Talk:Sanguinaria

This project tag seems hugely inappropriate to this article, and ripe for removin'? Heathhunnicutt 07:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, this topic isn't at all specific to South Dakota. Tag removed. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As the person who put the banner on, I can say that it was only put there because the bloodroot is included in the category Category:Flora of South Dakota, and I have no objections to its removal. However, I do think that having some project, preferably one with assessment, tag and hopefully monitor this page would probably be a good idea. Badbilltucker 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Having one project on an article doesn't stop others from doing the same. Spiesr 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's disingenuous, Spiesr. Having a South Dakota project direct South Dakotans to this article will lead to a POV that has nothing to do with the article. Bloodroot is found all over North America, and it has nothing to do with South Dakota. It's like the people of South Dakota are grasping around for topics to claim as relevant to their state. Not that South Dakota is boring in the winter, or anything. Heathhunnicutt 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why were the red links put back in? Spiesr 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suspect as a signal to others that there needs to be a redirect or a new article. David D. (Talk) 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Precisely. And that is what I wrote in the edit history. If you don't like seeing red links, write new articles. I agree with you that the need for an article on Dan Raber is less urgent, and that link might as well go. I also removed a hated "date/year" link. But encouraging new articles is the reason I put the red links there in the first place. You may go back in the edit history and find that I wrote the bulk of this article. Like any good encyclopedia article, the goal is to be encylopedic in balance with visually appealing presentation. The red links are visually unappealing also specifically to encourage article writing...

The fact that the plant produces sanguinarine is probably the single most interesting thing about it. As an example, sanguinarine is chemically related to reticuline. It would be nice if there were an article on reticuline, too. Heathhunnicutt 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I feel it is not appropriate to use section headers such as "Medicinal Uses", considering that bloodroot and extracts are poisonous and disfiguring. Please keep in mind that it would be a bad idea for someone to return to the traditional uses of Bloodwort. Heathhunnicutt 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

± Hi, my vet has just prescribed an ointment with Zinc Chloride and Bloodroot for a large lump of proudflesh on the front of one of a rescue horse's hind legs. I have to put the ointment on a dressing and bandage it over the proudlesh, and leave it for 48 hours. After doing this twice, the proudflesh has reduced by half. The smell of rotten tissue is dreadful, but I think it will save this poor horse having to have surgery. I had never heard of this herbal remedy until now, but it certainly seems powerful. I will let you know the final outcome.Kizzywizzy 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• • What you're referring to is a drug called Neoplasene. I'm starting a page on that drug and any input would be welcome: User:Otherlleft/Neoplasene —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been self treating skin cancers for several yeras with positive results. Yes is does disfigure but the treated area quickly recovers leaving little if any trace. The alternative is surgical removal - an option I find less attractive. My doctor - who at first did not want to know - I suspect he had heard the medical reports - is impressed with the results. There is evidence from my trials that suggests that only the cancer is being attacked. It has never eaten anything but cancer. It is turned to puss in 48 hours which eventually falls away leaving a scar. The scar then heals over time and leaves little if any trace. Given my experience I would recommend this before invasive surgery.202.169.177.210 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

^User Above: Wikipedia is not a place for original, non-peer reviewed research, and in light of every anectodal and peer reviewed case out there, the experience in using bloodroot paste and salve is quite frank: It causes disfiguring, often perminant skin destruction and lesioning. It doesn't "selectively" target the cancer, as you suggest, but rather the cellular metabolism of any animal tissue it comes in contact with. I highly suggest you don't add your own "research" to this article, unless you want it removed due to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.201 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the paragraph below... lesser celandine is not at all related (though greater celandine is). The referencing link leads to an error message.

The genetics of flower development in bloodroot have been studied. Specific differences were found compared with poppy species Papaver nudicaule (Iceland poppy) and P. californicum; and related species Ranunculus ficaria (lesser celandine) and R. bulbosus; and species Dicentra eximia.^[1]

--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're wrong. Please see the Nature article, which included Candensis in the study. Ficaria is genetically related to it. Nature took down free full-text access, but I assure you that the journal article specifically mentions Canadensis. Please check on it. Heathhunnicutt 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Canadensis? The problem was more with Ranunculus ficaria. The referenced journal article led to an error message, so I couldn't check to see which "celandine" was being tied in. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6732/abs/399144a0.html This does not belong in this article. But in the flower one instead. Hardyplants 08:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. It is silly to mention this paper, or its findings, in articles for specific species, because they are trying to figure out the evolution of flower genes across all angiosperms (or at least eudicots). Eventually this kind of research might belong in family/order/etc articles, but even that depends on how much it ends up being specific to certain taxa. Kingdon 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed the ad for this herbal shop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.181.218 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of Sanguinaria canadensis, or Bloodroot, there are methods of which to use this plant as an insect repellent.

Insect Repellent

One method is to use the red sap inside the roots and stem of the plant, by applying it to selected areas on the human body, where it will act as an insect repellent.

Another method is to crush and roll the leaves and flower parts of the plant with one's hands, or another method, until a wet green mass is produced. Then, this mass can be squeezed to extract the juices from it, which can also be applied to selected areas on the human body, where it will, also, act as an insect repellent.

Source

Len McDougall, (New and Revised) Practical Outdoor Survival: A modern Approach to Staying Alive in the Wilderness (Guilford, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2008), 54-56.

References

Can not cite because it appears that spamming is occurring (a not self created website reference appears in the Reference List, even when no self created references exist. Help wanted about this problem, please).

Shoosey (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure that is not harmful to ones' health? Anyway the book you reference does not look like a reliable source, the plants do not bloom in the summer or fall. Here is a better source for uses of this plant: [1] Hardyplants (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I do believe that this is a reliable source, for he has great credentials -- publisher of multiple books, books sold in major bookstores, has a profession of a wilderness guide and survival instructor, and has decades of experience. By quotes, "... Red sap from root and steam can be applied to skin as an insect repellant ...". So, I believe, in reference to your materials, maybe avoidance of applying it to membrane tissue is okay. Not a spot to put it anyway XD. Is there another reason why this book would not be a reliable source? I am not trying to be defensive; I am greatly interested (incorrect information would not be safe :P). Ah, and yes, that is interesting how your source states that it blooms in very early spring, whilst mine says late spring to fall.

Shoosey (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I changed the heading of "medicinal" to "complimentary and alternative medicine" since the content of the section did not support the use of this herbal extract in allopathic medicine and I felt it was misleading. Lesion (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If it is the only species in the genus Sanguinaria, then by WP:Plants#Plant article naming conventions the page should be called Sanguinaria. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What about WP:COMMONNAME? CodeCat (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that wikiproject's naming conventions are more specific to this article than the general wp naming policy... Lesion (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Convention versus policy? CodeCat (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Semantics? =D ... Seriously though, I know that "my" own wikiproject tends to favor their own article naming conventions, which often lead to different titles than common name would. Think of these conventions as "scientific common name" policy...if that makes sense. Lesion (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this particular move (Bloodroot->Sanguinaria canadensis) was appropriate, citing article title policy is not an argument against using scientific names for article titles. The title policy explicitly endorses the WP:FLORA guideline in the section "Explicit conventions" (WP:MOSAT). Footnote #3 in WP:COMMONNAME distinguishes between "common names" and "commonly used names": "Where the term "common name" appears in this policy it means a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name". In many cases, scientific names are MORE commonly used than scientific names. I am not trying to argue at present that Sanguinaria canadensis is more commonly used than Bloodroot, but I am arguing that WP:COMMONNAME does not mandate using a "common name" in favor of a scientific name for an article title.Plantdrew (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanguinaria. 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/20070107052553/http://www.aaomp.org/brochures/Leukoplakia.pdf to http://www.aaomp.org/brochures/Leukoplakia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given that a significant amount of the article discusses the claims regarding bloodroot's medicinal uses, I have added the following sentences to the first paragraph of the lead.

Products made from sanguinaria extracts, such as black salve, are escharotic and can cause permanent damage. Claims that it can treat cancer and other illness have little support.

I also feel that it is important to include this in the first paragraph specifically as there has been some recent interest in bloodroot products (eg the 2019 Buzzfeed News articles [2][3]), so people are likely to end up at this article (as I did) while looking for information on the products. Having the information up top gives people a quick summary of the scientific consensus and provides links to more relevant information, assuming they didn't come here to learn about the taxonomy and leaf shape. Finally, I'm not sure if I've done this entirely correctly - as I feel that the statements as written above are supported by the article text which in turn is supported by citations, I haven't included citations here. Would it be more appropriate to leave it like this or to re-cite in the lead? Let me know if you have any feedback. ~~