Talk:Ruta

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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?

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

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)Reply

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

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 ^discuss 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Incorrect. I have objected to your conclusion, stating: Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Wikipedia'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 ^discuss 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

WP:PROMINENCE is part of Wikipedia 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)Reply

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 ^discuss 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

Unduew weight is not being assigned by mere mention in the said reference. Since Rue and Homeopathy are worthy subjects for Wikipedia, 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)Reply

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)Reply

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

The principle of one-way linking is also found in careful reading of WP:FRINGE. Claims of Wikipedia: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)Reply

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

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Are you suggesting that adherents to homeopathy are an extremely small minority? I would consider them to be a "significant minority" (Wikipedia: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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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 Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

My response to your analysis remains: Prominence, as you are using it, is not part of Wikipedia'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 ^discuss 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^discuss 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Wikipedia:PROMINENCE for deletion because it is an underhanded way to twist policy to suit one's own interpretation. Feel free to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It makes no sense to remove the reference to homeopathy and keep the rest, I'm afraid, if the paraphrasing of the source is to remain, because by your definition of WP:UNDUE, that's still giving undue wait to all the rest of the remedies listed by the source. Also, if there were an entire paragraph on how rue is used in homeopathic medicine then fair enough, but 4 words is not undue weight. WP:UNDUE is actually about neutral point of view, as well; making sure the coverage of different stances and viewpoints is balanced out in an article. Like homeopathy or not, the fact that rue is used in homeopathy is not a viewpoint, it's a simple fact. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, we cannot verify that rue is used in homeopathy because remedies that claim to contain rue do not contain a measurable amount of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If rue often appears in homeopathy related literature, the NPOV thing to do would be to mention this, with a source. A properly sourced statement that although homeopathy claims to use rue, no measurable amounts can be found in the homeopathic preparations, may also be included. You might also be able to find a source that makes a general statement that homeopathic remedies do not include measurable amounts of any active ingredients. Find a reliable source, prepare a statement that closely follows the source, and add it. Each point of view can add a statement with a source. Then the reader can decide what they want to believe. It is not our job to say that things are "good" or "bad". Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me be clear, verification is not done with your own test tubes in your own lab. That is original research. Verification is done by looking up reliable sources and summarizing, paraphrasing, or briefly quoting what they say. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Homeopaths themselves recognize that none of the substance is present in their provings. But what is worse is that we haven't analyzed how prominent homeopathy is to the subject of rue. We shouldn't be analyzing how prominent rue is to the subject of homeopathy because that's backwards (this is not the Rue (homeopathy) article). Per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. we need to establish the prominence of the fringe idea in order to include it here. So far, what was done was using the fact that the OUP book mentions homeopathy off-handedly as establishing the prominence. That's not good enough as it is like some textbook on the planets mentioning flat earth ideas off-handedly in the section on Earth being used to argue that we must include discussion of flat Earth on the Earth article. See the issue? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article on Earth devotes an entire paragraph to the flat earth view and links to the article on flat earth. The disputed addition here is four words long, hardly undue weight. It is just for the purpose of mentioning that it is used in homeopathy and linking to the relevant article. --Itub (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That mention of flat earth is historical, and as the policy says there's no need for mention of the minority modern viewpoint. The point stands. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hardly a paragraph and I note that the prominence of the idea is rightly (and well) described. It's relevant to the cultural history of the Earth. Now, if you find us a source that talks of the cultural history of rue and it asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this history then I will be the first to help you include it in this article. But a book on health foods that mentions homeopathy in the barest sense is not asserting any sort of prominence whatsoever. Outright exclusion looks to me to be the only justification until (or unless) we find a source that properly frames the issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get this idea that every passing mention and wikilink needs to be backed up by an independent source proving the "prominence" of the linked article to the linking article? For example, take any of the other medical uses, which you are not deleting. Which source proves that its use as an antispasmodic is "prominent to the plant itself"? Talk about double standards... --Itub (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't find your assertions about 'prominence' to be convincing. Itub points out one internal inconsistency. At a more basic level, your assertions just aren't supported by Wikipedia policy. You've declared, repeatedly, that you edit Wikipedia with an agenda - to battle against the "POV-pushers" as you like to describe those with whom you disagree. These assertions about prominence seem like mere sophistry meant to advance that cause. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's quite simple. There's a flow chart you can follow:

Does the suggested content for inclusion represent a fringe, pseudoscientific, or minority opinion? IF YES THEN --> Is the suggested content for inclusion prominent with respect to the subject of the article? IF NO THEN --> Do not include the content in the article. IF ANY OTHER PATHWAY WAS FOLLOWED THEN THEN INCLUDE THE CONTENT.

So, in some cases we are talking about ideas that are not fringe, pseudoscientific, or minority opinions. In such cases we include the content since WP:PROMINENCE does not apply. In other cases the content requested shows evidence of prominence with respect to the article. In such cases we include the content, duly weighted, in the article. In the case of this article we answer YES to the first question and NO to the second.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is simple, not at all hard to follow, perfectly clear, and totally wrong and not consistent with Wikipedia policy. I understand perfectly that this is how you want things to be. There is absolutely no confusion about your assertions. By the way, USING CAPITAL LETTERS OR BOLD TEXT DOES NOT ADD FORCE TO YOUR ASSERTIONS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, lacking the time to make a proper flow chart, I decided to make clear designations... ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm reverting this edit. I looked, and the cited source does in fact state that Rue has been used in homeopathy. SA's arguments that reliably sourced information should be excluded based on a non-existent 'prominence policy' have no consensus as far as I can tell. Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a homeopathic medicine, this is used widely and extensively. There is every reason to include reference to this. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where is your independent evidence of this? Do you have any source that isn't a homeopath who says this? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

While there's a good case that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE mean that there should be no mention of this fringe use, including it at all under Medicinal uses requires balance per WP:NPOV#Balance and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, so I've added appropriate clarification. .. dave souza, talk 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Deadly nightshade. No adequate sources have been able to establish the prominence of homeopathy to these plants. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no such policy as 'Prominence', and there is no consensus at Talk:Deadly nightshade to support your false assertions about this nonexistent policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Accusing someone of making "false assertions" is very close to a personal attack. I once got in trouble for telling someone that they were lying. Just FYI. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The common medicinal use of rue as a homeopathic remedy should not be repeatedly and unjustifiably removed from this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have a independent, reliable source that shows that rue is commonly used as such, please show us. For example, maybe you have a record for the amount of Ruta sold at US pharmacies in comparison to more mainstream medications? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Deadly nightshade#Homeopathy removal justification for why OBHF cannot be used to to adequately frame this plant as a homeopathic ingredient. Please find another source which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to this particular plant. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it seems to make a lot more sense to discuss this article on this article's talk page. I would like to note that there is no such policy as 'prominence', and certainly no consensus that your novel re-write of policy should form the basis of editing decisions. Dlabtot (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I think you (SA) have plenty of leverage interpreting the policy under its given name, and not under redirects which give the apperance of subversive editing practices. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on the content of the analysis if you think there is justification for including homeopathy here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your analysis of OBHF has been thoroughly rejected. WP:RSN has declared it a reliable source. The next step for you is to take your interpretation of WP:UNDUE to WT:NPOV and see if it holds water. In the meantime, please refrain from edit warring. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

SA, you know I agree with you more often than not. And I disagree with Levine more often than not. But Dave souza's edits are fair and balanced. Basically, it is true that Homeopathy promoters do use Rue in their lotions and potions. That's historical. It is also true that there zero scientific proof of the stuff having any medical usefulness, and that it's worse than a placebo. As I read it, it's not trying to say that Homeopathy is anything more than a fringe therapy, which is fine with me, and keeps the anti-science POV types quiet. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's the problem, Orange: what is the prominence of homeopathy to this plant? If we include homeopathy on this page, what is the criteria for including homeopathy on any page (say on the Muscovy duck page, the potassium dichromate page or the Thuja occidentalis page? We need a consistent standard. The only source being used treats homeopathy anecdotally and does not assert prominence of homeopathy to the plant. Therefore, it should be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sounds to me like a specific policy interpretation/issue you have with either or both WP:RS or WP:NPOV. These policies make no assertion about the treatment of subject by a source (in this case, I maintain that neither Rue nor Homeopathy is being treated anecdotally by the OBHF) - and if that treatment should prohibit us using it as a source. My suggestion to you is to take your concerns to WP:RSN and WT:NPOV and hash out your points there. As of now, these policies do not support your rationale. Please alert us when you do take it to these boards as I for one would like to but my two-cents in. Thanks. In the meantime, please refrain from edit warring. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is a nonresponsive post that makes a number of WP:KETTLE accusations. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how a response can be "nonresponsive" nor do I see any WP:KETTLE accusations (nor do I see any accusations of any kind). Again, my response to you is that neither Rue nor Homeopathy is being treated anecdotally by the OBHF and even if they were, there is no portion of NPOV or RS which concerns itself with omitting such information because the source is treating them "anecdotally". My suggestion to you remains that you should take your policy concerns/interpretations to WP:RSN and WT:NPOV, and to refrain from edit-warring. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another nonresponsive post. All Levine need do is provide a source that establishes the prominence of homeopathy to the Rue plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no such policy as 'prominence' which requires citations 'establish their prominence' with respect to the subject. Pretending that such a policy exists is counterproductive and may indeed be characterized as disruption. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no justification for removing mention that Rue is used to produce the widely used homeopathic remedy Ruta. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source that Ruta is widely used that is independent? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

ScienceApologist, how you wikilinked `independent` above to WP:FRINGE#Independent sources, a section which you recently wrote, is not amusing at all. Please stop with your contemptuous argument tactics. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:38 2008 February 22 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't trying to be amusing, so I fail to see why you think it appropriate to point out it's lack of amusing-ness. More than this, if you think that this particular section is wrong, you cant talk about it at Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories where there is a section on this very point. I wrote much of WP:FRINGE actually. Does this mean I should never refer to it? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that I interpreted your action differently than how you meant. Perhaps, though, a simple link to Wikipedia:Independent sources would have sufficed. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:23 2008 February 23 (UTC)

I actually agree with how WP:FRINGE#Independent sources is written and find it interesting that ScienceApologist not only claims to have written most of it, but that he cites it here. Clearly, this policy supports inclusion of the homeopathic usage of Rue. This guideline calls for 1) the mere mention of the fringe theory in an independent source. An abundant amount of such sources have been offered up right here on this talk page. 2) This guideline calls for an independent source to serve as a guide for appropriate contextual framing. That too has been offered up as straightforward, phrasing proportional to subject's prominence it the provided independent source. So regardless of whether this policy even applies here (after all, while homeopathy may very be a "fringe theory", the usage of Rue in the preparation of homeopathic remedies is neither "fringe" nor a "theory"; it's a fact.), the sources provided and the proposed phrasing of this content do in fact sufficiently meet what would be required of them if we were dealing with a "fringe theory"; at least this according to the policy which ScienceApologist boasts haven written much of. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you are helping your case by pointing out that in your Appeal to authority, the authority you are citing is yourself. But it is worth noting. Dlabtot (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good try at poisoning the well. If you find something with which you disagree in policy or guidelines, you are free to ask for a change. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The cited policy says "when trying to decide whether a fringe theory is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance and can provide a guide for appropriate contextual framing of the fringe theory within the mainstream article." On this, and many other, pages, numerous mentions of "x is used in homeopathy" have been listed from independent sources (including, but not limited to, peer-reviewed medical journals, books/articles by academic botanical publishers, general purpose books on plants and/or medicine and the Natural History Museum). All of these sources are independent of homeopathy (i.e., they are not published by "the homeopathy association" etc.), and since one mention in such a source is considered good enough according to policy to "firmly establish" relevance, the array of sources already provided clearly goes well beyond this requirement.213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user, as I understand WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT to be, you are entirely 100% correct in your assessment of this situation. Weight is determined by the proportionate weight an independent reliable source gives the subject. The general plant books, the research, the botanical databases, etc. all go to establish the proportionate weight of homeopathy to Rue. Thus, we should discuss Rue in our Wiki article with approximately the same proportional weight given to it in the many independent, reliable sources already detailed in our discussion above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the Oxford Book of Health Foods do not give anything like the prominence that I would like to see for inclusion at this page. Please find a source which establishes that Ruta is indeed a prominent remedy or one of the main ways people interact with this plant. Otherwise, homeopathy simply isn't prominent enough to include here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a sidenote, Boiron makes 3X - 30X Ruta graveolens (Common rue), which may be what OBHF is referring to by "[Rue] has been used in homeopathy". Are all members of Ruta used in homeopathy? « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:59 2008 February 23 (UTC)

Now this is closer to what I'm looking for. The issue is, however, that this company's most famous product is made from Muscovy duck liver, yet we do not find it prominent enough to include in the linked aritcle. What makes this company's preparations prominent to the "ingredients"? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even after seemingly thousands of iterations, this false appeal to a non-existent policy remains as unpersuasive as at its premiere. Dlabtot (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you think this is true, please file a RfC. This argument for inclusion of fringe theories on articles that are not about the fringe theories is sound. Thank you for your input. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ummm, 'thank you for your input' as well. Dlabtot (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've protected this article to stop the tag-team edit war. Please start a requests for comment or choose another method from dispute resolution to settle this. An uninvolved administrator should review the history and feel free to place all the participants on editing restrictions, such as 1RR, per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just found a mention of a Ruta fruticosa and there does not seem to be any mention of other species of ruta or even a plan to mention other species of ruta on this page. Is it how it seems?

An aside: is one side writing about how to make attenuated doses from rue and the other side siding with Avogadro on this? What a weird place to have a homeopathy edit war!! Even when I was gardening, I did not consider making my own homeopathic doses of things. And why rue? When there is Apis and Lycopodium and so many other very much more interesting remedies -- bug the bug people! Heh.... -- </yawn> getting back to tales of climax and plant domination communities in Canary Islands carol (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning in the article that there is a Ukrainian legend about it will make the reader question if red rues exist. It should be stated if they do or don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynyfrik (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The recently added part about basilisks, weasels, and rue appears to be correct, but I would like to see a reference to a reputable source.

If you have access to JSTOR, please take a look at:

• Gallacher, Patrick (1976). "Food, laxatives, and catharsis in Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale". Speculum. 51 (1): 49–68.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:52 2008 June 9 (UTC)

I've heard that some people are much more sensitive than others - is particular, that white-skinned people are often more sensitive than Guatemalans, who hit branches of against their skin where they have hot baths. I couldn't find any references for these claims, and so only added a point about some being more sensitive than others. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reference number 2 discusses a case of severe dermatitis caused by a combined exposure of skin to Rue oil and Ultraviolet A radiation. However the article refers to reference 2 at the end of the following sentence: "Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal.[2]"

This reference is much more appropriate at the end of the previous sentence: "Applied to the skin with sun exposure, the oil and leaves can cause blistering."

This means that currently the paper does not have a reference to the claim that "Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal." This is a very strong claim and as someone who really likes Rue, I would like to see a reference to this claim. Workers of the world, unite! (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since there's been no response to this I took the following -- "Rue oil can cause severe stomach pain, vomiting and convulsions and may be fatal" -- out of the article. If anyone knows of a real reference for this claim, by all means put the claim back in the article with a reference. Andrew Dalby 20:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply