Talk:Cardiospermum halicacabum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lheg12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Serious concerns

I have some really serious concerns about this page, even if it is just a stub. I removed the dead links, but they shouldn't have been there anyway. Homeopathy isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia page like this. Also, nothing in the 2nd paragraph makes sense. I cannot comprehend how this many edits have been made in the history, yet that paragraph is still standing. There is a hanging end quote at the end of it, is it supposed to be a quote from that book but it isn't properly formatted? Where is the start quote? That's all I can seem to guess, because otherwise why leave a [sic] and those bizarre citations if they aren't from that book itself?

And yet, I really think that the 1889 book by Maiden is not a good source anyway . It's very, very old. And since I'm not sure how the 2nd paragraph is written, I don't know if that's text from the book or just written like the book, but those words are archaic and very awkward to read. They at least need to be linked because, as it stands, it is nearly incomprehensible. Stomachic? Aperient? Rubefacient, piles, amenorrhoea: these are not words that are commonly used. Also, some of this phrasing is suspect. What does "half a cupful" mean? Is it being used in the modern context, as a measurement? Or in the older sense, as in half a drinking cup full, however much that might be? That could be dangerous information to be passing on without context if someone is actually trying to find ways to use this plant, since real modern information seems to be lacking about it. (And I highly doubt it's about the measurement since this is an en.wiki page.)

Similarly- applying to tumors, "nervous diseases", referring to some sort of group of people just as "Hindus." This is all very, VERY, antiquated and unscientific and it needs to be presented more clearly that these are historical records and not just (hopefully) terrible writing by a Wikipedia editor. I personally don't really think any of these records are useful, but if there is simply nothing else to include it at least needs to be made perfectly clear that that is what they are: history. Please, someone more experienced and better at this than I am come help this page. It is clearly not in good hands. Basil989 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree it consists of "lore", and someone ought to completely rewrite it, using modern sources, and tossing out what is there.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Test comment Lheg12 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Medicinal Uses - to what book does this refer? AND query - add to Bushfood?

I note in the "Medicinal Uses" section that it refers to a book: "The 1989 book records that..." but there's no link to a 1989 book." I assume it's the book referred to previously under "serious concerns."

I note under "medicinal uses" it says "The green parts of the plant are eaten as vegetables." Should this plant then be included as a "Bushfood?" If so, as with other bushfood plants, I'd suggest adding "Bushfood" at the bottom of this page with a link to the Bushfood page and added to the list on the Bushfood page.

Tzali (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)