Talk:Atropa belladonna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slashdot; science vs pedagogy

NB: If we can be Slashdotted, maybe they can be Wikified. Anyway, Slashdot has an item from an AAAS conference; here some quotes:

We're all familiar with news talk shows where two individuals, both with impressive credentials, argue for completely incompatible positions. Unfortunately, these sorts of arguments aren't limited to social or political issues, but have increasingly extended into the scientific and medical realms. Aside from providing an indication that you can find someone with an M.D. or Ph.D. that's willing to say nearly anything (see infomercials for further evidence), these disagreements are likely to leave the public confused over where to find credible scientific information...

...The importance of quality information was driven home by a recent study that revealed a tendency for false or misleading information regarding breast cancer to appear on web sites devoted to alternative medicine. So, how is the public supposed to identify quality scientific information? The recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting included a session devoted to understanding how the public receives and evaluates scientific information...

the conclusion later is the novel part:

The clear message of the session was that a command of facts is never going to be good enough to convince most segments of the public, whether they're parents or Congress. How the information is conveyed can matter more than its content, and different forms of communication may be necessary for different audiences. As became clear in the ensuing discussion, most of the public act as consumers of information, with journalists acting as middlemen. To connect with the public, scientists have to work with the press to ensure that two things happen. Reporters have to overcome their ingrained aversion to the uncertainties of science, and have to avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance that's addressed via material from crackpots with credentials.

I want "scientists" (here, the Pro-Science camp) to work with "journalists" (here, general editors, some of whom may have various aversions). We're not doing that right now. I think ScienceApologist (for example) would be completely on board with "avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance" but might benefit from introspection regarding the "how the information is conveyed can matter more than it's content". Pete St.John (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And what can Anthon01 benefit from? Or Levine2112? Or yourself? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The take-away for me was the point I meant to concede, "avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance"; where I said "I think SA would be on board..."? That part seemed, to me, to enunciate your own view. You could have written it. So a discussion at the AAAS confirms the trend you have been trying to identify and resist. Right? But they also make a point that it's not good enough (for the purpose of diseminating information to the public) to get the facts right. It's necessary to convey; we, as scientists, are to help the "press" overcome aversions, as well as undue weight. Reaching a consensus about the wording in the article would be a victory for all of us. That doesn't mean we have to pander to fraud; it means we have to acknowledge pedagogy as a motive, as well as facts. Let's help the science-deprived overcome their aversions, as burying them would be too much work. Plus Anthon plays chess, which you don't. Pete St.John (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't play chess? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to trick you into admitting you do, then I could crush you like a bug. But you out-smarted me once again; how humiliating, for a chessplayer. Meanwhile, what do you think of the pertinence of pedagogy to consensus, as I construe from the AAAS material? 1. e4. Pete St.John (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While pedagogy is the reason I am here, Wikipedia's function is not to teach but to report. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting is conveying the truth; nearly a synonym for teaching. If pedagogy were irrelevant, the New York Times would publish lists of facts instead of sentences. A good text book has the facts, but also the words to convey them effectively. Neither textbooks nor encyclopedias are handbooks. Pete St.John (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all journalists are teachers. Not all teachers are journalists. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I concede that journalism and education are not logically equivalent. I believe the encyclopedia is definitely and putatively educational, and that good pedagogy is necessary to both (responsible) journalism and (effective) education, anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You might want to run that by WP:ENC. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote: [a]n encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. Note that "information" denotes "truth" (false statements aren't information in the journalistic sense, but disinformation) and "convey" denotes moving the information so as to be received (e.g. if the text were in undecipherable code, it would not be conveyed, because the information would not be received). The AAAS item suggests that conveyance of information requires pedagogy (as I interpret "how the information is conveyed can be more important than the content"). Pete St.John (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

People on both sides disagree with me; I must perfoce be the biggest fool here :-) Anyway, it might seem that WP:ENC contradicts WP:V. I would suggest the solution is that verification (that is, citing sources; not literal verification which, in fact, literally means establishing truth, from the latin veritas)-- that verification is the process we use, as a practical matter, to establish truth. Just as "no reasonable doubt", "precedent", etc pertain to the Jury determining truth (and possibly getting a different result than a scientist would). The Content Preceeds the Policies. Our aim is promulgating truth, and the purpose of the policies is to enable us to pursue that effectively. In particular, I think we as contributors should seek verifications for truths. We can believe the truth for any reason we like (e.g. Received Inspiration) but that is just motivation for us to seek the verifications, the reliable sources. Pete St.John (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also from WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. So, in essence, "verification" is not to show a values judgment on content - it's not to show if the information in truthful - but rather to show that the information exists on a reliable source. So to bring this back to the article and topic at hand, the information about Deadly Nightshade's use in homeopathy has been verified to exist by the Oxford Book and by MedlinePlus. What's more, no one is arguing that the information is false. Even those against inclusion agree that Deadly nightshade is used in the preparation of specific homeopathic remedies and that such remedies aren't backed by any science. So, WP:V is completely met here. I don't think that is the hang-up ScienceApologist has with inclusion. Rather, he feels that inclusion somehow violates WP:NPOV (or more specifically WP:UNDUE). However, he nor anyone else has been able to pinpoint any part of that policy which would prohibit inclusion. SA maintains that in order to include information about the homeopathic usage of a plant in an article about that plant, one must provide a source which shows that homeopathy is "prominent" to the plant. For some time now, I have asked for a quote from NPOV which supports this rationale and still none has been given. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Sure Levine, it's UNDUE, and we've gotten nowhere there. I argued that pertinence is pertinent (in that water, sulpher thing), where I wasn't able to get you to concede anything; and I've argued for pedagogy, that while the reference (to homeopathy) is not required it's acceptable (since it's referenced, and belladonna has lots of merely interesting bits, and the suggested references were pretty modest), but SA won't concede a point either. Seems hopeless to me, frankly. In short: it's weak material (I agree with SA) but it's not flatly irrelevant (I disagree with SA), not because homeopathy is good science, but because homeopathy is a real and significant social and political process. Homeopathy is real even if the principles of homeopathy are hokum. It's impossible to acheive consensus without common ground, that is, people agreeing to things, on which they can build with logic. I have no clue for progress, myself, but I'm glad that at least here, we aren't calling each other names. Except, of course, that SA is a closet patzer :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do you one better, Pete. I'll concede that homeopathy may be relevant to this page if anyone gives me a source that asserts a prominent relevance. I actually have no opinion on whether homeopathy is irrelevant to this plant or not. All I will say is that it is certainly possible that it is relevant, but no one has provided evidence to this effect that satisfies the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter, If it is any consolation, I completely agree with you in that homeopathy is a real and significant social and political process even if its principles are hokum. So there is some common ground. As you may know, I am not a believer in homeopathy. I am a scientific skeptic and frankly the science which would support homeopathy's effectiveness hasn't convinced me yet. However, I do recognize that a huge amount of people do use homeopathy (we are talking about hundreds of millions of people around the world!) and thus factual and verified information about homeopathy can be entirely relevant to subjects such as Deadly nightshade. For instance, let's say that there was a major world religion (100 million faithful worldwide) and that in this hypothetical religion they regularly burned incense made from Deadly nightshade as one of their prayer rituals to cleanse the soul. Even though there is no scientific evidence that burning this incense does cleanse souls, wouldn't the inclusion of such material be of notable interest to this article? Especially if the fact that this ritual exists was detailed in several reliable sources?

SA, can you quote "the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT" you allude to which warrants that a source is need to assert a prominent relevance? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous section. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous section is rather huge with lots of tangents. Can you just make things simple please and provide here a quote "the stringent requirements delineated at WP:WEIGHT" you allude to which warrants that a source is need to assert a prominent relevance? Please keep in mind that the use of the homeopathic remedy made from Deadly nightshade is not a viewpoint but a fact; while a statement saying that such a remedy is either effective or not is a viewpoint. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look for the cquotes. They're impossible to miss. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all of those apply to "viewpoints". As we all agree on, we are not dealing with any viewpoints here other than the scientific mainstream which view belladonnic homeopathy as ineffective. Otherwise, we are dealing with non-viewpoints. As a reminder, here is the text we would like to include: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. Is there a minority viewpoint there which you feel is given too much weight? If so, what? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While we wait for your answer, please be aware that I have posted a request for clarification at the newly created NPOV Noticeboard. I would like to see if we can get some neutral opinions from some experts there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they also apply to things other than viewpoints. It says so explicitly in WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints" and even User:Dlabtot had to admit that I was correct in this regard. You really do need to reread the policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I get that. We are to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. I maintain that the Medline and Oxford Book sources demonstrate an amount of significance warranting inclusion of the one sentence. I think the difference in our opinions comes down to you requiring a source which explicitly quantifies its significance to Deadly Nightshade; whereas I see that prominence is established by mere mention in reliable source (and with that mention, we are able to determine just how much weight we give the subject). Is the difference in our opinion accurate as I have stated it to be? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that specific "quantification" of significance is necessary. I only want an assertion of significance (that is, beyond the anecdotal). Mere mention is not enough for my editorial tastes. If the connected idea really is that significant to the subject of the article as the people arguing for inclusion say it is, they should be able to find a source that firmly establishes the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. Fair enough? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sources already provided establish this prominence. BTW, I am NOT saying that the homeopathic use is EXTREMELY prominent to deadly nightshade, but rather prominent enough to give a mere mention in a singular sentence. If it were extremely prominent, I may be thinking it deserves a paragraph or a subsection or an article of its own. I don't think it is all that prominent to mete out that much weight to it. However, given the multitude of mentions in sources such as the Oxford Book of Health Food and MedlinePlus, certainly prominence enough for a one sentence mention has been established. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard should be higher for fringe subjects than other trivia. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems fair to me to reduce fringe wrt trivia. However, if we agree that it's a matter of degree, perhaps some brief sentence would be sufficiently mutually acceptable, so that we could dispose of one article? We agree that all competitors have the endurance and fortitude to not give in to mere obstinacy, so one of us could make a small concession without appearing weak :-) Pete St.John (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not objection in principle to a sentence as long as someone shows me a source which indicates that homeopathy is prominent with respect to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Answers.com gives about a third of it's material to medical uses, and maybe half of that is roughly homeopathic. This may be an example of where a small (less than dangerous) dose is measurably beneficial (as opposed to, obliterative dilution for mystical reasons). So I'm just pointing out that a competing encyclopedia gives it more than brief mention, in the article on belladonna. So I'd consider something like: "Belladonna, while dangerously toxic, may have medical application in small doses, and is used in homeopathy" with links. Pete St.John (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just removed two external links per WP:EL Links normally to be avoided. They were fairly obvious I believe. Another one is borderline so I am asking for comment if this one should be removed or not:

• Erowid - Belladonna Information (on recreational uses)
  

Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is very important to leave the erowid link intact. It is a non-profit site that provides the only information on the web from people who have ingested this herb in order to trip ballz, to contact plant spirits for neoshamanic reasons, or who have incorporated it into a witch's flying ointment. It is the real deal and very much worth reading for people who are entertaining even the slightest notion of ingesting belladonna. I regularly point people to it.[[Harry53 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Harry Roth]]

I'll second that point on the Erowid page. Erowid is a good resource for balanced information in a culture that really dislikes balanced information about drug use, and it's a source that could save the life of someone foolish and impulsive enough to actually try belladonna on their own. --Ludwigs2 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Added links to recreational and use in tea

I removed the citation needed twice under where it talks about recreational use and use in tea. I hope this is ok. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One of those sources was SPAM - known as a "doorway page" - basically a search engine optimization tactic where as page is made that looks like a resource but actually contains ecommerce type links. (You also did something weird in your edit where the ref was made into a section header.) The other source I have left; however, it is from a homeopathic website, so I am unsure whether it will fly as a WP:RS here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see the discussion above when I added these links, feel free to revert if I did a no-no. Sorry again everyone.--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, revert if it is incorrect, I have no problems with being reverted. As for your other comments, I'm sorry I don't understand. As for the section header, I didn't catch it and obvious I didn't mean to do that so thanks for the fix. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at this header and I didn't go anywhere near this paragraph never mind make the header. I guess someone else did but I don't see that I did it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Going through history I found it here [1] Apparently it's been here awhile. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what that diff shows, but know that the header which you added contained a link to a spam source. Thus I removed it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity section problems

While looking for sources I found a lot of material was plagiarized from here needs a rewrite. Ward20 (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading further, a lot of the article is lifted from this source. Ward20 (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't love a manufacturer in India as a source anyway, as the pertinent regulatory mechanisms are unfamiliar and manufacturers are selling, not teaching. I'd prefer sourcing academic botany and pharmacology materials if we could find it. Pete St.John (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, at this point we have an article with major portions plagiarized verbatim from a commercial website with no references. Then in contrast, all this effort over a minor content issue (but a major POV issue) that may be causing editors to avoid this article like the plague... is frustrating. As the saying goes, what a way to build run a railroad. Ward20 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsection significance, pertinence, relevance

Just for ease of editting I made this subsection.

I want to emphasize the assymmetry here: there is an important difference between the pertinence of belladonna to homeopathy, and the pertinence of homeopathy to belladonna. We agree (or anyway accept) that belladonna is pertinent to homeopathy, as a major ingredient. The question is whether homeopathy is sufficiently pertinent to belladonna, to merit mention in this article. If L will agree that it's somewhat a matter of degree (as in, sulpher is sufficiently pertinent to egging houses --because sulher dioxide provides the desired noxious smell-- but egging houses is not pertinent to sulpher-- because sulpher has zillions of applications and egging houses is a trivial one), then we can address the specific question, is homeopathy sufficiently pertinent to belladonna? Merely agreeing to that question as a guide would be progress, IMO.

And P.S.; the above from L, "...I am not a believer in homeopathy..." --and no, I didn't know-- surprised me. For the first couple sentences I thought SA was writing and it just about brought a tear to my eye that he would be so kind :-) but it amazes me that we can be so close on so much but otherwise want to strangle each other. I think we should have a group hug, and then go strangle Spoa (permute cyclically). Pete St.John (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that your "egging a house" analogy applies as directly as the "Water + Sulfur (the ingredient) = Sulfuric Acid (the result)" analogy. Here we recognize that the ingredient probably won't be mentioned in the Water article, and Water may or may not be mentioned in the ingredient's article. However, the result will more than likely be mentioned in the ingredients article (IOW, Sulfuric Acid is more than likely mentioned in the article on Sulfur, just a the homeopathic belladonna remedy should be mention in the article about belladonna).

I am glad that you recognize that I don't believe in homeopathy. I have stated this multiple times. Please know that I am not trying to promote a pseudoscience or push some anti-science POV. To the contrary, I want to include the fact that science does not support the homeopathic use of belladonna. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

L, I've always thought you were working for consensus, I'm glad that we are even more on the same side, but there is good (hidden, obfuscated) in homeopathy. So you don't need to be non-pro-homeopathy (I would, however, insist that we all be pro-anti-anti-consensus! :-) I even agree that water+sulpher was a bit better than the egg-house but you had (as far as I could see) passed on conceding that point, but you're making plain now that you endorse the assymmetry concept. So the question is: does homeopathy sufficiently pertain to belladonna?

Pro: many plant articles mention (and should) medicinal uses. I was able to learn about the putatively "homeopathic" palliative for nicotine addicts "Smoke-Ease" by looking up its list of ingredients (once I found them!), e.g. Passion Flower (which has anti-depressant properties), Skullcap (sedative), etc. It's easy to see that the accumulative effect of the ingredients could be amelioration of the anxiety that accompanies nicotine withdrawal; also expectorants (the first week of tobacco withdrawal includes cold-like symptoms). But none of that is particularly homeopathic; since the ingredients are plants, it's maybe USDA but not FDA. It probably can't legally be marketted as a medicine in just this form; so it's cheaper this way. I'm sympathetic with people sacrificing the safety (and expense) of FDA approval of pharmaceuticals to get cheaper "all natural" remedies. The differences are marketting and law, and have nothing to do with homeopathic principles in se, e.g. dilution to zero (which is hokum but still not obvious). So I'd certainly favor a broader approach to homeopathy (as comprising something more complex, and not always mere hokum, than just the tradional theo-philosophical principles) and in particular, I'd favor mention of (even "homeopathic remedy") medicinal uses of those plants, they add to the importance of the plant.

Con: Belladonna is dangerously toxic and shouldn't be promoted as a medical thing without darn good reason. Its use in dilution-to-zero is not very meaningful and doesn't pertain to the plant much IMO.

My sense is that it could go either way. Any solution without rancor is progress to me. Pete St.John (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sulfuric acid? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an allusion to further up; the article on sulphuric acid mentions water (as an ingredient) but the article on water doesn't mention sulphuric acid. Example of "relevance" as directional; so homeopathy should mention belladonna, but maybe belladonna need not mention homeopathy. Pete St.John (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is folkloric use of belladonna relevant to belladonna? Yes. Yet those who have used belladonna in a folkloric way are a much tinier minority than those who use it homeopathically. Belladonna is a major homeopathic remedy that is widely sold. If allopathic remedies including belladonna are to be mentioned in an article about belladonna, then homeopathic uses (and if anyone wants to write them up, other modalities) should be included as well. This is not an allopathic encyclopedia. I should make clear that I don't even believe in homeopathy, but it is plain to me that if we are going to discuss belladonna's medicinal uses, then its use in homepathy should be included. Either that or remove all medicinal uses of belladonna from this article. I notice that for all the enormous wisdom about the allopathic uses of belladonna in this article, no one has felt the need to mention the widespread use of belladonna as a pain-killing plaster available over the counter in the US until the 1960s.[[Harry53 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Harry Roth]]

Homeopathic use

Per the discussions here, there is much more agreement to include the homeopathic use then to not include it. Many more editors agree that the inclusion does not in anyway cause NPOV issues and the sources are more than adequate to establish prominence. Please stop removing against consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what that discussion says. And have you now accepted SA's standard of prominence? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, that discussion closed with a comment by you, where you asked "So where do we stand. Can we add the phrase (or some amalgamation suggested above) to the article without violating WP:NPOV?" No one responded; as often happens on WP, the discussion simply died out, rather than coming to a consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the question is "no". I'll also point out that this is happening. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Levine claim there was a consensus? That's not how I understood him. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I did use "consensus". Perhaps I should have said that the "vast majority" of editors as - if it were a vote - it was approx. 14 editors in favor of including the statement in some form or another and only 3 vehemently opposed to inclusion in any way, shape or form. Of those who were opposed (2 of which are editors in this current discussion), they gave very little reasoning why it violated WEIGHT or NPOV in general. And of the arguments given, I believe that they had been summarily negated at the noticeboard. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that the vast majority of editors responding to the discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard believed that inclusion of this specific phrasing does not violated NPOV? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a meaningful discussion since it was railroaded by the involved editors. WP:CONEXCEPT and all that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which of the four items under WP:CONEXCEPT do you think applies here? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The third. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I don't see how that is applicable here. There was no consensus at the earlier discussion, so I don't see how it could be even conceivable that it automatically override a consensus on a wider scale. Perhaps I can follow you if you explain what the "consensus on a wider scale" is in this case. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The "wider scale" is that WP:WEIGHT is a policy. People arguing that this policy doesn't apply because there is consensus that it doesn't apply seem to be missing the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as if by "people" you mean Levine. And I thought he was arguing that the proposal to mention homeopathy in this article passes the WP:WEIGHT test according to the opinions of the majority of the numerous editors who participated in an extensive discussion under the title "Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV?" Either I am getting something fundamentally wrong, or you are building a strawman here. Do you agree that WP:GAME applies to you as well, not just to your opponents? I think it might be more constructive to get into a discussion on the merits, or to start looking at that old discussion in detail to see if Levine counted correctly. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am arguing that given the high quality sources cited, the version(s) I have attempted to include fully meets WP:WEIGHT; and further, does not violate any other part of WP:NPOV. I took the matter to the noticeboard and the vast majority of editors agreed with me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More noise and no substance. There is no argument. Homeopathic use of this plant is prohibitively minor in comparison to its other uses. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you have never presented any sources to back up said opinion (Talk about "no substance" and a lot of "noise"). However, many sources have been presented which adequately demonstrate WP:WEIGHT. With the two sources currently being used (Medline Plus and the Oxford University book), certainly the proposed one sentence merits inclusion. And that's not just my opinion of NPOV policy; that is the expressed opinion of a dominant majority of editors at NPOV/N. I believe the most substantive thing that could be argued now is either against the sources per WP:RS (good luck!) or some other policy which one feels is being violated by inclusion of this text. Because as of now, an "NPOV violation" line of reasoning holds absolutely no water and all that seems to be left is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself from the previous discussion:

"For a Google search for "belladonna 6X" I get 70,000 hits. In German it would be "Belladonna D6", which gets 30,000 hits. In comparison, Paracetamol gets 3,6 million hits, i.e. only 36 times as many. I think this indicates that homeopathic use of belladonna is significant to the point where it would be strange not to mention it in the article. (It also shows that the "no molecules left" argument is a red herring here because 6X is a dilution of 1:1 million, which doesn't get at all near the Avogadro constant)."

ScienceApologist, I think you haven't replied to this yet, neither has anybody else explained why I was wrong. Would you mind doing it now? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Without stating my own opinion, your google research is severly flawed, if you google for acetaminophen (what we call it in the US), you get 6.6 million estimated hits. If you google for Tylenol, the brand name, you get 7.9 million estimated hits. While your estiamted hits for beladona 6x is 70,000, the actual hit count is 741 [2]. All of the other search terms cap-out. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent explanation. I had no idea that I wasn't using a universally used name for the substance, and I agree that my hit count was severely flawed.

As to the estimated hit count being inferior to what you get by clicking down to the last hit, until a few weeks ago I believed that as well. But then I realised that the "actual hit count" seems to be about the same for practically all search terms. E.g. I just got 940 hits for George, 655 for Bush, 698 for George Bush (more than for Bush!) and 733 for "George Bush" (even more!). This clearly shows that they are doing some optimisations and offer only about 600-1000 hits for each search term, often resulting in less available hits for search terms that appear on a lot more pages. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can determine if the search is capped by adding in non-trival closely related search terms (like you did for George Bush, above) and see if the result goes up or down. If it goes up, the search has "capped" at 999, and then filtered down to the displayed result. It it goes down or remains unchanged, you likley have the "accurate" google number. Also, be sure to turn off the automated filtering of related sites. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! --Hans Adler (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that Google Search results are valid here, but if you are going to look up a name-brand acetaminophen such as Tylenol, you may also want to do the same for Belladonna. I did some research and found one such brand - Boiron. A search for "Boiron Belladonna" yielded search results of approximately 23,500. A search for "Belladonna 6x" yielded 84,400 results. Now no one is going to claim that Belladonna is even in the same league of usage as acetaminophen, but clearly there is a significant amount of usage/sales of Belladonna to put the kibosh on the "no one uses or sells it, therefore it is not significant" line of argumentation against inclusion here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advise individauls to stop going down the google search route. "incoming links." PouponOnToast (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So, how do we determine Weight? Well, by the sources of course and how they treat the information. Now then, there are two sources on the table - the Medline Plus page on Deadly Nightshade and the Deadly nightshade information page in the Oxford University Press book. Both discuss the homeopathic usage of Belladonna enough to establish that a mere sentence in this article does not violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Medline Plus webpage is not a reliable source for plants. The OUP book does not address the WP:PROMINENCE of homeopathy to uses of this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep arguing those two points but no one agrees with that line of reasoning. Take Medline Plus to RSN and see what they say there. We already took both it and OUP to NPOVN and the vast majority sees no NPOV issues with using either source as citations for the proposed text, so your self-created WP:PROMINENCE issue hold no water. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At my local pharmacy, roughly 400 homeopathic remedies are offered including this one. I'm sure someone has used each one of them. That doesn't mean that we should be talking about homeopathic uses for all 400 of those substances at Wikipedia. Remember WP:ENC. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a valid line of reasoning to include or exclude information from this article. We have to look to the reliable sources: Medline Plus and Oxford University Press. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Find a source which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The two sources we are discussing do exactly that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. One is not reliable and the other doesn't assert the prominence of homeopathy to the plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are both reliable (if you disagree, feel free to take it to RSN) and they both assert "prominence" of homeopathy to the plant in that in these reliable sources which address the plant, homeopathy is dealt with proportionately to how it has been proposed to be dealt with here - a mere sentence. WP:PROMINENCE is a redirect which you yourself created in this argument, but it resolves to WP:NPOV and according to the NPOV/N, the vast majority of editors disagree with you that there is any NPOV issues. IOW, both of your arguments have been summarily defeated. I truly believe that this comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue for you. If that is the case, please consider getting over it. If that is not the case, please provide some other policy rationale for exclusion. At this point, I don't see any reasonable justification for keeping this information out of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inability to provide a reliable source that asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant means we will continue to excise it from the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can agree with Levine's argument, even though personally I think mentioning homeopathy is probably warranted here. However, it appears to me that you are stonewalling by refusing to accept the fact that the two of you are caught in a reasonable difference of opinion, and that you are continuing to just not respond to Levine's arguments. Very bad form, in my opinion, and quite uncool. I am a bit concerned about your attempts to defend science in such an undignified manner. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending "science", I'm defending the integrity of sourcing. We currently have a beautiful page List of homeopathic remedies where we list all of the stuff. But per the principle of one-way linking we are supposed to list homeopathic remedies on the pages of devoted to the "stuff" only when the remedy is prominent with regards to common uses of the stuff. Levine has been unable to come up with ANY source which discusses how much belladonna is used in homeopathic preparations and how this compares to other cultivated uses for this. He has been unable to find ANY source that asserts that most people know about this plant through homeopathy (or, indeed, that ANYBODY knows about this plant primarily because of homeopathy). All Levine has is an anecdotal reference in a handbook and a website that parrots homeopathic sources and so is not reliable for our purposes here (since homeopaths really don't know anything about plants). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First, "the principle of one-way linking" is your made-up policy so it doesn't oblige us to do anything so I find it highly disingenuous of you to say that "per" this fictional policy "we are supposed to" do anything. Second, there is no rationale in actual Wikipedia policy which obliges anyone to jump through the kind of hoops you are putting out here. I mean, this article has a pretty robust section entitled Belladonna in the Media. Must we therefore assert how many people have listened to Daniel Lanois' album Belladonna to merit this factoid's inclusion. My opinion (like yours) is that Homeopathy is bunk, but I also think the movie "Practical Magic" was pretty ass-y as well. Does that mean we should take that out too because I don't like it? Under #Medicine, where the proposed homeopathic text is best suited, most of the content has needed a citation and thus could be excised. However, one that doesn't need a citation is this sentence: "Atropine will also reverse the effects of poisoning by nerve agents designed for chemical warfare." However, the source given doesn't let us know how "prominent" Atropine is with respect to Belladonna cultivation in general. Should we therefore remove that factoid as well? According to your rules, yes. And the citation for Donnatal under #Medicine also doesn't make us aware of the significance of usage of this belladonic derivative with respect to Belladonna usage in general. Shall we remove it as well? Under your made-up policies, the entire #Medicine section would get deleted. Would that be defending the integrity of sources? And what about your made-up hoop that we need a source which demonstrates that most people know about this plant through homeopathy. Really? Then I suppose it goes without saying that most people know about this plant through books, media and TV shows such as Jagex's Runescape, the PBS miniseries Cranford, and in C. J. Sansom's Revelation. (I have heard of none of these. Have you?) In essence, you have created your own rules and policies and are demanding that we follow them. It is clear that you don't like Homeopathy and without any actual policy to back you up, I feel that your desire for exclusion here is solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please stop stonewalling, swallow your pride (if that is what this is about), and accept inclusion. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Even though I happen to have heard of this plant first through homeopathy (I read a lot of junk as a child), I think that's an absurd standard, and way beyond what you can justify by reading between the lines of WP:WEIGHT. If it is true that, as Levine claims, some mainstream publications mention homeopathy in the context of the plant, then that seems to be a good argument that homeopathy passes the WP:WEIGHT test, including the special considerations that come with a (borderline) WP:FRINGE case, sufficiently to mention it in a single sentence. I think a good way of invalidating this argument might be to discredit the OUP book with credible arguments (I haven't looked at it) and point out the obvious problems with the PubMed source. (As you have just done, although a bit cryptically.) Or to find several mainstream publications that cover the plant in great depth, including applications, without mentioning homeopathy at all. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I suggest above, if SA or anyone wishes to take either or both sources to WP:RSN, feel free. I know that we have in fact have discussed the OUP source to RSN previously and it was approved overwhelmingly as a reliable source, but if someone wants to resubmit it there, then please do. But as of now, I don't see any credible argument against inclusion of this rather well-sourced bit of information in an otherwise poorly sourced article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RTFA. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic. Who are you addressing and what should they be looking for? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How about WP:SOAP? Not to cast any aspersions on the actions or motivations of the editors urging inclusion (who are making valid though, to my reading, insufficient arguments), but it would seem that including this extremely minor use benefits homeopathy more than it benefits us or our readers. Our List of homeopathic preparations article is doing just fine without any need to funnel additional traffic that way. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main reason that this argument is still (or rather again) alive is that both sides think that the other is being unfair or irrational. I don't agree that "extremely minor use" is a fair characterisation, but I can't find any pharma statistics that would allow me to prove otherwise. I don't think it has anything to do with advocacy; it's more that both sides see it as a test question for whether the other side can be brought to reasonable concessions. (And of course both sides are right.) The unfortunate side effect is that we are hijacking a perfectly innocent article with kilobytes of pointless discussion about whether to include a single sentence, scaring away potential botanically minded editors. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I could care less about benefiting homeopathy. I am not a believer, promoter or advocate of homeopathy. However, I recognize that this information - the homeopathic usage of Deadly Nightshade - is highly relevant and could be of interest/usage to a researcher or a casual reader. Thus, it should never have been removed in the first place. Truly, what harm does keeping this information here cause? After all, the proposed text even states that the homeopathic usage lacks support from scientific research.

The problem began around the beginning of this year, when ScienceApologist went through a score of horticultural articles removing such homeopathic references - IMHO - simply because of his general dislike of homeopathy. This article is of particular concerns, because from what I have learned during this process, Deadly Nightshade is one of the quintessential ingredients in Homeopathy. Not having some reference to its usage here just seems odd. So the question remains: Why not include it here? So far the answers against inclusion have boiled down to interpretations of Wikipedia policies that lack any significant support when presented at the noticeboards, fictionalized policies existing only on user pages, and - for the most part IMHO - a heck of a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now then, if those favoring exclusion can please provide some actual policy, then please do so. They have tried WP:RS and WP:NPOV and both arguments have failed on the noticeboards. I don't know. Maybe it is time for arbitration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have researched the subject thoroughly. There is exactly one reliable source about plants that mentions the homeopathic use of belladonna, and they do it in an anecdotal way. Therefore, since the anecdote is not relevant per its lack of prominence we are right in keeping it from the article. It simply doesn't belong there. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. And as of now, you have yet to convince any significant amount of editors to agree with your opinion. Whereas your made-up Quick Link of "Prominence" which links to the WP:WEIGHT portion of NPOV, has been thoroughly discussed at NPOV/N and the result was that a vast majority of editors (approximated 5-to-1) agreed that inclusion of the proposed material in no way violates wP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMINENCE or whatever you wish to call it. Would you agree that we are due for mediation? Would you agree to formal mediation at this point? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Most mediators aren't smart enough to handle disputes like this. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not assume good faith? I don't think this issue is terribly complicated. It seems to focus on core policies and I am quite confident that most mediators have a solid understanding of these. So what do you say? Will you agree to formal mediation? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. It does not change my mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will agree to formal mediation if the mediator agrees to answer User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_2_Exercises#2.8 Sex and evolution and does so in a satisfactory manner. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "satisfactory manner". Satisfactory to whom? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, me, of course. I'm the one that's going to be involved. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Now please define what you mean by "satisfactory manner". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

clarifications

I've gone through and done some cleanup on the article (mostly error fixing and style stuff) but can someone check the following two lines? I think they need adjustment, but I'm not sure quite how...

• Atropa_belladonna#Medicine: last line in the third paragraph, beginning with The use of pharmaceutical.... I'm not sure what this line adds, or why it's necessary, and it strikes me as a little pushy.

• Atropa_belladonna#Folklore the current last line reads The aconitine in aconite was said to counter/reduce the toxic effects of belladonna, while combining their hallucinogenic effects. But this sounds like like a modern medical statement, whereas the paragraph is about witches flying. can it be rephrased to reflect what Middle Ages people would have said? --Ludwigs2 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Toxicity and medical uses

Belladonna leaves don't cause blisters on contact. Belladonna has been used against back pain together with red pepper capsicum extract in Germany, topically. Toxicity of leaves overstated. Atropine has in fact a very wide therapeutic margin, and fatal poisonings are exceedingly rare. The symptoms of poisoning are however extremely unpleasant and frightening. (Up to 30mg of Atropine are given with suspected nerve gas exposure, by auto-injector. The people are not really by themselves for the next 12 hours, but survive.) Pralidoxime is an antidote against organo-phosphate poisoning, not against atropine. It restores the blocked acetylcholinesterase. Here a few more facts: Belladonna extract has been used as a heart medicine traditionally. A standardized Belladonna root full alkaloid extract has been used against Parkinson's disease traditionally in Germany. (Part of an older pharmacopeia, I believe still in DAB6, in use until the 80s). Just found one was still used until 2003. A combination of Codeine, Belladonna, Aconite, Camphor was used in a cough syrup in the 70s in Germany. (not homeopathic, but in low doses.) The back pain patch ("ABC-Pflaster") I already mentioned. Today it only contains capsicum. Hope it helps to add valuable historical medical uses to the article. Naturopathic medicine has a rich tradition in Germany, but unfortunately now they copy the Americans. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the main things here at Wikipedia is citing information to a reliable source. I know this article lacks verification on a lot of what it contains, but it would be helpful if moving forward, new information such as what you are proposing here, was verified to a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Belladonnysat Buerger: (discontinued 2003) against parkinson's. http://www.epgonline.org/viewdrug.cfm/letter/B/language/lg0017/drugId/DR006823/drugName/Belladonnysat%C2%AE%20B%C3%BCrger The other ones (Cough syrup, back pain patch) to be found in old editions of the German "yellow list" Pralidoxime, Obidoxime as an antidote for nerve gas poisoning: See some emergency medicine website. I'll find for you. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article about "Homburg 680" (look in the long article for the key word), a naturopathic (not homeopathic) belladonna root whole extract. It contained a good dose of atropine, hyoscyamine, hyoscine, as found in belladonna root, in natural proportions. It was used against spasticity, after the brain flu, and for parkinsons. This stuff really worked. It was superseded by synthetic anticholinergics later starting in the 50s. it was even prescribed to Hitler, because his hands were trembling, probably due to parkinson's. (No kidding!)

http://www.bri.ucla.edu/nha/ishn/abs2004.htm 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

here a quote:

The "Bulgarian treatment" for Parkinsonism

Paul FOLEY Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia

At the beginning of the 20th century, few avenues remained unexplored in the effort to identify an approach which might at least ameliorate the neurological sequelae of encephalitis epidemica (~1915-1925), particularly the especially common parkinsinoid syndrome. Amongst the more successful--and colorful--approaches was the "Bulgarian treatment", which became popular in Western Europe in the mid-1930s and remained a significant component of antiparkinsonian therapy until the advent of L-DOPA in the 1960s. Originally conceived in the early 1920s by Ivan Raev, a Bulgarian herbal healer, as a complete program which included phytotherapeutic, dietetic and psychotherapeutic components and promoted in a semi-mystical light, the method was brought to Italy in the 1930s, largely as the result of familial connections between the Bulgarian and Italian royal houses. Here the treatment was scientifically examined in clinics established by Queen Elena for this purpose, the essential component ultimately being identified as being the administration of a belladonna root extract. From here the method spread to Germany, other European countries and the United Staes. After a number of controversies regarding the chemical basis of the therapy and the relative merits of belladonna root from Bulgarian and other sources, standardized root extracts (such as "Homburg 680") became the standard means of application in Europe, while defined combinations of the tropane alkaloids presumed to underlie its efficacy (such as "Rabellon") were more popular in English-speaking countries. Both forms of the treatment were ultimately displaced in the 1950s by synthetic anticholinergic agents, as a result of which interest in the factors responsible for the superiority of the Bulgarian method to other solanaceous plant-based therapies waned.

Hope this helps! 70.137.153.69 (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More homeopathy

Science Apologist - I see no reason for your removal of properly sourced material about homeopathic uses of AB. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's explained above. Did you read the archives? The point is that there is no assertion of prominence of homeopathy to the subject of this plant. None. Zero. Zilch. Therefore, until someone gives us a source that says, "Atropa belladonna is known by many through their purchase of homeopathic remedies" or "Homeopathic preparations account for x% of the atropa belladonna traded on the commodities market" then we have no justification for including homeopathic use of this plant on this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy which would require such an assertion. If you disagree, you should take it to the policy page which you feel is applicable and discuss it on that talk page or on a corresponding noticeboard. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the hide on my comment which SA felt it was appropriate to do. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SA: I read the discussion, and you seem to have made only two statements on the issue:

Find a source which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant

Inability to provide a reliable source that asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this plant means we will continue to excise it from the article.

the article lists two sources, and you yourself have provided a third, so I'm not understanding your concern. and it is a matter of established fact that preparations like these are offered for sale, and have been extensively used historically, so (again) I'm not understanding your concern. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Those two sources do not assert the prominence of homeopathy to this plant. We need to establish that these preparations are somehow significant in the narrative offerings for this plant. Just offering something for sale is not good enough. I encourage you to explain to me the "extensive" use. That would make me very happy. Also, please show me in the sources where you see that homeopathy is somehow significant in the history of this plant. Either of these claims that you made would be good enough for us to include homeopathy in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please provide us with a Wikipedia policy which would require such an assertion of prominence. You claim that I am wrong to assert that there is no such policy. Please provide us with a quote from a policy saying otherwise or please discontinue this line of argumentation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

first point - if you're going to do bitchy rollbacks, at least take the time to recover valid fixes, rather than just undoing everything - I swear, someone really ought to take your rollback privileges away; you use them irresponsibly.

that being said... five minutes of poking around gave me this, from Anticholinergic syndrome due to 'Devil's herb': when risks come from the ancient times form the International Journal of Clinical Practic (G. A. Piccillo, et all):

Because of the ‘human body’ shape of its root and its narcotic and poisonous effects, from ancient times this plant, also known as ‘Devil’s herb’, was believed to be an aphrodisiac and to have magic and medical properties. In 1518, Niccolo` Machiavelli wrote the famous Italian tale ‘Mandragola’, underlining the ‘medical’ use of a Mandragora potion for infertility treating.

there were literally hundreds of other peer-reviewed articles that (given the parameters of my search) mention ABs historical use - this is not a contested fact in the scientific community. it would take me longer to search out articles that discuss its use in detail, but I think this is sufficient evidence that the homeopathic use of this drug (in some capacity) is a prominent and notable part of the topic. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, that quotation does not mention homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> SA, the historical use of AB was homeopathic use. please don't argue like a 6 year old. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Homeopathy was not invented in "ancient times". Do you know what homeopathy is? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, and in this particular case, homeopathy with AB is a modern extension of a historical use of the plant, just the same way that clinical use of atropine is a modern extension of the historical use of the plant. word-games aren't going to cut it with me, SA. I really wish I understood what your obsession with this particular phrase it - it seems really innocuous for the amount of attention that you're giving it. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a pariicular system of extreme dilutions. It isn't a "modern extension" because it must undergo specific preparations to be considered "homeopathic". I think you are confusing homeopathy with naturopathy which is a different subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

if that's the way you choose to look at it, then I can resolve this problem right now by changing the word 'homeopathic' to 'naturopathic' in the article. since homeopathy is a subset of naturopathy, that shouldn't be a issue, and your problem disappears. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s... you're well over your reversion on this article for today. I have no interest in seeing you get blocked again, so please don't make me file a report.--Ludwigs2 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Change away! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just that you can buy these pills does not establish notability, especially if the choice of the plant is not related to any real effects of the plant. Of course, Atropa belladonna is an old phytotherapeutic plant that has been used throughout history for its (strong) pharmacological effects. But phytotherapy has nothing to do with the pseudoscience homeopathy. (I even doubt that your supermarket pills have actually anything to do with mainstream homeopathy.) Swamping Wikipedia articles with such trivia puts undue weight on some absolutely non-notable aspects. We simply cannot tolerate a whole paragraph on homeopathy on virtually every plant article for the reasons given above. If at all, this information would belong to the homeopathy article. Cacycle (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the modern use of the plant is an outgrowth of the historical use of the plant, and it's certainly worth noting that that use continues today. even if the 'supermarket' remedies contain no meaningful dosage, they are still leveraging the historical use. while I would agree with you that there shouldn't be any extensive discussion of the naturopathic use of AB in this article, I don't understand how you can say that a common and easily observed fact about the plant doesn't deserve attention at all. I mean, imagine some kid who goes to the grocery store looking for acne cream, finds one that list AB as an ingredient, and then wants to find out what that means. we do want wikipedia to give that information, no? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwig2 here. There really is no reason to hide this extremely well-sourced and pertinent information. Notability does not apply to article contents but rather to the article subject as a whole. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine - you know, I see that error made all the time (in fact, I do it myself...). is there a better terminology that we can use to distinguish notability in the wp:notability sense from notability in the colloquial 'more-or-less-important' sense? --Ludwigs2 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no policy that dictates whether or not information (not a viewpoint) is "significant" enough to be included in an article. Don't click on WP:Significance because that only redirects to WP:Notability. "Prominence" is an interesting concept, but WP:PROMINENCE (a redirect created by ScienceApologist during the course of this dispute) points to WP:WEIGHT which provides us with a guideline on how to present point of views but not necessarily general information. For instance, saying "homeopathy works" or "homeopathy is pseudoscience" are viewpoints. However, saying that AB is an ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not a "point of view". It's just general information. I think where Wikipedia leaves us - in terms of what general information gets added to an article, and what does not - is right here on the article talk page. Meaning, it is up to us - the editors - to make the choice of what information gets presented and what does not. I guess, topicality/relevance plays a significant part in our decision making. Equally so does the use of WP:RS and WP:V. In this case, I feel that the homeopathic use of AB is just as topical/relevant as - say - AB's use in the 1998 fantasy movie Practical Magic. Plus, we have two extremely reliable sources verifying the homeopathic usages of AB. In terms of WP:WEIGHT, the only viewpoint that we are presenting is that science doesn't support the efficacy of the homeopathic usage of AB for various conditions. This meets WP:NPOV perfectly (whereas, if we spent another sentence or two discussing how some feel that it is effective, we may in fact be in violation of WP:WEIGHT). So, in a nutshell, I guess we can use "relevance" or "topicality" to mean 'more-or-less-important' and - through the usages of reliable sources for verification - it is up to us, the editors, to decide what general information gets included and what does not. That said, I may be completely wrong and there may be a guideline out there which totally covers this. If anyone knows of one, please enlighten me! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the following part (I kept the medlineplus reference):

A. belladona is also used as a traditional treatment for acne, boils, and sunburns.<ref name="oxford">{{cite book|last=Vaughan|first=John Griffith|coauthors=Patricia Ann Judd, David Bellamy|title=The Oxford Book of Health Foods|publisher=Oxford University Press|date=2003|pages=59|isbn=0198504594|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mMl9vwVDxigC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22deadly+nightshade%22+homeopathic&source=web&ots=xEccdnf4ox&sig=uQu-JUHbXaEd9Ru5vJAPS9hkk0Y}}</ref><ref name="medline">{{cite web|url=http://mplus.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html|title=Belladonna (Atropa belladonna L. or its variety acuminata Royle ex Lindl)|date=02/01/2008|publisher=Medline Plus|accessdate=2008-06-14}}</ref>

None of the two references supports this statement. The medlineplus ref does not mention any of these symptoms (but is still a valuable reference for other parts of the article). The Google book reference mentions the symptoms (they are actually copied from there), but sais it is a homeopathic treatment (as opposed to a "traditional" treatment). Anyway, the Google book is a poor source as is a too general and completely unreferenced - the whole chapter about A. belladonna consists of twelve sentences. It should not be difficult to find a reliable source for A. belladonna as a homeopathic treatment for these symptoms (if true). If such references could indeed be found, then the re-addition would be be warranted if it is an especially notable homeopathic preparation. Cacycle (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Added similar material from the two references that are supported by the sources. Ward20 (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Medline Plus article homeopathic paragraphs appear to refer to this list of symptoms, "Abnormal menstrual periods, acute infections, acute inflammation, anesthetic, antispasmodic, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, bedwetting, bowel disorders, chicken pox, colds, colitis, conjunctivitis (inflamed eyes), dental conditions, diarrhea, diuretic (use as a "water pill"), diverticulitis, earache, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), eye disorders (dilation of the pupils), fever, flu, glaucoma, gout, hay fever, hemorrhoids, hyperkinesis (excessive motor function), inflammation, kidney stones, measles, motion sickness, mumps, muscle and joint pain, muscle spasms (excessive unintentional muscle movements), nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, organophosphate poisoning, pain from nerve disorders, Parkinson's disease, pancreatitis, peritonitis, rash, scarlet fever, sciatica (back and leg pain), sedative, sore throat, stomach ulcers, teething, toothache, ulcerative colitis, urinary tract disorders (difficulty passing urine), warts, whooping cough", so I used the word various to describe them so as not to bog down the article. Ward20 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ward20, please could you explain why you have re-added the Google book source as a reference. As explained right above, this is in no way a reliable source, it is a book of illustrations with short captions, it is overly general, and it is completely unsourced. As such, it is not more reliable than a random webpage. Moreover, the symptoms it lists are directly contradicted by the other, way more reliable, medlineplus reference.

Also, what constitutes the notability of this specific homeopathic remedy that warrants its inclusion. After all, every natural substance, including every single plant and every single naturally occurring chemical, has, or could be, used to prepare homeopathic preparations, more or less at the discretion of the individual practitioner. I do not think that notability is established from the length of a long and arbitrary symptom list. A reference that shows that it is one of the top-ten homeopathic remedies or that it was one of the first ones used by Hahnemann would suffice. But please remove that particular junk-reference. Cacycle (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going a bit far to call The Oxford Book of Health Foods a "junk reference". The book has received excellent reviews, and was published by a highly-respected publishing house, Oxford University Press. It was written by a credentialed author, Professor John Griffith Vaughan, who has been praised in third-party sources for both his knowledge of botany, and this book in particular. It seems to meet a lot of "reliable source" criteria. However, if there is disagreement about this, I recommend bringing it up at the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions on its suitability. --Elonka 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To verify facts about botany, this reference can fairly be called "not the best" because it's focus seems to be health foods. For facts about common uses, I think it's fine. If this plant is notably used in cosmetics, traditional medicine and homeopathic preparations, I don't have a problem with the article having sections (clearly labeled) that provide this information using this source. It's time to weed my garden because we have Atropa belladonna growing wild. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Book of Health Foods has gone through RSN and was deemed a reliable source for including the short sentence about the homeopathic usage of RSN. There were several other books (homeopathic sources) which were also presented, but I would say that there was no consensus on how those sources could/should be used here. I don't believe that the MedLine source was ever brought to RSN for this issue, but does anyone really have an issue with that source? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I was going to show the show the RSN too. I am using The Oxford Book of Health Foods as one of three sources to support the wording, "Diluted preparations of belladonna in the form of homeopathic preparations have been used for various conditions." Each secondary source lists some symptoms or conditions treated by homeopathic belladonna preparations. Together, they make a stronger case than alone. Since many conditions are listed, it is one of the reasons for the word "various". I believe these sources are sufficient to note the use of belladonna in homeopathic preparations. If you read the third source, A Modern Herbal, Nightshade, Deadly, toward the bottom of the page, it does state Hahnemann used belladonna for scarlet fever. Ward20 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Page ban

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, in my authority as an uninvolved administrator, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has been banned from this article and its talkpage for one week.[3] If there are any questions, please contact me or any other uninvolved admin, thanks, Elonka 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

There are several statements in this article which have been tagged as needing sources since February. This is more than enough time to allow for the location of sources, per WP:V. Any statements in the article which have been tagged for more than 30 days, may be deleted. --Elonka 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

I am not sure where all of this added attention is coming from, but let me say, "Thanks" to all who have helped shape this article up. A lot of fat trimmed and a lot of much needed references added. That said, I removed the tag requesting more citations. Sure, we could always use more refs, but I don't think the tag is warranted any longer. Nice work, everyone! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The attention is mostly coming from this ANI thread, where ScienceApologist has challenged the ban, and several other editors are weighing in with comments (some helpful, some not) ranging from the ban, to my uninvolved status, to the subject of homeopathy in Wikipedia in general. Anyone else who wishes to participate, is welcome to do so: Wikipedia:ANI#Elonka banning me from Atropa Belladonna. --Elonka 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the advice of you (and many another wise Admin), I am going to steer clear. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I've separated the Medicine and Alternative Medicine sections so that the reader does not become confused between these two different fields. Perhaps this is a suitable compromise for those who wish to include altmed information in this article, and those who think it is not appropriate. Before anyone jumps on me for creating a fork, that section of the article is already broken down into subsections. Creating one more does not seem to harm the flow. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to jump on you for implementing such a good idea. "Why didn't I think of that?" Thanks, Jehochman. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. I've done some slight editing to clean out some inaccuracies. Then the references frustrated me, so I did a thorough housecleaning of those. I hope no one minds. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

toxicity

the section on toxicity only mentions about eating it, what if it is injected or was used to coat arrowheads like legend has it? --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you supply some sources, we can work that info in. Hardyplants (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)