This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Hi. While the abstract of Aconite: a lethal Chinese herb discusses it's use in Homeopathy, the article itself does not. The abstract appears to confuse homeopathy and herbal medicine. PouponOnToast ( talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The references you provided, however, weren't strictly about this plant and didn't establish homeopathy's prominence. Patents should not be used as there are serious issues with how patents are given out (it's not a reliable vetting process). ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What's this nonsense mean "homeopathy's prominence." Its seems to me that you are POV waring since you have used a number of different stated reasons to exclude this info in this context. The text simple stated that a patent was granted, not that it works- patents do not determen the legitimacy of an intended inventions purpose just its uniqueness. A large number of references in wikipedia are not strictly about the subject they reference, point me to a police covering this please? Hardyplants ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, prominence isn't my word. It's
straight from Wikipedia policy.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aconitum napellus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for more information on the species Aconitum firmum and noticed that Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus have been used interchangeably, some even saying that they are synonyms. However, sources such as the Catalogue of Life and Kew Science recognize them as two different species. On pl.wikipedia.org, Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus both redirect to the same page; it doesn't state that A. napellus is a synonym, but the subspecies A. napellus subsp firmum is.
Should A. firmum redirect to A. napellus, or should it remain its own page?
CoL A. firmum:
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/3f74604592b8f829ace95afc11fc9eca
CoL A. napellus: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/0e5317f95dd823472d1e906a9cbe02d0/synonym/d9072751dbc93ab6980c71066ec90480 Kew Science A. firmum: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707355-1
Kew Science A. napellus: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707615-1#synonyms
pl.wikipedia.org A. firmum: https://pl.wikipedia.org/?title=Aconitum_firmum&redirect=no
pl.wikipedia.org A. napellus: https://pl.wikipedia.org/?title=Aconitum_napellus&redirect=no
Mention of A. napellus being a synonym for A. firmum (Polish): http://web.archive.org/web/20150626005609/http://tatry.edu.pl:80/tojad.html
(Copied from the talk page of A. firmum since this applies to both species)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Hi. While the abstract of Aconite: a lethal Chinese herb discusses it's use in Homeopathy, the article itself does not. The abstract appears to confuse homeopathy and herbal medicine. PouponOnToast ( talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The references you provided, however, weren't strictly about this plant and didn't establish homeopathy's prominence. Patents should not be used as there are serious issues with how patents are given out (it's not a reliable vetting process). ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What's this nonsense mean "homeopathy's prominence." Its seems to me that you are POV waring since you have used a number of different stated reasons to exclude this info in this context. The text simple stated that a patent was granted, not that it works- patents do not determen the legitimacy of an intended inventions purpose just its uniqueness. A large number of references in wikipedia are not strictly about the subject they reference, point me to a police covering this please? Hardyplants ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, prominence isn't my word. It's
straight from Wikipedia policy.
ScienceApologist (
talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aconitum napellus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for more information on the species Aconitum firmum and noticed that Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus have been used interchangeably, some even saying that they are synonyms. However, sources such as the Catalogue of Life and Kew Science recognize them as two different species. On pl.wikipedia.org, Aconitum firmum and Aconitum napellus both redirect to the same page; it doesn't state that A. napellus is a synonym, but the subspecies A. napellus subsp firmum is.
Should A. firmum redirect to A. napellus, or should it remain its own page?
CoL A. firmum:
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/3f74604592b8f829ace95afc11fc9eca
CoL A. napellus: http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/0e5317f95dd823472d1e906a9cbe02d0/synonym/d9072751dbc93ab6980c71066ec90480 Kew Science A. firmum: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707355-1
Kew Science A. napellus: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707615-1#synonyms
pl.wikipedia.org A. firmum: https://pl.wikipedia.org/?title=Aconitum_firmum&redirect=no
pl.wikipedia.org A. napellus: https://pl.wikipedia.org/?title=Aconitum_napellus&redirect=no
Mention of A. napellus being a synonym for A. firmum (Polish): http://web.archive.org/web/20150626005609/http://tatry.edu.pl:80/tojad.html
(Copied from the talk page of A. firmum since this applies to both species)