Talk:Aristolochia

	This Alternative medicine related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

(create an archive)

TOW strikes again

Wiktionary's definition of Aristolochia: "A taxonomic genus within the family Aristolochiaceae—over 500 species of shrubs and herbs, many having medicinal properties." Any truth to that last bit at all?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 08:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, it is true — many species have been used in traditional medicine across the world, but the cost-benefit ratio is certainly the among worst of herbal remedies. Bongolian (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Many species have been used in traditional medicine across the world" and "many species have medicinal properties" are two quite different statements. Source?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This citation gives a reference that documents 99 species used ethnobotanically: "Local uses of Aristolochia species and content of nephrotoxic aristolochic acid 1 and 2--a global assessment based on bibliographic sources" J Ethnopharmacol. 2009 Aug 17;125(1):108-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2009.05.028. Epub 2009 Jun 6. It is now cited in the "Continuing usage" section. Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Irony

Why is it ironic that birthwort is sometimes used for poisoning?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 20:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the link could be removed, since the Chinese treatment is not for renal or pancreatic diseases. If the treatment were for renal or pancreatic diseases, it would be ironic. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the France section.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have deleted that now. Bongolian (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Silver or higher?

Much thanks to the latest work by Bongolian, I think this article should be considered for Silver rating. It's well sourced, comprehensive, has images and reflects a worldwide view on the topic. I also think we should keep front-page status for this article in mind, considering the progress being made on it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Percy. I agree, it's worth considering for silver. Bongolian (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Once more

I will re-iterate that this article clearly appears to be of Silver quality, all thanks to the efforts of Bongolian, and should be promoted from bronze. Well done, chum! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And I agree Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I also note that this article is generally superior to the corresponding Wikipedia page, particularly with regard to the aims of RW. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Renaming?

I think it would b a good idea to rename this page "Aristolochia". This is the name that is usually used in science, and it is what is used on Wikipedia (Birthwort redirects to Aristolochia over there). Birthwort is not always understood even by native English speakers. In horticulture, it is often referred to as pipevine or Dutchman's pipevine. Are there any objections? Bongolian (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am agree Miss gleaming (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nominating for cover story

I am nominating this page to become a cover story. Contributors since 2016, @Krej, @Spud, @DiamondDisc1, @Christopher, let me know what you think. Reverend Black Percy, who is now inactive, suggested it in 2016 (see above). Bongolian (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend it be upgraded to premium plus cover status. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 10:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to have an opinion. Nevertheless, I would say the article looks good.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also looks pretty good to me. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 04:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm moving it to gold since there have been no objections for months. Bongolian (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)