Talk:Thuja

Homeopathic

Information regarding "homeopathic" use of this plant requires reliable sources. Please don't include this information without such. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the homeopathic uses. The British Homeopathic Association is recommended by the BMA (British Medical Association) as a source of sound information regarding homeopathy. I have also added a fact tag to the claim that evidence for Thuja's efficacy is lacking. A similarly authoritative source would be appreciated. Thanks. Number48 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show where in your cited source Thuja is discussed? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find it here [1]Number48 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think the use of the plant by Marysia Kratimenos to treat Sinusitis is notable? PouponOnToast (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That particular use in that particular case is probably not notable but the general use of Thuja, as described in her article, is. That's why I wrote in my way rather than yours and would be grateful if you could change it back. Number48 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd happily do so, if there were sources that supported your version. All your source discussed was one adherent using it for one case. If you could find reliable citations that supported your source, I would consider it - I would have further problems with it, of course, relating to notability, but verifiability is policy, and notability is guideline.. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above the source deals with the general case as well as the particular. There is therefore a perfectly reasonable source for the information I included in the article.Number48 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you cited is titled as follows "Dr Marysia Kratimenos describes how Thuja helped one of her patients suffering from sinusitis." I read the article in it's entirety, and while it stated that "This is applicable on the physical level with the warts, verrucas and the cysts that are prone to infection because of a greasy skin," such a statement is not reliably sourced to a popular magazine - it would require a peer-reviewed study, or better a survey study that showed the effectiveness of Thuja against specific ailments. While a popular magazine is certainly a good source for what an individual said they did, it is not a good source regarding the effectiveness of a drug. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line of the cited article is this: Practitioner 'A' chose to treat patient 'B' with homeopathic remedy 'C'. Conventional medicine likes to see more evidence than that before documenting that a certain practice is reliable and effective. I know that NIH has a program that gives research grants for work on alternative therapies, and I doubt that they would find it convincing if the grantees came back and reported such slim results. They probably expect more data, and we should too. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said thuja had been proven to be effective. I said that thuja is used in homeopathy to treat various conditions and the source clearly supports this. You seem to be changing your tune re what you want here. Can you be explicit about what kind of source saying what kind of thing you would require for the statement "Thuja is used in homeopathy to treat X". Above you seemed to only request a reliable source saying this, but once I found one you now seem to want a source that proves it efficacy. Can you please clarify. Thanks.Number48 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a number of comments regarding the Homeopathy section. Please do not assume if one of my concerns is adressed you have adressed them all. I am looking for a reliable source that shows this plant is used for more than sinusitis. The article as presented does not do so, unless I missed something. To source "Thuja is used in homeopathy to treat X," we will need a reliable source saying this. Your reliable source showed it was used for sinusitis, and unreliably said that it is applicable to warts, verrucas and the cysts. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly states that thuja is used to treat a variety of physiological conditions (e.g., warts, verrucas, cysts and post vaccination ailments). It also discusses the emotional and psychological conditions it can be used to treat - that is why she prescribed it. Whether it works or not, the bottom line here is that this is how the drug is used in homeopathy according to a homeopathic practitioner writing in a journal of a society recommended by the BMA as a sound source of information on homeopathy. Number48 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

New users who found this article minutes after my change to it may not be aware, but Edit Warring is patently unacceptable at wikipedia. If you continue to revert changes to articles while discussing them, you will promptly fall afoul of others. The best course of action is to discuss changes before making them. As such, I have asked to have this article protected whilst we discuss. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me! But you changed the article while discussing it here. I presumed you did this because you hadn't properly read the source and so changed it back to the reflect the general point the source was used for. I fail to see how I can be guilty of something if you are not. After all, I would have had no need to edit the article during discussion if you have not done exactly that. Number48 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are aggressively reverting to your preferred version. I am attempting to find a compromise. This is the difference. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "aggressively" doing anything and would be grateful if you could refrain from such accusations. I made an edit which you saw fit to change even though the source clearly supported it. Then you changed you tune regarding what kind of source you wanted and what you wanted it to say.Number48 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important that you remain calm. I will return to this discussion in 24 hours. When you revert an article in less than an hour, that is typically considered "aggressive reverting." Reverting generally is unlikely to win you anything but blocks at wikipedia. You should work with your peers to reach consensus. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. You're the one who appear to be getting wound-up and making all sorts of accusations and threats (blocks, edit warring, aggressiveness etc.) on the basis of one well sourced edit. Perhaps you should try some thuja.Number48 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all need to get together to discuss what articles should have at least a mention of homeopathic use. Depending on where you live, we all know that countless homeopathic remedies sit on shelves or in medicine cabinets all over the world. Mere mention in an article would not be considered "undue weight" or "conflict of interest". As far as I am concerned I don't think that the indications for use should be mentioned. You won't find many docs who like the idea of people treating themselves based on what they have read online. Especially wikipedia. My official take is I think the "most used" (aka polychrest) remedies should have a brief passage along with their other pharmacologic/biologic/other use. I have no interest in discussing whether or not people think it works or how many controlled trials have been conducted. The simple truth is that people use it, and for that reason alone the information should be mentioned here.--travisthurston+ 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think this is an excellent solution. If we could agree on a set of fairly respectable sources then we could use mention there as a test of notability.Number48 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

travisthurston is right and this debate is dumb. This article is about Thuja. I watch the article because it is vaguely related to guitar making. Thuja IS used to prepare a homeopathic remedy. Look, you can buy it here [[http://www.naturalhealthshop.com.au/index.php}}. So it's not realy up for debate that Thuja is used for that purpose. Who cares what people use it for or whether or not it works or is a gift from the alien gods or whatever. It doesn't matter in the context of THIS ARTICLE. As to wp:weight; If the head of the article started with some rant about the wonders of thuja to clear up those annoying warts and then went on to discuss the taxonomy and other uses there might be a problem. But you guys are fighting over one sentence nearly at the very end of the article. Your guys fight is actualy over whether or not homeopathy is science or whatever. That fight doesn't belong on this talk page. Go away, I'll add back in one sentence something like "Oil of thuja is used to prepare a homeopathic remedy." Which makes no claim as to it's specific uses or effectivness and cite the external link above, which should be an adequate source. Who ever edits the Homeopathy article can talk about the cooling and tonic effects of thuja over there. Good plan?Darrell Wheeler (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, is the homeopathic use of thuja prominent for an article on thuja? Can we find an independent mainstream source about thuja that characterizes how prominent the homeopathic derivatives are? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

a google search using "thuja homeopathic" yields a huge number of hits so it seem it's use is prominent. It looks like mostly the occidentalis variety is used. and is widely available. I think whats on this page now is excessive but it probably does deserve one sentence for the sake of being "encylopedic". What I would like to see is a reference to which species is used for that purpose. That has more bearing in this article than what maladies it supposedly cures or whatever. I don't have a particular viewpoint here. No offence to any of you other editors but your own POV's are showing. Lets try to do the right thing by the article. Cheers.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding POV is generally not a good idea. Best if everyone puts their biases right out on the table since we all have them. Anyway, there is now a new proposal going on at Talk: Homeopathy#List of homoepathic remedies that may make this discussion moot. I don't particularly trust google searches, but if someone can come up with a book on Thuja, for example, that mentions that homeopathic uses are one of the main reasons people know about the plant, that would be a great justification for mentioning homeopathy in this aritcle. This was how we decided to mention homeopathy in the article on domesticated sheep. What we need are mainstream sources that are independent of homeopathy since homeopathy is controversial; WP:REDFLAG definitely applies. I have done some preliminary searching to no effect. Let me know if anyone else finds a mainstream, independent source that connects homeopathy to thuja. Regards. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SA that the best way to show notability to the plant of it's homeopathic use is to find mainstream sources discussing such. This should be a general guideline. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I edit botanical articles, primarily from a botanical point of view (and that is my professional background). Let me start by putting my own POV regarding homeopathy right up front: I think it's a great big ball of crap. But this needs to be said over and over: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Despite my opinion of homoepathy, I still think this article (or perhaps the species article if the homeopathic "remedy" is tied to one particular species) merits a mention of the homeopathic use(s). One doesn't have to agree with homeopathy to acknowledge that homeopathic practicioners recommend or use this or that species of plant, and it only has to be prominent within the homeopathic literature to merit a mention in the article. It's not a whole lot different from describing the old "doctrine of signatures" usages in articles, and nobody (well almost nobody) accepts that anymore. What might make it more interesting and far more relevant in the context of the article is the history behind that usage; homeopathy often adopts pre-homeopathic usages for many plant species, in some cases going right back to the doctrine of signatures. MrDarwin (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with MrDarwin. I thought I might add, from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of your view of homeopathy, it is, given proper sourcing, correct to say that "_____ has been recommended by ____ as a homeopathic treatment for ____." That can be verified and the statement structured as such is also true. It's just a matter of accurately describing the verifiable information. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, verifiability + notability. Not every verifiable bit of trivia about any species of Thuja belongs in the article. Anyway, we haven't yet reached the "verifiable" threshold". Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course notability as well. Just didn't mention it since it's been mentioned elsewhere. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is fringe theory that is not substantiated by reliable sources and cannot be verified. You are attempting a back-door approach to avoid those substantial issues. There is no way to "verify" Thuja or any plants use in homeopathy, since homeopathy itself cannot be verified. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, reporting the usage of a particular plant species in homeopathic remedies, even the illnesses those homeopathic remedies supposedly treat, is not an endorsement of homeopathy, it's a simple reporting of fact (and I don't believe including one or two sentences to that effect is undue weight). Fringe or not, a huge number of people subscribe to homeopathy (a whole 'nother discussion) and for that reason alone the information should be included, regardless of whether those treatments are medically effective or homeopathy is scientifically sound. If there are further concerns about whether such information should be included, please come discuss them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, where several editors meet to discuss the content of plant-related articles. MrDarwin (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting a back-door approach anywhere. I don't intend on editing this article, but thought I'd add my voice and something I hadn't seen mentioned yet. I repeat, regardless of your opinion of homeopathy, it is indeed verifiable to say that notable person Y recommends plant X for condition Z. It doesn't matter if the claim that it can heal that can be verified or not because such claim should not be presented in a POV way in the article. Mention the use, mention who uses it/recommends it, make sure such information is notable and related to the article's topic and that its sources are reliable and it's ok for that to be in the article. It doesn't matter if homeopathy can't be verified because we'd only be using sources to establish that it is used or recommended for such ailments, not that it should be used. I completely disagree with you that you can't verify that plants are used in homeopathy. It'd be easy to verify their use! It's not verifiable that they actually have any impact. BIG difference there. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't allow that POV in the actual article about Homeopathy, because it would be unverified. It is NOT notable to state that some person uses it for some ghastly purpose. I do not revert every edit that claims that this plant or that plant cures cancer, treats erectile dysfunction, or grows hair, as long as it is published in a reliable journal. But even stating that it can be used is a violation of undue weight OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I just did a cursory search on google scholar and found plenty of medical journals that mentioned a Thuja species extract being used in homeopathy. It seems entirely verifiable to me to say that it is used in homeopathy. I'm not proposing we describe what it cures but if stated somewhere reliable, I see no problem with stating what it has been claimed to cure in NPOV language. I don't buy your WP:WEIGHT argument at all. As for a source, see [2]: Arbor vitae (Thuja occidentalis L.) is a native European tree widely used in homeopathy and evidence-based phytotherapy. First sentence. Citing that abstract with a sentence worded in a similar NPOV fashion would be reasonable in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Oops, I see that one's already in the article. My bad! --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So why does a specific usage of T. occidentalis belong in this article? Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't and I was thinking about suggesting that. I was speaking in general above and then looked into it, finding only references for T. occidentalis. If other species of the genus were also widely used, then specifics on the genus page would be appropriate. I still think a simple mention that T. occidentalis is used in homeopathy is warranted on this article and thus I disagree with your complete removal] of all the info. Like I said, specifics should remain on the species page, but mentioning the various uses of all species in the genus is what the uses section is for here. Only one species is widely used for making guitar soundbouards, should we remove mention of it entirely on the genus page? --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that in general information that only applies to single species shouldn't be in the main article. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This plant may or may not be a prominent homeopathic treatment. Do you have evidence about it's notability in Homeopathy? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version which virtually everybody (except for two) agrees upon. As Mr darwin, who can hardly be descibed as a supporter of homeopathy, puts it: "One doesn't have to agree with homeopathy to acknowledge that homeopathic practicioners recommend or use this or that species of plant, and it only has to be prominent within the homeopathic literature to merit a mention in the article." I think that sums up the view of about 5 or 6 editors here so it is clear that those editors simply do not accept ScienceApologist or PoupononToast's new Wiki guidlines for inclusion. Until those guidlined gain some greater support, the reference should clearly remain.Number48 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your reversion. I suggest that you seek mainstream sources stating that this is a notable Homeopathic remidy, and reaches a level of notability for articles about plants, rather than articles about Homeopathy. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note you are now "aggressively reverting" to your version even though a clear majority here have set out clearly why homeopathy should be mentioned. I am not sure where you got the idea for the new Wiki rules you and ScienceApologist keep citing, but it seems clear that most people here don't think they are very good ones.Number48 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to mention homeopathy here. Homeopathy is at best a fringe topic that makes claims for almost every botanical substance in existence. Linking them on every article is undue weight even if we had good sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the best approach is "let's see the sourcing". Is the information notable? And is it notable information about the genus Thuja? Guettarda (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, thanks for your sensible input. It seems like all these uses refer in particular to thuja occidentalis. I don't believe an in depth description is appropriate in this article. I can believe that people who are seeking information about thuja as a homeopathic ("thuja" being what they call it at the snake oil shop) remedy may find this page and I think one sentence saying something like "Thuja occidentalis is used in herbal and homeopathic remedies."(note the full stop)is not undo weight. and would get folks moving along to the more specific article. I'm also not realy sure that the note about Oil of Thuja being toxic belongs under the "Uses" heading but I'll refrain from editing until some kind of consensus is reached here. Whether or not the editors ranting away above like it or not thuja is a common remedy available everywhere and Homeopathy is used by so many people around the world that it can't realy be called fringe even if it is stupid or mistaken. surely someone can find a refrence that just shows it's used as remedy. stick that on this page and then redirect people to the specific page they want to read or fight over.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a botanist nor a homeopath. I believe in plants but not in homeopathy. From the research I have performed today on the web (and as near as I can tell to be true), Thuja - in terms of homeopathy - almost always refer to the species Thuja occidentalis. Thus, any discussion of homeopathy and Thuja should happen on Thuja occidentalis. However, given that "Thuja" is also the name for a popular homeopathic remedy made from Thuja occidentalis, a disambiguation link should be provided at the top of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk reverted my disambig. attempt citing UNDUE. Please explain why. The term Thuja is the name of a popular homeopathic remedy. Short of including disambiguation at the top of the page, our alternatives are mentioning this fact in the body or creating an actual Thuja disambiguation page. Right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a link to the daughter article on the page. People use generic names to refer to species all the time. We don't disambiguate genera into species. That's just silly. Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet we do just that at Aloe. Suggesting similar treatment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I buy and sell thuja plicata all the time. People say "western redcedar". It's such a small genera I don't think people are realy using the generic that much. A disambig page with so few items on it seems silly. Us emy suggestion and don't make the species name a link as per the sentence about thuja plicata being used for soundboards. What is the problem with that?Darrell Wheeler (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aloe? Nope. No hatnote disambiguating species based on how they are used. Note sure what you're talking about. Guettarda (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll stress again that I agree that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, but don't believe that automatically disqualifies mention of homeopathic uses from plant articles and I'm disturbed to see a small number of editors systematically deleting any such references from articles, which strikes me as POV-pushing. I do agree with Guattarda that any such uses that are tied to a particular species should be discussed on the species page, rather than appearing on the genus page, and it was a good call on his part to move any such info (although in some respects that simply moved the battleground to Thuja occidentalis). The problem is that "thuja" is thrown around in homeopathy and other alternative treatments without a specific epithet attached (I tried "thuja oil" several years ago to treat some intractable warts but without any success, surprise surprise); thus anybody looking for information about it in Wikipedia will probably end up on the genus page ("Arnica" is a similar case). I'm not sure what the solution is, except to perhaps include a single sentence along the lines of "Some species, e.g., T. occidentalis, are used in alternative medicine". Hopefully that would guide users to the relevant article. One last comment: "alternative medicine", "natural treatments", "herbal remedies", and "homeopathy" are not all synonymous and articles should be careful to distinguish between the various uses. MrDarwin (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, this stuff is trivia. Levine has been adding stuff to lots of articles about their use in homeopathy. Now, think about what would happen if we listed every use to which a plant is put. There's a book by Moermond (or something like that - I'm almost certain I've got the name wrong) which lists plants used by Native Americans. Some plants, had hundreds of uses. I wouldn't list them all in the species article, I wouldn't list them all in the genus article. Only the stuff that's really notable. Since homeopathy uses just about everything, saying "X is used as a homeopathic remedy" is trivia. It belong in a list of homeopathic remedies, but not in the main articles unless it's really notable. If Napoleon appears in a video game, we mention that in the video game article, not in the article about Napoleon. In one context it's interesting information, in the other, it's a matter of giving undue weight to trivia. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By that same logic we shouldn't include: the wood of Thuja plicata is commonly used for guitar soundboard here but rather include it in the guitar article. The same goes for the fences and poles information. But yet, I don't see the same editors out to remove every mention of homeopathy from Wikipedia removing information such as this. This is hypocritical. And I resent the claim you make about me above, Guettarda. I have not been adding stuff to lots of articles about their use in homeopathy. I have rather re-included information deleted by editors with the POV that homeopathy shouldn't never be mentioned on any article. I have done this on a total of 3 articles, though they have removed from many more articles. This is simply antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a collection of human knowledge. Again, personally I don't believe in homeopathy; however, I defend the principal that mentioning homeopathy on articles about certain genus or species of plants from which homeopathic remedies are made is completely in the scope and guidelines of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is pseudoscience. Guitar making and fence pole construction are not pseudoscience. Therein lies the difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me a policy where the difference in treatment as exercised at this article between an alleged pseudoscience and something which is not is outlined. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>WP:FRINGE. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a Fringe viewpoint that Thuja is used as a homeopathic remedy. It is, however, a fringe viewpoint that Thuja provides an effective homeopathic remedy. See the difference? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since homeopaths routinely dilute Thuja so much that none of the plant is in the remedy used with Thuja on the label, it is a fringe viewpoint that thuja is a homeopathic remedy. There are no effective homeopathic remedies in existence, so that viewpoint is manifestly false like the viewpoint that the moon is made of green cheese. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If there is a significant opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, I do not see that reason why not to mention that in the article about Moon. Actually, read Moon#Human_understanding in which it is presented that "In 1835, the Great Moon Hoax fooled some people into thinking that there were exotic animals living on the Moon." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How the Great Moon Hoax is handled on the moon page is a wholly different issue from how homeopathy should be handled on pages devoted to plants. After all, there is considerable mainstream, independent literature connecting the moon to the Great Moon Hoax. So far, no one has pointed to mainstream independent sources that connect Thuja to homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience is a good place to start. WP:FRINGE is another wonderful guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That Thuja occ is used as a homeopathic remedy is not a Fringe or Pseudoscientific POV. That's all we are saying. If we were to say that Thuja occ is an effective remedy for such-and-such, then we would be making a fringe POV statement. As Jefffire correctly states below, "if it can be established from a reliable source that a major use of this particular genus is a particular purpose then its entirely appropriate to mention it." -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest that if it can be established from a reliable source that a major use of this particular genus is a particular purpose then its entirely appropriate to mention it. If its not a major use, then it isn't warranted. Jefffire (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Use" in homeopathy is a POV statement anyway. Its only "existence" in the homeopathic "remedy" is in the form of "water memory". You can't say that something that isn't present in a remedy is present in it. Quite apart from the fringe issue, there's the factual accuracy issue. No one is claiming that it's a component of the "remedy", but rather that a tiny amount of it is used in making the "remedy". I'm sure they use glassware in preparing their dilutions. Do they say that glass is "used in" homeopathic remedies? Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire, I would be curious about your thoughts on any of the 15 sources I enumerate on Talk:Deadly nightshade‎ satisfying as a reliable source that a major use of this particular genus is a particular purpose. These include clinical studies, other encyclopedias, published books, and newspaper articles. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Such issues will be addressed on the relevant page. Jefffire (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. And I am inviting you over there to comment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, that's what I was saying. Jefffire (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Literature

I added some info on thujone, one of the constituents in the volatile oil of thuja. If anyone wants to keep digging, some notes I have say it also contains fenchone, camphor, cineole, flavonoids (quercetin), tannins and immune stimulating polysaccharides. --travisthurston+ 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anton01's edit

I reverted Anton01's edit because it somehow broke the article (cut off the references section, and more). Feel free to reinsert it, but please use preview before saving changes. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja not used in Homeopathy

Thuja, the "genus of coniferous trees" is not used in Homeopathy according to the source. "Thuja occidentalis," is, and this use is mentioned on that article. I suggest that in the absence of evidence the entire genus is used, this mention go. Additionally, the source provided is not a reliable source for plants (it is a reliable source for alternative medicine.) PouponOnToast (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a reason not to include this source: (Naser B, Bodinet C, Tegtmeier M, Lindequist U (2005). "Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae): A Review of its Pharmaceutical, Pharmacological and Clinical Properties". Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2 (1): 69–78. doi:10.1093/ecam/neh065. PMID 15841280.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) as a source to support the fact that the plant is used in that context. In Wikipedia we describe significant viewpoints, and this may be one of these. From the source: Arbor vitae (Thuja occidentalis L.) is a native European tree widely used in homeopathy and evidence-based phytotherapy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason not to include the reference in this article is that it is about one particular species of Thuja, not about the genus Thuja itself (which includes several species). Whether to include it in the Thuja occidentalis article is a fair question--go there to see the current state of affairs. MrDarwin (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the genus and contains general information about its species. As stated in the recent edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From the text "Today, it is mainly used in homeopathy as mother tincture or dilution." Anthon01 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have restored the sources I added last week, as well as this newly found source. Please note that I have no POV in this subject (I do not use Homeopatic stuff myself, and my doctor is a traditional one). Just that I see information about this subject to be needed for a useful and comprehensive encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja is a genius that includes the species Thuja occidentalis which has an article that includes Homeopathy. The genius is not used as a treatment. This is along the lines of saying "Cats are large brown animals that live in Africa." No - only Lions are large brown animals that live in Africa. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The uses section discusses individual gena and cultivars. Anthon01 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make that clear in your future edits. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, It is genus, not genius ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your spelling correction. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored notable claim from mainstream academic/medical source.Number48 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's mainstream now? With the pyramids and the magic and the what-not? If it's mainstream, perhaps you could tell us it's impact factor. Jefffire (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is mainstream, it's the Oxford University Press [3]Number48 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Impact factors are the standard measure of journal authority. What is it? Jefffire (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The OUP is a world renowned publisher of academic journals.Number48 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but their authority does not automatically transfer to what they publish. This journal is obviously a pile of crap, case in point. Do you have any evidence for its authority other than it's affiliation? Jefffire (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If world renowned academic publishers cannot be trusted for simple uncontentious facts then who can. We are not claiming that homeopathy is the one true medicine. We are simply claiming that there is a thing called homeopathy, and in homeopathy there is a treatment called Thuja which uses Thuja occidentalis in its preparation. All of this can be verified easily by entering "thuja" and "homeopathy" into google. It is far from clear what your point is.Number48 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note, EBCAM, in its but 4 years of existence, has had its research cited in other reputable journals including: Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, Integrative Cancer Therapy, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Cancer Research, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Physical Therapy, Journal of Immunology, Journal of Nutrition, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, CMAJ, Journal of General Virology, Infection & Immunity, and Journal of Leukocyte Biology. This is currently a point of discussion at RSN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is, is this a RS for what is being said. The answer is yes. The source to support that Thuja is used in homeopathy doesn't require a high impact journal. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been established elsewhere, a non-homeopathic source can be easily and non-controversially be used to establish that a substance is common and important to homeopathy. If you cannot find it, then it's fairly clear that it isn't. Off you go. Jefffire (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And EBCAM is a non-homeopathic source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A non-homeopathic source is isn't a pile of stinking horse manure, then. Also, I've already said that incidental journal mentions aren't a good way of demonstrating weight. Jefffire (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire, here [4]. Happy now? Number48 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here also for Thuja plicata [5]. Number48 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Jefffire (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That is a list of thousands of plants used in Homeopathy, which is not an acceptable source for the notability to the plant of homeopathy. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah crap, back to square one then. One the other hand, we're making progress. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a list of approximately eight hundred plants. Given that, and given the "millions" of things people claim are used in homeopathy, it seems this must be the discriminating source everyone has been looking for. Just the kind of thing to satisfy the notability requirement. If it's on the NHM list then it's notable.Number48 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A search engine is not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a search engine - it's a Natural History Museum database that can be searched online, and where all content found is copyrighted to the Natural History Museum. What difference can the mode of searching possibly make to the integrity of the source.Number48 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Search-engine = database when the content is not being made by the database provider. In this case, the Natural History Museum is relying on outside content providers. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense - the content is all copyrighted to the NHM and as such is their content. A search engine is just a mode of searching and no conclusions can be drawn from that mere fact about the content's origins. Number48 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SA's arguments, here on this article, and reverted what appeared to an incorrect edit. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which argument do you agree with? Anthon01 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's as well, from here: "CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that active homeopathy improves the symptoms of RA, over 3 months, in patients attending a routine clinic who are stabilized on NSAIDs or DMARDs." It's not a treatment, it's a placebo, as effective as drinking as Diet Coke or eating a nice apple to handle RA. It's not appropriate content for WP as it misrepresents the non-value of Thuja to treat RA. Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of quoting the article is that the article says "Thuja is used as a homeopathic remedy." The fact that the study came out negative doesn't change the fact that it is used as a homeopathic remedy. I'm not making any claims of effectiveness, just that it is used as a remedy according to this reputable source. Please undo your revert. Anthon01 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The study isn't about plants! The study is about arthritis. It would be better to include reference to that article on the arthritis page so that people trying to get information on that topic learn how ineffective homeopathy is, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Lawrence § t/e 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't say what you think it says. Look again. Lawrence § t/e 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I said the article says it. Anthon01 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... you can say anything, certainly, but look again. Do a Control-F search. The text string of "thu" let alone "thuja" doesn't even exist there. Lawrence § t/e 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is about as plain as it gets.[6]. Number48 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be an ancient medical journal from 1884-1887, correct? Lawrence § t/e 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's where the illustration was taken from!!!!!Number48 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source to use for this claim. Is the Natural History Museum a reliable medical source? Lawrence § t/e 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep pointing to an abstract. I am talking about the article. Please revert your edit. Anthon01 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a reliable source that says thuja is used in homeopathy. I took out a bad source, is all, for the claim, and the associated claim. I couldn't have left the claim, since I would have been responsible for unsourced material then. Lawrence § t/e 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have all just been asking for a non-medical source. That is, one that is about plants, and as soon as a non-medical source is provided (the Natural History Museum) you ask for a medical source. We have medical sources aplenty (anthon's being one) and we have non-medical sources, and we have homeopathic promoting sources and we have non-homeopathic promoting sources. What kind of source would you like next?Number48 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked for anything, before, this is my first involvement here. I'd prefer a modern source that is attributable, and preferably peer-reviewed for any medical claims, myself. I'll look at this page tomorrow, I'm off to bed. Lawrence § t/e 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Like the one from Anthon which you've just speed-read and rejected.Number48 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Last comment before bed: please copy/paste the exact sentence in that article that says "thuja". It's not there. Are we seeing different articles? Lawrence § t/e 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here "The medicines chosen comprised: Antimodum crudum (6cH),... ... Thuja occidentalis (30cH), Tuberculinum bovinum (30cH)..."(my emphasis). Number48 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he read it. Did yu have a copy of the article? Anthon01 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I googled the article title and thuja and found it here [7]. It also provides details of what it regards as two standard reference works, see refs 9 & 10, where thuja must, given the context, be referred to as a homeopathic remedy. Number48 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. Anthon01 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That article does nothing to establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to the subject of this article. It does, however, establish the prominence of homeopathy with respect to arthritis, citing another interesting paper that documents that people suffering from that debilitating condition often are desperate enough to try anything -- including homeopathy -- to get relief. This article and the articles it cites (for the most part) indicate quite clearly that homeopathy isn't effective for treating arthritis though homeopathy has prominence as an alternative medicine practice by victims of the disease. This is something for the arthritis article, not the Thuja article. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja not used in Homeopathy - break

What about the American Cancer Society? [8] Surely you agree that this is a non-homeopathic link from a reliable source. What is wrong with including this?

According to the American Cancer Society, "Some practitioners of homeopathy recommend use of very dilute thuja, in pill or liquid form, for treating" a variety of conditions, though "available scientific evidence does not support these claims".

OrangeMarlin reverted it citing WP:UNDUE, but I don't think his/her application of this policy is correct. Anyhow, I posed a question on a similar and applicable topic at WT:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the ACS is a source about cancer, not about Thuja. Mentioning this on the alternative cancer treatments page may be warranted, but in order to mention it here we need to establish the prominence of this particular treatment to thuja itself. In other words, this establishes the prominence of the homeopathic preparations of dilute thuja to alternative cancer treatments but says nothing of the prominence of said treatments to the plant itself. We need an independent, mainstream source on thuja itself that asserts the prominence of homeopathy to the plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To give a useful alternative example: there are various practioners of astrology who believe that the minor planets are important influences on their casting of horoscopes. However, undue weight prevents us from mentioning it on the individual pages devoted to minor planets because there is no mainstream independent source that asserts the prominence of the claimed astrological significance to the minor planet itself. There are sources out there which discuss the prominence of various minor planets to the horoscopes of certain famous practioners of astrology. This is similar to the sources which assert the prominence of homeopathic preparations involving thuja to alternative cancer treatments. While the astrology associated with the minor planet may bear mention on the page devoted to the celebrity who believes in astrology, unless an independent mainstream source asserts that this association is prominent with respect to the planet itself, there is no rationale for including this idea on the page devoted to the minor planet. The analogy to this situation, I hope, is clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This rubric might apply to a "tiny minority" theory (according to Jimbo's own words), but not to a "small minority" theory like homeopathy, s.a. Friarslantern (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Astrology is hardly a "tiny minority" theory, for example. And yet, the principle clearly applies. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. You assume the principle applies but that is far from clear. If the minor planets form a significant part of astrology then a mere mention in that article and a pointer to the main article explaining this would seem perfectly in order. Wiki is a general encyclopedia after all. 2. It is clear we have numerous sources which show that even failing point 1, homeopathy is in different boat entirely. For example, we have a database of plants used in homeopathy on the website of the natural history museum. And when such a weighty scientific body with no track record of supporting, let alone promoting homeopathy, deems it important enough to run a project and produce a database we are forced to acknowledge the notability of this use. 3. A similar point: we do not need a mainstream source to say "homeopathy is prominent with respect to this plant" because we have no wish to put this text in the article. Rather, the mere fact that a mainstream body, such as the Natural History Museum, has a database of plants used in homeopathy demonstrates by that fact alone sufficient notability for inclusion. That is, if it wasn't notable there would be no such database as there isn't in the case of the Greenwich Observatory and the minor planets used in astrology. I trust the difference is clear.Number48 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the editorial activity you are describing is known as POV-pushing. Editors who maintain this kind of advocacy usually end up being subject to the wrong end of the dispute resolution process as disruptive editors. More than a few have been banned. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: is wikipedia to be an inclusive or exclusive encyclopedia. Circular arguments are a waste of time in regards to the project. RSs exist. The question that has been raised is WP:DUE. 6,000,000 use homeopathy by 1999 estimates. Should those individual have access to the information hidden on these talk pages. Anthon01 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably several orders-of-magnitude greater number of people on this planet who believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Perhaps even a majority think this. Popular opinion is not the guide to how to write this encyclopedia because popular opinion can be shown to be demonstrably wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But no reliable sources. Anthon01 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage SA to re-read WP:NPOV, in which it is clearly stated that significant viewpoints have to be covered in articles. I challenge SA to demonstrate that Homeopathy, and the use of this plant in that practice (which by the way, I believe as he does, does not have a scientific footing) is not a significant viewpoint that can be sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to prove that something can't be sourced. The onus is on you to provide sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion isn't truth or fact, or whether it works. RS & V are the criteria. One sentence does not create undue weight. There are multiple source in the popular press, highly regarded academic books and peer review journals that admit that Thuja is used in making Homeopathic Thuja. Whether or not it works is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not Thuja is used in making the final preparation. Anthon01 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, one sentence can create undue weight. Your characterization of the sources has been disputed. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you are trying to accomplish. I have children. I don't think this is the way to do it. (Comment here due to SA request) Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja is a well-known homeopathic ingredient both as a single remedy, and in combination remedies. It is widely available in retail outlets in the U.S.A., especially in topical ointment form. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Source? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone doubt that, for example, if this issue went to arbitration, that the issue of whether or not homeopathic remedies based on thuja are widely available would come back in favor of: you don't need an academic source to document this fact. ? Um.... it's not a scientific question. Period. This is a question of the supplement trade/industry, which is not -- unlike science -- in the business of verifying such things in "peer-reviewed journals". You don't need an academic source, either, to say "water is wet." If the argument here is whether or not reference here is fine vis a vis undue weight, or notability, fine. But to request references beyond what's already been given seems a little disingenuous to me. As someone once wrote:

“ Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive. Related terms are wikilawyering and pettifogging, which refer to following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the spirit of the policy. ”

Friarslantern (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that isn't the situation. The issue is that the prominence must be established, not the existence. Jefffire (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominence to whom? Friarslantern (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The world! Or, in this case, the world of Thuja. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, SA, that you are being unreasonable. What is the big deal here? If this plant is widely used in Homeopathic ointments, why not to say it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The prominence of homeopathy to plants (such as thuja) has been shown by the fact that as lofty a scientific body as the Natural History Museum has chosen to have a project called "Plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy" undertaken by its botany department [9]. And the fact that thuja appears in the NHM database of their project [10]shows that this is a notable enough fact for inclusion in this article. Why else would the NHM go to all that trouble. This point is very clear and has not yet been addressed in any way.Number48 (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Were is the WP policy for prominence? Please. Anthon01 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NOTABILITY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Notability was a guideline for the creation of an articles, not for text? ~

Read WP:N#CONTENT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, here's the first two sentences of WP:NOTABILITY: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice".". We are not there yet, but were getting pretty close to the the type of argument offered by those cranks (psycop or whatever it was) who tried to ban the X-Files because it undermined democracy! For goodness sake, let's at least keep a shred of dignity and rise above that type of nonsense.Number48 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There a bunch of references to prominence but no policy called prominence. Last week it was lack of notability, which does not apply to content, being used to justify exclusion, this week it's lack of prominence. Anthon01 (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Why not "Arborvitae"?

I don't like the title of this article. The article clearly states that the name of this tree is Arborvitae, not "Thuja". Who calls it "Thuja"? No one in the Arborvitae business, apparently. What's the argument in favor this title? I don't see it here on the talk page anywhere.

I will change it if no one explains this.

Chrisrus (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expect in this, but it seems a matter of precision. Thuja refers specifically to the genus. Arborvitae, on the other hand, is more likely to refer to Chinese arborvitae or even a Russian Arborvitae than Western Redcedar. When I hear arborvitae, I think Thuja occidentalis or maybe some hybrid but certainly not a redcedar. I would leave the name as is, though maybe clarify ambiguity a bit. Bennetto (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What does 'Thuja' mean ?

Just curious ... could not find any explanation what the word means.

Etymology

This article needs an etymology for "Thuja". See my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thujopsis - 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:217D:BFC1:BE19:921F (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader