Talk:Atropa belladonna/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Atropa belladonna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Full revert error

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Apologies - I intended a partial revert, messed it up and then my wifi decided to reset. Verbal chat 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

no problems, it happens. and on second reading, I'm not sure I disagree with the substantive part of your revert. my concern, really, was synth - homeopaths wouldn't really care that there's no actual plant material in the solution, since they work under a different model, and so pointing out that there's no material there seemed off without some balancing. but since the comment itself is really just descriptive, I can't (again, on second reading) see it as much of a concern. I do think think the word 'statistically' should be in there, however, just for clarity. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "statistically" is definitely not necessary. ~~I'm going to remove it.~~ Oops-- misread your comment Ludwigs2. Can you explain why you want to keep "statistically"? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

reversion 1/28/09

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments3 people in discussion

Verbal, can you please explain why you think a shift to active voice is a POV wording? this is an article about AB, not homeopathy, so I don't see the advantage of the current phrasing. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Verbal, but I do not think that the sources we have can verify that the homeopathic remedies that are labeled Belladonna actually are in point-of-fact "Belladonna preparations". No third-party source has verified that they were prepared with the plant and third-party sources have verified that there is no trace of the plant in the most common homeopathic dilution. I'm open to considering other wordings that are in more of an active voice, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm just working off the general definition of a preparation as "a substance that is specially made up and usually sold, esp. a medicine or food". they are 'belladonna preparations' as a matter of inspection/definition (that's what the label says they are); the fact that they contain essentially no actual AB is covered adequately in the following lines. I think the clarity of using the active voice outweighs any subtleties of misinterpretation: 'belladonna preparation' places the emphasis on preparation; 'preparation of belladonna' places the emphasis on belladonna, and creates more cause for concern. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between what a product is labeled and what it's made of. In this case, I agree that the remedies are labeled belladonna but I haven't seen any evidence that they are made of atropa belladonna. That's why I prefer avoiding the term "preparations". I don't think anyone is advocating for using "preparation of belladonna". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I said that the products were 'belladonna preparations' - this is what they are called. if you want to go on and argue that there is no actual belladonna in them, that's fine, but there's no need to get silly about the name of the stuff. or are you suggesting that we should refer to 'angel-food cake' as 'cake that is supposedly made from angel food'? 'trickle-down economics' as 'economics that ostensibly trickles down'? 'particle physics' as 'the physics of things which may or may not actually exist as particles'? --Ludwigs2 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I made an edit that may be to your liking. See what you think. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

no, that was the old version (which was edited by someone else to say 'prepared with'). this passive voice construction is just a trouble-maker. seriously, what is the advantage you see in "Homeopathic remedies labeled as belladonna preparations have been sold as treatments for various conditions" over "Belladonna preparations have been sold as homeopathic remedies for various conditions"? they say the same thing, but the second is cleaner and clearer. --Ludwigs2 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this argument is purely stylistic, but basically my issue is that I want the sentence to be clear that there exist homeopathic remedies (read: "made by homeopaths") that are labeled belladonna preparations. Your sentence has a reading that implies that there are things called "belladonna preparations" which the homeopaths are collecting (read: "not necessarily made by them and perhaps containing significant amounts of the substance") and selling as their remedies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

uh... wow, you're really reading into that. first off, this is an article about AB, not about homeopathy. it doesn't matter what homeopathy practitioners (sorry, homeopath sounds like a latin term for someone who wants to commit suicide) are doing, really, and it's not always HPs who are selling the preparations anyway. I think you're trying to pack too much into this sentence. the sentence only needs to say that belladonna preparations of this type exist and have been sold; trying to turn it into a statement about homeopathy is as torturous as it is off-topic. you get enough milage from that concept in the rest of the paragraph. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to try alternate wordings. How about "Homeopathic remedies called belladonna preparations have been sold as treatments for various conditions"? I'm really trying my best here. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon SA. do you really want to push on this issue? You and I both know that the difference you're clinging to is practically non-existent, and the phrasing is noticeably worse. Give a little on this one. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We could throw the argument back on you too. I think the phrasing is not noticeably worse. I have offered a lot of alternative suggestions, but you haven't offered a single one. Please do. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't offered an alternative suggestion because my given suggestion is simpler, more direct, more grammatically sound, and less subject to misinterpretation or misdirection than any other alternative that has been proposed. It seems to me that you're holding onto to these mucky alternate versions because you want to focus the sentence on the problems inherent to homeopathy, but (a) this is not an article about homeopathy, and (b) your homeopathic concerns are more than adequately addressed by the remaining lines in the paragraph. It's not like I don't understand your concerns; I just think that you are absurdly far off in left field here. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We're at loggerheads. I see that you think you're being overwhelmingly reasonable and I think that I'm being likewise. Maybe we should let some other people have at it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

well, if we're just counting the talk page participants, it's 2:1 - ward seems to agree with me. we can wait for a day or so to see if anyone else chimes in, but I'd still ask you to reconsider. you're making a hell of a stink over nothing, and I thought we were getting along a bit better than that. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than call in the cavalry, which will not make anyone happy, I'm going to go along with you and wait for others patiently. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See PMID 10531108 Andrew Vickers, Catherine Zollman, ABC of complementary medicine Homoeopathy, BMJ. 1999 Oct 23;319(7217):1115-8 full text Based on this source I believe "Belladonna preparations have been sold as homeopathic remedies for various conditions" is reasonable wording.

"Other common homoeopathic medicines include those made from plants such as belladonna, arnica, and chamomile; minerals such as mercury and sulphur; animal products such as sepia (squid ink) and lachesis (snake venom); and, more rarely, biochemical substances such as histamine or human growth factor. The remedies are prepared by a process of serial dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). The more times this process of dilution and succussion is performed, the greater the "potency" of the remedy."

"It is well known that many homoeopathic medicines are ultramolecular -that is, they are diluted to such a degree that not even a single molecule of the original solute is likely to be present." Ward20 (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this source supports either wording. Perhaps you'd like to explain. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you stated, "I do not think that the sources we have can verify that the homeopathic remedies that are labeled Belladonna actually are in point-of-fact "Belladonna preparations". No third-party source has verified that they were prepared with the plant." PMID 10531108 states they are prepared with the plant. Ward20 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided uses the term "homeopathic medicines" rather than "belladonna preparations" and is abundantly clear that by "made from" they mean "diluted to the point that not even a single molecule of the original solute is likely to be present." If you can succinctly summarize that sense, I'd support the new phrasing gladly. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of PMID 10531108 states, "Homoeopaths treat disease using very low dose preparations..." and figure illustrates, "A wide range of homoeopathic preparations", so the author uses the terms medicines and preparations interchangeably. Here is a third party RS that indicates belladonna preparations are made of belladonna, and in ultramolecular preparations the solution is successively diluted to the point no original belladonna solute molecule is likely to exist (from cradle to grave, so to speak). The Atropa belladonna article already addresses the ultramolecular dilution point, so the wording for the initial statement, "Belladonna preparations have been sold as homeopathic remedies for various conditions." is supported as ScienceApologist wanted above and should be used without the "labeled" qualifier. Ward20 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't really deal substantively with what I'm saying. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does - it shoes that the phrase 'belladonna preparation' is commonly accepted as a name for these materials, regardless of the ultramolecularity issue. therefore we should use it. --Ludwigs2 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the compromise that Ward made, if it's alright with SA. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been mulling it over and I can't decide. So, since I can't decide, default to Keep. Thanks guys. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ok. if you change your mind, post back. I do appreciate that it's a tough call on this page. --Ludwigs2 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Best to you two, too. Ward20 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why the name of this article is not written in italic form like other scientific names, or it isn't? Thank you (sorry if my English is maybe weird, because I'm not native speaker :-) ) --Ponpan (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is bleeding one of the effects of poisoning?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When a human consumes atropa belladona, is bleeding one of the effects of the poison? (such as bleeding from the mouth, nose, ears, or eyes)
Without treatment, does death occur before or after the bleeding first starts?
175.142.3.23 (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atropa belladonna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Questionable value

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Questioning this statement and source about whether it has sufficient value to be included under the Alternative medicine section; WP:UNDUE. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna, in the form of Doktor Koster's Antigaspills, was one of the many medications prescribed to Adolf Hitler by Theodor Morell. source here.

It's a specific example of atropa belladonna's use in an alternative medicine product, which was previously lacking in that section. The section itself is also quite short. I would say it's very helpful to readers to see specific historical examples of this toxic plant added to a commercial product and given as "medicine" to people by physicians. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can probably find less controversial subjects for this misuse. I will look; so might you. --Zefr (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What's controversial about it? It's a well-known historical fact and has been for decades. If you prefer, edit out the mention of Hitler and simply leave in the product name as a commercial example. I'm sure he wasn't the only person who took the stuff GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I added another review and further context, and retained the Doktor Koster's Antigaspills content, which seems to be outdated and certainly is quackery. --Zefr (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly quackery. Any "medication" that includes a highly-toxic plant with no proof of efficacy is. But it's still historically notable. Maybe that section could be expanded in general to discuss the quackery angle more thoroughly (not sure as I'm not really an expert on how many products have included this plant). GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Context added using this review. --Zefr (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Belladonna is one of the most toxic plants found in the Eastern Hemisphere,[19] and its use by mouth increases risk in numerous clinical conditions, such as pregnancy, cardiovascular diseases, gastrointestinal disorders, and psychiatric disorders, among others.[1][2]

From the way it is written, seems like the plant causes...pregnancy!!