Talk:Phytotherapy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles

Dietary Supplements

Phytotherapy is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles

Plants

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles

merge[edit]

in regards to [1] it may be a good idea, are there other opinions?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What may be a good idea? Merging to herbalism or adding the word pseudoscientific to the lede? The merge discussion was started elsewhere. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_88#Merge_Phytotherapy_to_Herbalism.Dialectric (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both actually...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on policy-based reasons for your position? Dialectric (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY & Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the position that it is obvious pseudoscience. Would you characterize Wiley's peer reviewed Phytotherapy Research as a journal of pseudoscience? On what basis?Dialectric (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, just because it's a journal does not make it scientific. There are lots of chiropractic journals, that doesn't make them less bunk. I am still under the impression that >95 % of this article could be deleted and the remaining portion merged to Herbalism. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still having trouble seeing where you are coming from with this. Are you arguing that plants can't have measurable medicinal effects? or that these can't be determined through controlled trials similar to those used for pharmaceuticals?Dialectric (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Two concepts are traditional medicine with plants, called "herbalism", and evidence-based medicine with plants, called "phytotherapy", herbalism, medicine, alternative medicine, and other names. Wikipedia seeks to match article titles to concepts. When a concept is known by multiple names, then wiki editors here have to choose one. What is discussed here is the science-based subset of herbalism. "Phytotherapy" probably is not the clearest name for this because that is a jargon word with disputed meaning, and not the most commonly used term for describing this concept.

"Evidence-based medicine using plants" might be a more understandable title and might guide the direction of the article, but I regret that the concept might need a phrase instead of a term to make it clear. I am not sure what name is best but "phytotherapy" is causing problems. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phytotherapy. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927143919/http://www.herbaltherapeutics.net/HerbalMedicineIntroduction.pdf to http://www.herbaltherapeutics.net/HerbalMedicineIntroduction.pdf

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).

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) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge to Herbalism[edit]

I see there was a fragmentary proposal back in October 2016 to merge to Herbalism. Since it does not seem to have been complete (not having been posted over there), I have started a discussion over there at Talk:Herbalism#Proposed_merge to carry out the merge afresh, and invite all interested editors to join it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]