Talk:Arnica montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arnica montana article.
Article policies
Arnica montana is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This page says Arnica montana is also known as wolf's bane. The Wolfsbane page redirects to Aconitum and that page makes no reference to Arnica montana.

Suggestions: (1) remove the reference here to wolf's bane, if it isn't really right, or (2) if Aconitum is going to remain the wolfsbane page, add a note to it indicating other plants that are also known as wolfsbane, or (3) create a separate wolfsbane page that lists all the plants that are commonly called wolfsbane.

Well, #1 would not be right. There are numerous references to Arnica Montana as also known as Wolf's bane. #2 doesn't seem right either. Why should one be redirected to a page that says that there are other plants also known as..., #3 is a reasonable idea, but another would be to have a Wolfsbane disambiguation page. Both plants seem to be about equally referenced as also known as..., and this old source from 1911 has the name for both of them http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/usdisp/index.html--Alfrodull 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of any of those, I changed the link on this page for wolf's bane from the redirect to Aconitum to the Wolfsbane disambiguation page instead.Alfrodull 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge with Arnica?

There's also a WP page for Arnica - perhaps the two should be merged? Daniel Barlow 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? --EncycloPetey 16:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicinal uses

Hi, I have removed the medicinal uses section as it reads like a how to guide. Can we re word this, or we can't include it. Thank,s Mercury at 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So what specifically do you object to???? Abridged talk 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw your edit before I posted my objects, so here is a better reply. Your last edit is much better, you have removed very specific instructions. I can live with that, and good job. :) Although I guess I should have edited instead of removing it. Regards, Mercury at 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine, though we really should cite the Herbal medicine one. Adam Cuerden talk 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

The homeopathy claims in this article didn't appear to have any current notability - no source from this decade mentions it's use? PouponOnToast (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

there is no guideline that says that sources have to be published in "this decade" to qualfiy. Abridged talk 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy is a fringe theory. Making any claims is POV and violates undue weight. Any mention of homeopathic uses of this plant should be placed in the Homeopathy article--but given the lack of notability, it will be reverted, but we'll let the editors there take care of it.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A claim would be saying it works. this is just factual, saying it is used and quoting a reasonable soure for the fact that it is used. I don't think this violates undue weight. Abridged talk 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Since homeopaths often dilute substances to the point where they are no longer "used" in the remedy, it is controversial to claim that homeopaths use any substance that they claim to use. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
By "claim" would you include your edit that stated "As long as it is prepared properly, and taken in the prescribed manner, A. montana, can be taken internally to reduce swelling and bruising associated with plastic surgery?" Just checking! PouponOnToast (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The toxicity section, I think, is poorly written, and needs to be edited. I'm just editing a bit in the "medicinal uses" section above. I believe the language should say that arnica is used to prepare the remedy, which homeopaths use for such and such. This is not a claim an d not saying that anything is used rather than a succussed diluted substance made from arnica. Abridged talk 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to repeat myself from a variety of similar articles. But Homeopathy does not work, it cannot possibly cure anything or treat anything because it's underlying belief system requires something that is totally unsupported by science. Do you believe in Creationism? Because Homeopathy and Creationism are both pseudoscientific beliefs. We cannot refer to it, because the article then gives weight to a pseudoscience. That is POV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't "believe" in creationism, homeopathy, or santa claus! But I don't have any problem with saying that homeopaths take arnica, make a prepation by diluting and succussing it repeatedly, and use this for x, y and z. To do this describes something that is very very commonly done with this plant by people in one sentence in an article about the plant. It is encyclopedic. I'm not sure it is reasonable to remove all refs to homeopaths on the basis of your pseudoscience point. Homeopathy exists. Describing it is not defending it or saying it works. It is just description. Abridged talk 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but if you're not related to the homeopathy industry, either as a user or producer, in some way, why are all of your edits - or at least the ones I scanned through - about homeopathy? Just a casual interest? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wouldn't this be more of a topic for my userpage? If you ask there I will answer you but I think the question is off topic here. Abridged talk 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While looking for other material for this page I cam across this:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/arnica-000222.htm# Hardyplants (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting site reviewed by an NMD. I don't think this is good enough to establish homeopathy's prominence since it's not asserting anything about how common homeopathic "uses" of this plant are. It's not exactly "independent" since it is focusing on alt. med uses. Nevertheless, I'm encouraged that people are trying to reach beyond the normal homeopathic literature to try to source these issues. Keep looking and so will I. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)r

One more source for its use in homeopathy:http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/vet/mrls/064799en.pdf Hardyplants (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that "The homeopathy claims in this article didn't appear to have any current notability". Of all the homeopathic remedies, this is probably the most widely known and widely used of any. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Be patient. We are even as we speak discussing ways to measure how prominent, widely-known, widely-used, and notable homeopathic remedies are at Talk:List of homeopathic remedies. If you have ideas for good sources that can help us decide this, please discuss them there. When we agree there what the threshhold for inclusion at the substance articles should be, then we'll go through and add them. However, we need a way to determine this, we cannot just go on say-so, innuendo, and incomplete, unreliable sourcing for such claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arnica for healing wounds after surgery

I don't even want to think about entering the warzone that is homeopathy, but though this article might be relevant to you all. "Efficacy of Arnica montana D4 for Healing of Wounds After Hallux Valgus Surgery Compared to Diclofenac" . Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine.  DigitalC (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)