Talk:Water memory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:57, 7 June 2007 editNadav1 (talk \| contribs)6,024 edits →Intro statement: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:36, 3 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Water memory/Archive 4) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	This article is of low quality because it is biased. The writer of this article presumes to speak for "modern science" when in fact, physics Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson has spoken in defense of Benveniste's work. One would think that a Nobel Prize winner would be considered a member of "modern science".
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Homeopathy}}
			{{WikiProject Timeline Tracer}}
			}}
			{{Homeopathy/Warning}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 4
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Water memory/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|Brian Josephson\|Josephson, Brian David}}

			== (Dis)infobox ==
	----

			{{u\|Ixocactus}}, can you please explain how the infobox benefits this article? I especially like the nutshell statement from ]: {{tq\|" If there is one, make sure it isn't an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance."}} The history of this is messy and does not boil down to a single proposal date by a single person, nor does it have neat statistics that can be summarized without vastly oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. Nor are things like "alternative medicine" related scientific disciplines. Please revert your re-addition of this. ] (]) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	A scientific hypothesis doesn't have to be '''shown to be wrong''' in order to be rejected or ignored - it is rejected if it '''can't be shown to be right''' - which is what has happened with water memory (so far, at least: new evidence could change that, of course).

			:I agree with the IP, this is a poor infobox; the article would be better without it. --] (]) 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
	This is a common misunderstanding among proponents of fringe theories: They think that once something has been proposed, it has to be accepted unless it is disproved. ("No one has ever found an error!" is a common cry amongst the true believers.) The way science works is that hypotheses can safely be ignored ''until'' they are shown to be right (or at least close enough that it's worth the effort to bridge the gap).
			::No. IP's vague claims did't explains what are the supposed "messy" or the "vastly oversimplifyng". In fact, the article and sources explains the origins of this pseudocientific claim from Benveniste's paper on Nature and the relations of WMemo with homeopathy and other alternative medicines. The infobox summarizes the article text. For me, these type of general unsourced claims sounds very similar to all other pseudocience advocates crying about the labeling their pet nonsense as a pseudoscience. Looking at history and talk of our ] entry we can see the same approach. Furthermore, regulars at our ] are experts on this type of whitewashing narratives. ] and ] also describe the IP behavior. ] (]) 01:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Ixocactus}}, <small>Please indent your replies; see ] for how to use talk pages, thanks.</small> ] is there for a good reason. Nothing about infobox disagreement has anything to do with gaming the system (which doesn't even make any sense here anyway) or POV-pushing. Nor does any of this have anything to do with whitewashing. My objections are to the infobox itself, not any of the rest of the article content. Infoboxes are good when there are standard statistics to present, like birth date, etc, for biographies. But they're not good when there's nuance or context needed to understand the information in it. You said, {{tq\|"The infobox summarizes the article text."}}, but that's not what infoboxes are for. Again, this has nothing to do with trying to water down (no pun intended) the treatment of the topic, but just getting rid of a terrible infobox. ] (]) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::This response is totally unresponsive, it's just a ] lashing out against a long-time, high-quality contributor (who happens to edit with an IP address). Given the lack of substantive justification for your revert, I'm going to re-remove the poor infobox. --] (]) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

			::::I know how to ident. I was replying the IP claims only, not your agreement. This discussion was reported to ]. ] (]) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
	Which is why I reverted the last edit. - ] 00:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			:::::Remarkable. --] (]) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::::] is an essay explaining the opinions of some people about when an infobox should be avoided.
			::::::User JBL and the IPs are being very rude here: arrogantly moving other people's indentation around and explaining to them how to indent when they clearly know it, throwing around baseless AGF and NPA accusations, chest-beating about being such a wonderful editor, pretending that an essay is policy, and ignoring the actual reasoning of the opponent. --] (]) 13:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Even more remarkable. --] (]) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::] challenge: offer an argument that refers only to the merits (or not) of the infobox that was in the article (or variations thereof), without making personal commentary about anyone else. The IP's done it; I've done it; can you? --] (]) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I can have a look at the infobox and know what the article is about in two seconds. To read the lede, I need far longer. --] (]) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::The lead section of the article is 5 sentences long; the first 2 sentences convey all of the information that is both in the infobox and unproblematic. --] (]) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Like if you think there's something insufficiently clear or complete or to the point about the first (60-word) paragraph, that would be a worthwhile discussion. (Personally I think it's ... ok? The "this is fake" part could be somewhat stronger, perhaps, or earlier in the paragraph? But basically it seems to me that it contains all the essential information. Is there something more it should say?) But that's a different discussion from this one. --] (]) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::So, your reasoning is that your personal requirements for getting a quick overview on the subject are fulfilled without the infobox, and other people's personal requirements do not matter, therefore the infobox must go. --] (]) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

			What do RS say? ] (]) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
	== Disagree with the links attached to the article ==
	I am not arguing that it's right or wrong. I am saying that it has not been proven to be right or wrong, therefore it should not just be considered "Bad science" or "Scientific misconduct" as the attached links suggest.

			:This is not a sourcing question, it's a "does the infobox do a good job of the task of an infobox?" question. The answer to that question is "no, it does not": the "related scientific disciplines" is a list of three things that are not scientific disciplines, the "subsequent proponents" list is pointless and unsourced, and the other information is conveyed much better in the (short, accessible) lead of the article. In short, the only things the box adds to the lead section are problematic, and the article would be better without the box. (This is without getting into the behavioral question of reverting and running to a noticeboard without bothering to offer a substantive defense of the content under discussion.) --] (]) 20:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
	Which is why I am going to remove these links than. ]
			::If RS call it psedo it would seem to me that having a psedo infox box is acceptable. ] (]) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::If it's going to have an infobox, the pseudoscience infobox is appropriate; that is not the question under discussion here. --] (]) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

			::::Below I put the removed infobox (without the water image/caption) for register and improvement of this discussion. Unlike previous vague claims, and denial of sources, the topics, claims, origyear and other template parameters are sufficient and necessary for "a good job of the task of an infobox". Waiting for more input of our fellow fringe watchers before ANI, since "if its going to have a infobox" and "the question under discussion" sounds as smokescreens to divert attention. ] (]) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
	:The fact that the scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with ] / ] and ] is all that is necessary for the links to be included in the article. If you dissent, that is fine; but you cannot over-rule mainstream scientific consensus. I encourage you to add a (]) dissenting section to the article, outlining support for water memory, rather than simply cutting out the bits you disagree with. Best wishes :) -- ] 09:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
			:::::So that's 0 affirmative argument in support of this infobox, but heavy doubling down on the violations of ] and ]. Your editing history suggests you are broadly competent, it is a shame you cannot abide very straightforward behavioral policies here. --] (]) 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::Adding: the infobox is here ]. ] (]) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Yes and? Lots of unjustifiable things have been on Misplaced Pages since 2008 that no one has noticed or cleaned up -- see ] and ]. --] (]) 18:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I do like info boxes, especially on a mobile device. Not sure I agree it is ugly or out of place. ] (]) 03:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
			;Removed infobox:
			{{left\|{{Infobox pseudoscience

			\| topics=], ], ]
	::P.S. Remember that in any article, "see also" links are not necessarily directly associated with the given topic, nor do they constitute a "judgement" of the topic. Rather, they have ''some'' relevant association. I'm sure everyone interested in water memory would also be interested in the concepts of ] and ], irrespective of their position on the existence of water memory. Fair enough? -- ] 09:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

			\| claims=Unproven claim that under certain circumstances water can retain a "memory" of solute particles after arbitrarily large dilution.
	:Can you provide references that "scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with ] / ] / ]"? As I understand community has only rejected this theory. There are two experiments that I am aware of showing no proof of water memory. But there is no evidence known to me that affiliates of this theory are insincere, therefore why "misconduct"? There is no proof that such memory does not / can not exist. If any -- references please. ]

			\| origyear={{launch date and age\|df=y\|1988}}
	::I don't want to get into an endless debate on the evidence for and against homeopathy (I could, but it's not necessary). All I want to do is demonstrate the rationale for the links as they exist in the "see also" section.
	::*Start by reading ] and its ]. That should demonstrate to you that the topic is at least controversial, and certainly a good many intelligent people do not believe in water memory. These pages also list plenty of evidence that casts doubt on the idea of water memory and the motives of some proponents.
	::*Read Jacques Benveniste's obituary in '']'', the world's most prestigious scientific journal ( (Quote: "widely disbelieved by scientists").
	::*The above-mentioned Benveniste was sacked from INSERM after his infamous experiments were shown to be poorly designed and erroneous. Sloppy procedure, with improper data recording, inexplicable artifacts and repeated failures of replication suggest ], ] and/or ]. Many other scientific magazines said as much in various editorials (I imagine I could find precise issue and page numbers, but I hope that won't be necessary).
	::These references should convince you that '''''irrespective of whether water memory actually exists''''', the linked pages have some relevance to the article. For instance, let's say a hard-core supporter of Benveniste visits this page. He might appreciate the "see also" links which you object to, as they tell him about these ideas that have been associated, rightly or wrongly, with Benveniste and water memory in general. The mere fact that these pages are linked in "see also" does not constitute a definitive verdict on water memory. They belong.

			\| origprop=]
	::Finally, I'm interested why you object to these three terms (], ], ]) but don't seem to mind ] and ]. Can you tell me why you don't want to remove ''these'' terms? (If you accept that water memory constitutes pseudoscience, you must tacitly admit it is also bad science!) -- ] 11:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

			\| currentprop=Madeleine Ennis<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>Various ]
	:::These different ], ], ], ] and ], together with ] definitions need to be linked in one article. The effect of referring to them as a list of different links in this way could be considered intimidatory. Please remove them: they are all self-referential in any case - that is, pursuing one leads to the others. Alternatively, add examples where the scientific community has first ridiculed and then had to accept advances in knowledge and understanding.
	:::I am not making a judgment on the issue of ] ] 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::::I suggest, as well as above, also adding, e.g ] and others as necessary, to preserve ] ] 09:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::::In retrospect I agree that the list of links was "intimidatory." I have made some provisional changes in the interests of NPOV. If anyone desires more changes, please go ahead and make them, and we will discuss it here if any more disagreements emerge. -- ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

			}}
	== Polywater ==

			}}
	In what way could polywater be thought of as similar to water memory? This statement seems to be suspect. Polywater was, as the name implies, believed to be a polymerized form of water. I am unaware of any "memory effect" involved, nor do the properties have anything in common. ] 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	: Good point: aside from involving water and being a scientific-sounding belief that was debunked, it has no connection at all. How did that stay in so long? I'm removing it. - ] 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	== "pseudoscience" label ==

	I have removed the statement that water memory is pseudoscience. Though the idea may very well be wrong, that does not mean it is pseudoscientific. The ] label only applies to ideas claiming to be science but which cannot be checked by the scientific method. Water memory, however, can and has been checked (with mixed results of course). A wrong or controversial theory is not the same as a pseudoscientific theory. ] 08:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

	:That's not true. As the page here on the wiki states: "''is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.''". The difference is an important one; to be pseudoscience the ''belief'' has to be non-scientific. There is no suggestion that it cannot be tested scientifically, just that the people involved don't do so. ] 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Ah, well, "pseudoscience" is pejorative anyway, might as well call it "crap" or "BS" or "nonsense" ...well, at least IMHO...:) There's a whole discussion going on about using the term at: ]. I'm following it to see what they decide. ] <small> ] </small> 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, my paraphrase was wrong. Regardless, my point stands that "water memory" is not some project or endeavour masquerading as science, just an idea that is probably wrong. However, homepathy does seem to qualify for the title. ] 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::I agree - speaking as something who agrees that water memory is almost certainly wrong. "Pseudoscience" is for quack machines sold on late-night infomercials that babble incoherently about "quantum" or "energy" without content. - ] 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	Well I disagree. I think that water memory is indeed an example of pseudoscience. It's basically a non-real effect that has no basis in any known science, yet talks about itself in technobable terms and claims to be the scientific basis for homeopathy. It doesn't exist on it's own, its a synonym. Unless you separate the two concepts the distinction becomes difficult to see. Don't get me wrong, if water memory pre-existed homeopathy and was co-opted, that would ''potentially'' be a counterargument for automatically labeling it, but that's not the case. So then if you believe homeopathy to be pseudoscience, how does one not automatically assume the same here? 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I think your judgements are unfair. Firstly, the idea has indeed been treated as a physical theory separately from homeopathy. Louis Rey's experiments gave some support to the theory and were published in a respected journal. Additional evidence for altered properties of extremely diluted solutions can be found in the articles of Elia et al published in the Journal of Molecular Liquids, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Annals of the NY Academy of Science, etc. Just because these findings contradict current understanding of the physical processes does not mean we can already label it as pseudoscience before it has been scientifically tested. True, proponents of homeopathy may pretend that water memory has already been proven, but that makes only those claims pseudoscience. For now, we should reserve final judgement until more tests are done. ] 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Ennis email incorrectly attributed ==

	Okay, first, someone hadhere (before I came along) mention of Ennis' objection to how ''Horizon'' performed the experiment. I then moved her e-mail reference to a 'ref' tag. Here is the wiki code prior to my removal of it:
	* <nowiki>However, Ennis claimed that Horizon did not faithfully reproduce her experiment.<ref name="Ennis email">{{cite web \| url=http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/media/2020_ennis.php \| title = Email from Madeleine Ennis detailing differences between the BBC Horizon program's experiment and her own \| date = 2003-12-9 \| accessdate = 2007-03-03 \| quote= }}</ref>
	</nowiki>
	I then saw this, from :
	:: ''ABC News' 20/20 program with their reporter John Stossel is presently
	scheduled to air a segment on homeopathy on Friday January 30th. This
	report will include a seemingly legitimate laboratory experiment that seeks
	to prove or disprove the effects of homeopathic medicines.''
	:: ''The experiment that 20/20 produced was supposed to be a replication
	of an experiment that had been conducted numerous times in the past and had
	been published in scientific journals. This study used extremely small
	doses of histamine to reduce the number of basophils, a type of white blood
	cell that increases in numbers during allergy symptoms. This study was even
	conducted successfully several times by Dr. Madeleine Ennis who is a
	professor of biochemistry and a former skeptic of homeopathy.''
	And further down
	:: ''Turnbull used a chemical, Ammonium chloride, in
	this experiment which is widely known to kill basophils, making the study
	impossible to any homeopathic medicine or any drug to have any effects.''
	So I'm confident it ''this'' experiment that Ennis objected to, not the one that was performed in front of Randi.

	And to drive one final point, Ennis' experiments were not the same as Benveniste's.
	:: ''Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy," says Ennis, "the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings." She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste's findings nor attempted to do so.'' {{ cite news \| work = The Guardian \| location = London \| title = Science: Thanks for the memory: Experiments have backed what was once a scientific 'heresy' \| author = Lionel Milgrom \| date = March 15, 2001 }} as quoted from
	:--] 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

	After having read the e-mail in question, I am confident she ''was'' referring to the Horizon experiment. In particular there were several mentions of the primary Horizon experimenter's name. Either I am misreading what you are trying to say above, or, well, I don't know at that point. Anyway the quotes seemed more than on-topic, and I have restored them in the newly laid-out article. ] 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Excellent article ==

	I have been watching the development of this article over the years and it is improving and becoming more informative all the time. I have now traced the basis of the anonymous comment at the head of the discussion page about the Nobel Prize Winner and added an external link and the comment from Prof Josephson in the body of the article. I do not yet know how to do a citation rather than an external link and I'm also not entirely convinced how valuable that it is, anyway.] 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

	:It still reads like a bad news report, giving too much credence to water memory. Something lost on most journalist, and apparently Wikipedians, and indeed anyone who is not scientifically literate, is that balanced discussion does not need to occur when the issue itself is imbalanced. Why is no mention made about the inverse relation between the quality of studies done and the amount of effect homeopathic concoctions have? The fact of the matter is that there is not a single shred of decent evidence for this concept that defies the basic laws of physics. Calling this a good article is a bit of a stretch. ] 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Is there a ] or a similar source that backs up what you are saying? ] <small>(])</small> 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
	==Revision==
	I hope I've beaten this into shape to everyone's satisfaction. I have added a largish section on the original test series and the whole ''Nature'' controversy that resulted. I have also gathered the follow-up experiments into groups, with full cites on each one. From what I can see of the cites in this article, and others that I found as a result of tracking these ones down from REF to cite format, it appears that every "success" experiment has a corresponding direct "non-success" one that followed it. There appear to be three such experimental runs, the original ones from ''Nature'', the telephone/internet ones that followed in the 90's, and finally the Ennis/Horizon test runs. I think it's safe to leave it at that. ] 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Your rewrite was a lively and interesting read. A couple of points for what changes I think should be done now: 1) more sources and inline citations should be provided for the details of the story. Is it all taken from the Time magazine article? 2) There have been a few more experiments in the past four years or so. These should be added. Note that these suggestions are not directed at you in particular, since you've already done quite a lot to improve it. Thanks and good job! ] <small>(])</small> 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

	::Actually ''most'' (but not all) of the material in the upper section I got from the two Nature articles, which are available online. The Time article was just a few pithy quotes and some history. I ''highly'' recommend reading the second of the two Nature articles BTW, because it's extremely succinct in terms of summing up everything that went on in that first rush, both from Maddox and Benvenist. As to the second point, if you have any more cites, please drop a note here and I'll try to work them in too (even an url or article title is fine, I can look these up on medline quick like a bunny). I'd really like every "positive" to have a "failed" if one exists, and vice versa; that way the reader can simply look up the cites and decide for themselves. ] 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::Chaplin's site has a great deal on the scientific aspect. It explains in what ways water can and cannot have memory. There are a lot of very useful papers cited in it, with recent review of the matter having been published just now. ] <small>(])</small> 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

	::: I very much approve of the edits. I would still caution against too much balance in presentation. The vast majority of positive studies for pseudoscientific claims do tend to suffer from subtle to not so subtle methodological errors, or simply misuse of statistics. The layperson is not prepared to find these flaws, and so it is the duty of the editors to make them, if any, clear. ] 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::Oh I agree. And on that note I welcome everyone to read the second of the FASEB links, . There's an excellent section on how they controlled the possibility of he-said-she-said problems, clearly improving on the system Maddox used (ie, nothing). ] 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Intro statement ==

	Is it just me, or is the intro statement somewhat misleading? When I think "homeopathy" I think "like cures like". The whole small-doses thing is sort of secondary, it's certainly a part of classic homeopathy, but by no means its ''definition''. There's nothing in the original homeopathic concept that demands water memory, at least not that I'm aware of (not being an expert by any means). Would it not be more accurate to state that the concept of water memory has been "adopted" by modern homeopathy? Or perhaps "latched onto"?

	Another terminology issue is a portion that is now removed that claimed water memory was a pseudoscience (see this page, above). I would agree that it's definitely ''not'' an example of pseudoscience. However it does seem to fit every definition of ], a different issue. I found that by typing "pathological science water memory" into Google the first hit returns an article on just that topic from Columbia U, . The definition in bold is pretty much exactly what Maddox stated in the Nature article. Is this worth mentioning, or is it too unbalancing?

	I'm tempted to make both of these changes, the later being cited makes it worth mentioning, but I'd like to hear your comments first.

	] 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Water memory wasn't just latched on to by homeopaths, it was invented in order to explain homeopathy. However, it is true that water memory is now often studied independently of it. I have no opinion on the latter change for now. ] <small>(])</small> 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:36, 3 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water memory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Homeopathy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy

Timeline Tracer (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) / Josephson, Brian David Josephson, Brian David

(Dis)infobox

Ixocactus, can you please explain how the infobox benefits this article? I especially like the nutshell statement from WP:DISINFOBOX: " If there is one, make sure it isn't an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance." The history of this is messy and does not boil down to a single proposal date by a single person, nor does it have neat statistics that can be summarized without vastly oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. Nor are things like "alternative medicine" related scientific disciplines. Please revert your re-addition of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, this is a poor infobox; the article would be better without it. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No. IP's vague claims did't explains what are the supposed "messy" or the "vastly oversimplifyng". In fact, the article and sources explains the origins of this pseudocientific claim from Benveniste's paper on Nature and the relations of WMemo with homeopathy and other alternative medicines. The infobox summarizes the article text. For me, these type of general unsourced claims sounds very similar to all other pseudocience advocates crying about the labeling their pet nonsense as a pseudoscience. Looking at history and talk of our inteligent design entry we can see the same approach. Furthermore, regulars at our Fringe theories noticeboard are experts on this type of whitewashing narratives. WP:PUSH and WP:GAMING also describe the IP behavior. Ixocactus (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ixocactus, Please indent your replies; see Help:Talk for how to use talk pages, thanks. WP:AGF is there for a good reason. Nothing about infobox disagreement has anything to do with gaming the system (which doesn't even make any sense here anyway) or POV-pushing. Nor does any of this have anything to do with whitewashing. My objections are to the infobox itself, not any of the rest of the article content. Infoboxes are good when there are standard statistics to present, like birth date, etc, for biographies. But they're not good when there's nuance or context needed to understand the information in it. You said, "The infobox summarizes the article text.", but that's not what infoboxes are for. Again, this has nothing to do with trying to water down (no pun intended) the treatment of the topic, but just getting rid of a terrible infobox. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This response is totally unresponsive, it's just a WP:ABF lashing out against a long-time, high-quality contributor (who happens to edit with an IP address). Given the lack of substantive justification for your revert, I'm going to re-remove the poor infobox. --JBL (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I know how to ident. I was replying the IP claims only, not your agreement. This discussion was reported to Fringe theories noticeboard. Ixocactus (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Remarkable. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay explaining the opinions of some people about when an infobox should be avoided.

User JBL and the IPs are being very rude here: arrogantly moving other people's indentation around and explaining to them how to indent when they clearly know it, throwing around baseless AGF and NPA accusations, chest-beating about being such a wonderful editor, pretending that an essay is policy, and ignoring the actual reasoning of the opponent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Even more remarkable. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY challenge: offer an argument that refers only to the merits (or not) of the infobox that was in the article (or variations thereof), without making personal commentary about anyone else. The IP's done it; I've done it; can you? --JBL (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I can have a look at the infobox and know what the article is about in two seconds. To read the lede, I need far longer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead section of the article is 5 sentences long; the first 2 sentences convey all of the information that is both in the infobox and unproblematic. --JBL (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Like if you think there's something insufficiently clear or complete or to the point about the first (60-word) paragraph, that would be a worthwhile discussion. (Personally I think it's ... ok? The "this is fake" part could be somewhat stronger, perhaps, or earlier in the paragraph? But basically it seems to me that it contains all the essential information. Is there something more it should say?) But that's a different discussion from this one. --JBL (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So, your reasoning is that your personal requirements for getting a quick overview on the subject are fulfilled without the infobox, and other people's personal requirements do not matter, therefore the infobox must go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not a sourcing question, it's a "does the infobox do a good job of the task of an infobox?" question. The answer to that question is "no, it does not": the "related scientific disciplines" is a list of three things that are not scientific disciplines, the "subsequent proponents" list is pointless and unsourced, and the other information is conveyed much better in the (short, accessible) lead of the article. In short, the only things the box adds to the lead section are problematic, and the article would be better without the box. (This is without getting into the behavioral question of reverting and running to a noticeboard without bothering to offer a substantive defense of the content under discussion.) --JBL (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If RS call it psedo it would seem to me that having a psedo infox box is acceptable. Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's going to have an infobox, the pseudoscience infobox is appropriate; that is not the question under discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Below I put the removed infobox (without the water image/caption) for register and improvement of this discussion. Unlike previous vague claims, and denial of sources, the topics, claims, origyear and other template parameters are sufficient and necessary for "a good job of the task of an infobox". Waiting for more input of our fellow fringe watchers before ANI, since "if its going to have a infobox" and "the question under discussion" sounds as smokescreens to divert attention. Ixocactus (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

So that's 0 affirmative argument in support of this infobox, but heavy doubling down on the violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your editing history suggests you are broadly competent, it is a shame you cannot abide very straightforward behavioral policies here. --JBL (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding: the infobox is here since 2008. Ixocactus (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes and? Lots of unjustifiable things have been on Misplaced Pages since 2008 that no one has noticed or cleaned up -- see WP:UNCHALLENGED and WP:LONGTIME. --JBL (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I do like info boxes, especially on a mobile device. Not sure I agree it is ugly or out of place. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed infobox

Water memory
Claims	Unproven claim that under certain circumstances water can retain a "memory" of solute particles after arbitrarily large dilution.
Related scientific disciplines	Homeopathy, alternative medicine, pseudoscience
Year proposed	1988; 37 years ago (1988)
Original proponents	Jacques Benveniste
Subsequent proponents	Madeleine Ennis Brian Josephson Luc Montagnier Bernd Kroplin Various homeopaths
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

Categories: