Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random user 39849958 (talk | contribs) at 21:46, 30 January 2008 (→Homeopathy reference removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Plants Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sorting of the list of species

I sorted the list of species according to their names in English. To me, that seemed like the most logical approach considering that this is the name mentioned first, and also the intended names of the specific articles. It also has the benefit that the only species we currently cover, common rue, comes first in the list. This was reverted without any explanation. Is there a policy on this matter? In that case, could someone please point it out to me? / Alarm 16:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're alphabetised by scientific name - MPF 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In this specific case or as a general rule? If there is a general rule to do so in lists in the article text (and not only in the taxonomy boxes), could you please point me to it? Also not that e.g. the list of citrus fruits at Citrus is alphabetised by English name (and does not even mention the scientific names). To me it seems incredibly counter-intuitive not to order a list by the first term mentioned on each line. / Alarm 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There isn't any hard-and-fast rule either way, but generally, alphabetic by scientific makes more sense, as in many / most plant genera, English names simply do not exist for a lot of the species, or if they do, are contrived, invented for the sake of having them, even though in practice they're hardly ever used. This applies to the rue names; my books only give the scientific names, except for R. graveolens which is just given as 'Rue'. Citrus is a very different case, as there most of the names refer to cultivars and hybrids, not species; the three species in the genus are listed alphabetic by scientific name in the taxobox - MPF 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. Then, I think it would look better to list the species in the taxobox with the scientific name first (as in the Citrus taxobox), and in the article text just skip the list and have something along the lines of "The most well-known species is the Common Rue". Would you agree with that? / Alarm 11:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, good idea - MPF 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It took some time, but now I've finally got around to doing this. Please check that it looks OK, since I'm not very familiar with taxoboxes. / Alarm 17:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why MPF would want to have a citation on the entry I've made on the usage of Rue as bookmarks. It's pretty common knowledge in China that ancient Chinese uses it in this manner. Just look in a dictionary and you would find that standalone, rue is a synonym for bookmarks. An archaic Chinese word for "library" can be literally translated as "rue collection". How do you cite something like that?

Vandalism removed

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

Rue as an anti-inflammatory

I don't think this is appropriate for the article, but some might find it interesting. At the university where I used to work, one of the drugs we were developing was an immunosuppressant that was derived from a compound found in Rue (R. graveolens). The research was started based on anecdotal reports of people using tea made from Rue to reduce inflammation. From there, the active ingredient(s) was isolated and identified, and numerous derivations of the chemical were tested for potency and side-effects (mainly ex. situ but also in vivo). The drug we developed is thought to be primarily effective by blocking an ion channel found on white blood cells, by the way.

Please note that what I wrote above should NOT be taken as any sort of advice to drink tea made from Rue. The drug we've developed and are testing is not found in Rue, but is merely chemically related to a class of compounds found in it -- a lot of work has gone into making our drug both more potent and less toxic than the compounds found in Rue. --DanHomerick 05:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy reference removed

Homeopathy is not prominent relative to this plant. So removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Being mentioned in as a use of rue in The Oxford Book of Health Food satisfies relevance. Additionally, you had reverted much more than just a removal of the homeopathic mention. Removing so much content can be considered vandalism per Blanking (as I believe the reason to do so are frivolous). Do you have an issue with the rest of the content you removed? -- Levine2112 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was blanked. The content removed was done so because it was trying to insert homeopathy. I will excise just homeopathy if you like. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It would still be unjustified by your "prominence" argument. -- Levine2112 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This source has been vetted at Talk:Deadly nightshade#Homeopathy removal justification where the conclusion was reached: these authors included homeopathy anecdotally with no accounting of implications of their inclusion of the subject only as a means of illustration and not to assert any prominence. No one has yet objected to this conclusion, including yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have objected to your conclusion, stating: Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for inclusion. However, please note that the info about Deadly Nightshade being used as a homeopathic remedy is giving "prominence" by being described in the source, The Oxford Book of Health Food. This source was given the okay at WP:RSN for a similar usage. -- Levine2112 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE is part of Misplaced Pages policy. There is nothing wrong with the source, it just doesn't establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to rue. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE is an invention of your own which is merely a redirect to WP:UNDUE. What in UNDUE do you feel is violated or not met by the given source. Please quote directly from the policy when possible. -- Levine2112 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded to duplicate post at Talk:Deadly nightshade#Homeopathy removal justification. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unduew weight is not being assigned by mere mention in the said reference. Since Rue and Homeopathy are worthy subjects for Misplaced Pages, their connection should be noted. Since it is incidental, the LACK of prominence assigned by the passing nature of this mention suggests that it is a minor yet appropriate one. Such inordinate attention to this minuscule detail works against the project as a whole. I see no harm in allowing the connection to be present. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The lack of prominence is clearly analyzed on Talk:Deadly nightshade#Homeopathy removal justification. Per the principle of one-way linking we may find that what is useful for inclusion on a page about homeopathy may not be useful for an inclusion on a topic that is unrelated to homeopathy (for example, plants). We have found this. If you believe that the book is asserting prominence of homeopathy with respect to the plant, present your analysis of the source here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, please refrain from citing your own rules as Misplaced Pages policy. The "principle of one-way linking" is your own invention and is not justification for suppressing this information. -- Levine2112 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The principle of one-way linking is also found in careful reading of WP:FRINGE. Claims of Misplaced Pages:Information suppression speak for themselves and were rejected by the community because the idea is often used to mask POV-pushing editors who don't like to see their soapboxing removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see mention of that principle there. Please elucidate. -- Levine2112 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." It looks like the scientific community has ignored the ideas inasmuch as this source does not assert the prominence of homeopathy with respect to rue, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rue is a plant, not a scientific topic. "Medical uses of rue" would be an article wherein your argument would have some weight. If some notable religious cult worshipped this plant, it would be worthy of mention in this main article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plants are studied academically through the science of botany. This argument applies because it is about the plant and only uses of the plant that are prominent can be mentioned per WP:PROMINENCE. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that adherents to homeopathy are an extremely small minority? I would consider them to be a "significant minority" (Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, not your own terminology), especially if you consider the larger implication that a good percentage of the world's population uses medical treatments that could be considered as homeopathic due to their lack of medical support.

A better question to ask would be if Rue is prominent in homeopathic remedies/treatments. If it were water, it would add undue weight to add a similar mention in the Water article; obviously a significant number of chemical processes utilize water in some fashion. However, the importance of rue in homeopathic remedies is more useful in deciding whther the mention should stay. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, it is self-defeating for you to mention conversations with the very same user, which appear to have hit the same dead end, as justification for your actions here. There appear to be objections, which should be addressed rather than engaging in edit warring. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All objections have been dealt with. No response has been given by the user in question. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have given you a response several times over. You are simply refusing to accept my response (or even recognize that I have given it to you). Cobaltbluetony appears to be a third-party here and an experienced editor. Please consider his rationale as it is sound and is completely in line with Misplaced Pages policy. -- Levine2112 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since your response does not deal substantively with the analysis made, your attempts to falsely claim consensus against my statement is fallacious. Cobaltbluetony has not offered an alternative to my analysis. So far no one has. Good luck finding your advocate. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My response to your analysis remains: Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for inclusion. However, please note that the info about Deadly Nightshade being used as a homeopathic remedy is giving "prominence" by being described in the source, The Oxford Book of Health Food. That is my response. It is substantive. Please don't claim otherwise. -- Levine2112 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:PROMINENCE is a policy, your attempts to ignore the wording of it are noted as obstructionist. Also note that this is not an article about Deadly Nightshade. It seems you have mixed up your plants and this may be an indication that you need to take a wikibreak since you obviously have not been able to resolve the situation. Since mere mention in a source does not establish the prominence of a subject, you will have to deal with the analysis linked above or find someone else who can. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that WP:UNDUE isn't a policy (only that WP:PROMINENCE is your own invented redirect to the policy and that "prominence" as you are using it is not aligned with how WP:UNDUE treats it). My mention of Deadly Nightshade above is from a quote with was in response to the analysis which you made on Talk:Deadly nightshade and brought up here above to say that I never responded to it. Thus, it was appropriate that I quote my response here. Sorry, if that is confusing to you. Please heed Cobaltbluetony's guidance above. Prominence, as your are describing it, does not have to be established for this topic. We are not dealing with a minority view or any science at all. Rue is used in homeopathy. This is verified by the more that adequate source given. -- Levine2112 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed plant articles
• Unknown-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles