge
The plant examples can be placed in section as examples, full List of plants used as medicine article need to be modified too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: plants used as medicine

message: This article contains extensive questionable entries without citation and without even an assertion that there is reliable support for them.  They are severely degrading the quality and reliability of the article, and should be removed unless support can be added.  Locke9k (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  refimprove 

message: How would the community collectively like to handle plants that are used in Ayurvedic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and other non-Western medical traditions? I made a start at it, by adding two such plants, and both were removed. Given that this article is intended to be a list of plants that are used medicinally, and that these plants unambiguously are, I'd think that they belong here. I think that they belong in Wikipedia, while avoiding entering into a debate on the merits of individual claims. If it is going to be required that there be citations that prove that the reasons for which these plants were or are used within folk medicine traditions are validated by modern medical research, then this list is going to be a non-starter.
Waitak (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those are covered on other lists; just link to those lists in "See also". 86.176.218.96 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problems with just linking to them is that (1) there would not then be a comprehensive list of medicinal plants, (2) most of those lists don't mention what the plants are used for and (3) (as Warden mentions below) lots of plants will be used in multiple medicinal traditions. I'm inclined to go for comprehensiveness here. Waitak (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants used in Ayurvedic medicine 

message: A recent edit revert claims that the reference connected to Digitalis supports the view that the plant is used and not just a pharmaceutical extract of it - but I cannot find this assertion in the article referenced. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll track it down one way or another and either make sure it's cited or revert it to refer to only the derivative. Waitak (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've rewritten the entry to distinguish between medicinal usage of the plant and subsequent usage of the drug derived from it. Waitak (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Digitalis''

message: I have taken the hint from the AFD closure and moved the article on the basis of the primary article being herbalism. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I think that this is the best of all of the alternative titles that have been proposed. Well done. Waitak (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BOLD]]ly moved 

message: I have this: Herbal Medicines, 3rd Edition, Joanne Barnes, Linda A Anderson, J David Phillipson, . Be warned that they are biased toward strictness and potential harm. Badanedwa (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnes Anderson Phillipson recommended 

message: These plants are listed on the basis of herbalism claims, not modern medicine. That is why this article is titled under the former and not the latter. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "used in medicine" 

message: When I went to this article, I expected a simple list, like the list of culinary herbs and spices. I didn't expect to see descriptions for each plant or references. A lot has been expected of this one article and it seems to me this only needs to be a list, and the articles for each individual plant can go into depth on the descriptions, usages, and references. 71.231.138.222 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  article seems more complex than necessary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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/20130814044945/http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/ashoka.html to http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/ashoka.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216030624/http://database.prota.org/ to http://database.prota.org/
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) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of plants used in herbalism. 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  tag to http://www.healthline.com/natstandardcontent/ladys-slipper
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130412154043/http://www.gurmans.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=21&lang=en to http://www.gurmans.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=21&lang=en
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) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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://archive.is/20130411215153/http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/kathalai.html to http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/kathalai.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080132/http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/pr/1302.htm to http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/pr/1302.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214070015/http://botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Digitalis/index.html to http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Digitalis/index.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130208205554/http://www.truestarhealth.com/Notes/2112000.html to http://www.truestarhealth.com/Notes/2112000.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403204445/http://www.puritan.com/vf/healthnotes/HN77/HN77_english/Herb/Eucalyptus.htm to http://www.puritan.com/vf/healthnotes/hn77/hn77_english/Herb/Eucalyptus.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.courant.com/hc-healthhomehealing.artjun12,0,6251385.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826122045/http://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs-2.2.4/index.php/alimentos/article/viewArticle/14033 to http://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs-2.2.4/index.php/alimentos/article/viewArticle/14033
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401220501/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Comfrey.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Comfrey.pdf
*Added  tag to http://nccih.nih.gov/health/cranberry/ataglance.htm
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) 12:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of plants used in herbalism. 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  tag to http://medplant.nmsu.edu/capsicum.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725234116/http://www.valplantes.ch/definition.html to http://www.valplantes.ch/definition.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715103303/http://www.thrases.com/natural-healing-herbs/ to http://www.thrases.com/natural-healing-herbs/
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) 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/khat_en
the article is in itself a reference  to khat’s chemistry and contains a list of references to other articles discussing khat Seán D. Middleton (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khat and Cathinone reference 

message: With this edit, I removed from the table primary research and altmed sources for the mislabeled column named "description". Objective, science-based sources would not identify many of the supposed medical uses as a description, but rather a purported use in herbalism practices. 
For an article about herbalism, the WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS sources should be objective reviews or summaries from reputable sources. As an example, although lab research and altmed quackery purport dietary garlic as an "antiobiotic", there is no reliable medical source to indicate such an implausible effect, and the NCCIH source doesn't even mention it.  The column heading should be "Purported effects" and the content revised, abbreviated and sourced to reflect statements in reliable - not altmed - sources. Zefr (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table - "description" and sources