Talk:Snake oil/Archives/2021

Should the See Also section include Goop (company)?

In the Goop article, there are 5 mentions of someone referring to the company's products as "snake oil." All 5 are, in my humble opinion, well-sourced to RSes. We list many products here in this section that are historical, and also the overall concept of Multi-level marketing companies, which are current. Korny_O%27Near has removed this Goop reference a few times, on the grounds that it is a rude reference and that the "snake oil" references in the Goop article are not in wiki-voice.

So I ask you: Are the many different WP:RSes that refer to Goop's products as "snake oil" enough to justify inclusion here under "See Also?"--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that the given grounds for removal are valid; afaik, all that's needed are well-sourced characterizations as "snake oil," as you say. I support adding Goop (company) to the See Also section. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If the goal is to explain that Goop has been described as selling products that are akin to snake oil, then I would the best solution is to add a sentence to the article saying that. (Speaking of improving this article, it probably makes sense to split it into an article about the term and an article about the actual oil from snakes, but that's another story.) Korny O'Near (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps tangential, but a quick reply; as discussed above, any separate article for "snake oil" other than what is described in the lead (eg as a specific supplement, or alternative medicine etc) definitely doesn't meet notability via WP:GNG and the even more strict guidelines of WP:MEDRS, and seems to me like it would be a clear example of WP:POVFORK. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. This article is currently about three things: literal oil from snakes, various vegetable oil "cures" marketed as snake oil, and a general term for scams, especially health-related. There's no connection between the 1st and 3rd of those, and no real connection between the 1st and 2nd either, other than sharing a name. So it makes no sense to have a single article for everything. The only question is whether there are enough sources to establish the notability of literal snake oil, and I'm guessing there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korny O'Near (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The connections you mention are clearly described in the article. And yes, there is a good reason to "have a single article for everything." Please read WP:CONTENTFORKING. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the connection? Let's take a thought experiment: let's say that the fraudulent marketers of the 19th century had instead called their product "super snake oil", and "super snake oil" became the term for a scam. Would it then be justified to have a separate article called "Snake oil" that's just about the oil of a snake? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If it were "Super snake oil" the proper article would still be "snake oil." And then a section on "super" varieties (and their linguistic usage) and "conventional" varieties. I'm not sure this thought experiment works in the intended way...The place to look would be WP:GNG. I am not sure "snake oil" outside of the link with pseudoscience, has enough coverage for its own article. Just my opinion from only a cursory glance, though. WP:POVFORK is indeed an issue, as well. Can't just separate the term that people apply to bad things from the good term.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

So there would be an article called "Snake oil" that began with "Super snake oil is a euphemism for deceptive marketing ..."? Or would the entire intro have to be rewritten to refer to the actual substance - which right now doesn't even get mentioned in the intro? No offense, but it doesn't seem like you've given this that much thought. And no, POVFORK is not an issue in the slightest. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, please. I do not agree that your counterfactual is directly relevant here. Per WP:CONTENTFORKING, I don't see how a second article is even an issue, and I agree with Shibbolethink that POVFORK applies (especially as POVFORK includes undue weight). Given all this, the chances of a second "snake oil" article are probably nil. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"I do not agree that your counterfactual is directly relevant here" is not much of a retort, but maybe that's the best I'll get. Anyway, Wikipedia already has articles about the oil of a crocodile and emu, so having an article about the oil of a snake hardly seems like a stretch. Perhaps you're saying that this article is that, but it's not - it's about a term, and actual snake oil is relegated to just two paragraphs in the "History" section. Perhaps the right solution is to change this article to really be about snake oil, and make the term "snake oil" just a small part of the article; which would make sense anyway, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you persist in being hostile? We just want to help make a good encyclopedia. No "retorts" or accusations are necessary. WP:RSUW (and more pointedly, the parent PAG WP:NPOV) tells us that we must weight the proportion of coverage based on the amount of coverage in secondary sources. And you will find much more coverage of the idea of "snake oil" as a shorthand for pseudoscientific cures than you will for the actual "oil of a snake," which receives very little coverage in comparison. If we make this article very little about the idea in pseudoscience, we would not be portraying a NPOV. It would be undue weight. We'd be suppressing the meaning that most people are considering when they say the phrase "snake oil." We're not just giving a definition in this case, either, as "snake oil" is not a word, it's a concept that we're explaining (and giving context), so I don't think WP:DICT applies. If we didn't give the origin of the term, explain the history, and give examples, but instead just had the first part of the lead, then DICT would definitely apply. So I'm glad we do those things!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The amount of coverage is irrelevant in this case. If you search for the phrase "hello there", what do you think will show up more - the greeting, or a 1977 song by Cheap Trick? And yet it's the song that gets the article. A dictionary is for words and short phrases, not just individual words. Anyway, you're at least admitting that "snake oil" has two different meanings, which feels like progress. Splitting this up into two articles would be fine with me. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• See also sections are not necessarily for articles which are directly related (the category system is more useful for that) but can include stuff which is tangentially related. Inclusion is a matter of judgement. There are so many "snake oil" companies and products it's hard, though, to see why Goop merits a special mention. Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I think it deserves mention because it's probably one of the most notable examples of something being called "snake oil" in our modern time. As an exercise, can you think of a modern national brand that has a closer association? I could not. Maybe Dr. Phil is close, but he's not even selling products, just helping others advertise them (including Goop). Maybe Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, but even then...that story didn't catch fire much beyond than people who are already interested in healthcare and biotech, not in my experience. Goop has a much wider reach into the average household, because Gwyneth Paltrow does. You won't be seeing Elizabeth Holmes appearing in Iron Man 4. I think that notability is why the See also makes sense here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. There are others but Goop is a doozy. So yeah, maybe it'd be fine. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Turn this into an article about oil from snakes?

This was discussed above, but I think makes sense to have a separate section for it - especially now after I cleaned up the article a little bit. Right now this article is about three things: oil from snakes, fake snake oil sold by charlatans, and a term for health fraud. And in a sense it's really just an article about the third of those, judging from the first sentence ("Snake oil is a euphemism for deceptive marketing, health care fraud, or a scam."). I think it makes sense to instead make this article about the first of those, in the manner of other articles like crocodile oil and emu oil, and merge much of the rest of the content into quackery - which has some of this same content already. I don't see any logic to having these three concepts in one article; they have almost nothing to do with one another, beyond having the same name. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What makes sense is to create separate articles, if those separate meanings are independently notable. Judging by the fact mostly everyone thinks of quackery when they hear this term, the current article should be about the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which is the quackery and not anything else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I certainly hope you're not wikihounding me. Anyway, I don't think WP:PRIMARY TOPIC applies here, because it's not obvious that someone going to an article called "snake oil" will want to read about quackery (especially since an article already exists for that) rather than about literal snake oil. But I'm open to different names, as long as the concepts are indeed separated. What would you name the article on literal snake oil - Snake oil (oil)? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Snake oil (traditional medicine)? re. quackery "Snake oil salesman" is a common expression, and one most likely to be known to our readers, unlike the obscure uses of actual snake oil. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be an alright solution. I don't think it makes sense to have separate articles for "snake oil" (the term) and "quackery", since they're essentially synonyms, though you could argue that "snake oil" should be a redirect to "quackery". Anyway, this would still be preferable to the status quo, since the two nearly unrelated meanings of "snake oil" would finally get split up. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

missing link

Why is there no Wiki page on Richard Stoughton? Stjohn1970 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

ah. that's understandable. maybe he could be mentioned in aromatic bitters. ;-) Stjohn1970 (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

First use in TCM?

Is there a citation for the claim "It has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for many centuries"? This sort of thing is typical of dubious claims of "ancient wisdom" sometimes made for medicines. What's the earliest use in China that has good evidence?

• First, please remember to sign your post with four tilde (~) signs. To answer your question, a large amount of so-called "traditional Chinese medicine" first appeared in the 1960s under Mao as part of his propaganda efforts. There are of course older references to many traditional folk remedies, but the modern systematic usage of TCM is fairly recent, as are claims of any scientific validity. So the best that you're likely to find is historical references to various old tonics and cures, but not likely the sort of complex "qi diagrams" you'll see in modern acupuncture, for example. Even then, given just the basics of how history gets written, the most likely sources are going to be if some emperor fell ill and was given some sort of trsditional cure. Rural hedge doctors, by contrast, rarely leave much of an historical record. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)