Talk:Ear candling

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

NPOV dispute

I've added the NPOV tag to the article. Upon reading the above thread about bias and some comments about section blanking in the article's edit history, I see that this tag is warranted.

Things to work on to make the article more evenly-sided include more references and information about the benefits and origins of ear candling. Currently the "Origins" section only states where ear candles do not come from. Where then do they come from? The criticism section seems good and a benefits section could be just as good if supported by reputable resources. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and should read like an encyclopedia article, free from personal anecdotes or vitriol. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above threads gives any source, or any policy reasons, to support the position that the article is not NPOV, and none has been forthcoming in the month or so since the tag was added. I also don't see any comments about section blanking in the article's edit history that suggest the tag is needed: can you provide diffs for the ones you mean? While reliable information about origins is desirable, the lack of it is not a reason for the NPOV tag; the statement about "where ear candles do not come from" is validly included given the prevalence of claims that it is associated with the Hopi. As far as I can see the position reported by sources that comply with WP:MEDRS is that it doesn't work. Unless MEDRS can be found to support it introducing a "benefits" section would be inconsistent with your suggestion that the article should be "free from personal anecdotes". NPOV doesn't require false balance. And I don't see any "vitriol" in the article, just sourced criticism. Brunton (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safety and effectiveness, reference citing

A fifth edit would surely be an edit war :)

rev 626307432 (me) --> per the source some, not all
rev 626308208 (VQuakr) --> partial rv - "sometimes" does not appear in the source
rev 626353002 (me) --> per the source: "Some ear candles are offered as products that purify the blood, strengthen the brain, or even 'cure' cancer," says...
rev 626356371 (2over0) --> it would be more accurate to say "some people promote ...", but the more direct presentation carries the same information

Of two sources for this paragraph (7 and 8), both hedge the blanket of products they cover when they talk about extravagant claims or dangerous dosages. However, the article portrays these findings as being shared by the entire field of marketers/distributers.

VQuakr's partial revert was probbably due to just a quick review, looking for an exact string match of "sometimes". Seeing this talk page, I can understand the vigilance (but still contend the revert was incorrect :).

Respecfully, I disagree with 2over0's assertion that "ear candling is promoted with extravagant claims..." has the same connotation as "some ear candles are promoted with extravagant claims...". Perhaps a better revision would be "ear candling has been promoted with some extravagant claims...". This would be more in keeping with the source's material:

Marketers of ear candles claim that warmth created by the lit device produces suction that draws wax and other impurities out of the ear canal.
"Some ear candles are offered as products that purify the blood, strengthen the brain, or even 'cure' cancer," says Eric Mann, M.D., Ph.D., clinical deputy director of FDA's Division of Ophthalmic, Neurological, and Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices.
He adds that some firms claim the candles are appropriate for use on children.
But FDA warns that ear candles can cause serious injuries, even when used in accordance to manufacturers' directions. "Also," says Mann, "FDA believes that there is no valid scientific evidence for any medical benefit from their use."
— http://www.webmd.com/fda/stay-away-ear-candles

Very clearly a section less than 100% of the offerings are reported by Dr. Mann to have the claims he specifies. How big that section is isn't specified, and the current wording makes an unsubstantiated inferrence of 100%.

Thoughts?

72.208.126.27 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with "some ear candles are promoted" or "ear candling is sometimes promoted", either way. My objection is to the word "extravagant" in the same sentence, which is a subjective opinion and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. I have removed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful post outlining your reasoning. I just see it as a matter of simplifying the presentation. Compare: "Botox is promoted for the treatment of migraines" - I would say that this does not imply that others do not market the same product for cosmetic purposes. Would "is sometimes promoted" address your concerns? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allays my concerns :) Cheers! 72.208.126.27 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this kind of simplification gets problematic, when an outrageous claim about something is picked out and used to discredit the whole matter. For example: I think in 2013 tere was a great hype about some influenza and a vaccine was promoted. Some controversy arose in the public concerning either the effectiveness of the vaccine, or an alleged corruption scandal of the government financiation linked to it. Very soon the media became loud with a counter-propaganda aimed to discredit any and all criticism concerning the vaccine or anything connected to it. Only the rumours that said the vaccine contained a toxic compound and/or brain controlling nano-robots were ever cited by this propaganda, which depicted everybody who dared to raise any concerns against the use of the vaccine to be idiots who belive the government tries to control their brains by nano-robots hidden in the vaccine.

I had the feeling that the article's criticism focused too much on the completely outrageous claim of cancer cure, without touching the subject of ear infection treatment which is a much more beliveable claim. This doesn't imply that the latter claim would be justified, but I think it deserves much more attention than the cancer cure claim, exactly because the cancer cure claim is not likely to be believed by many while the ear infection treatment at least sounds somewhat credible, so the encyclopedia is probably expected by more readers to clarify this claim's verifiability.80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Motion that safety be removed from the article

Motion that the word safety be removed from the article.

I had this process done today. It was very strange and in my opinion very ineffective. However the process could never be described as dangerous or unsafe. The wax (or whatever they claim it to be) is captured by the protector long before it even gets to your face. To say this is an unsafe of dangerous practice is just a fallacy and should be stricken from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaxContour (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One person's experience can't be used as evidence, and there are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article to support the description of the practice as unsafe, for several reasons. --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one's failure to follow (common sense) safety procedures is not an evidence that the candle "should not be used on grounds of it's hazardous nature", it's simply a proof that the rather simple safety measures must not be neglected when the candle is used. Whether it could be beneficial to any health condition is an altogether different matter. This section for example: <A 2007 paper in the journal Canadian Family Physician concludes:

"Ear candling appears to be popular and is heavily advertised with claims that could seem scientific to lay people. However, its claimed mechanism of action has not been verified, no positive clinical effect has been reliably recorded, and it is associated with considerable risk. No evidence suggests that ear candling is an effective treatment for any condition. On this basis, we believe it can do more harm than good and we recommend that GPs discourage its use."[8] > is talking about considerable risk without clarifying that the risk is posed the common sense hazard of a lit candle placed close to the face, so this paragraph can yield to the false assumption that no matter how the candle is used, regardless of safety measures it risks the user's health. Such generic warning, that can be used as fearmongering instead of explaining what exactly poses the hazard, can be accepted in a journal, but it is far from an encyclopedical style. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

removed sentence from lede

The "claim by one manufacturer" is not helpful for the lede, it is not properly sourced (WP:RS) and the link appears to be dead. This kind of sentence relates to a highly specific aspect of the subject of EC. Also, if the link were working, it appears to be a self published or primary source. Consider reintroducing the text with better sources into the body of the article. Edaham (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edaham: Here is an archived link to the source provided. In this case, Angelfire served as the publisher, not the author, of a reliable (albeit primary) source: a letter from the director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Seems reasonable to keep it out of the lead, though - pretty specific. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Thanks for that quick follow up. There's a section in the article already on "origins". I will add a sentence to that section regarding Hopi based on the link you provided after I have made a quick but necessary effort to verify it via a web search for similar material.Edaham (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr:Ah! I can see you've already done that now. However now I'm worried that there should not be a section called "origins" until it has information on what the origins are, rather than a list of what they are not. Until we have some solid information I suggest one of the two options. 1)remove that section until it contains solid info on earliest recorded use or 2)rename the section "Disputed Origins", which is a more accurate description of what that section now contains.Edaham (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section was there (has been for a while); I just added an archiveurl. "Claims of origin" may be a reasonably neutral title for the section. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, although ideally it should be expanded to include genuine origins, then we can just keep the section title simple. Once the "origins" section contains sufficient information on the earliest use of EC, I also suggest putting that section at the top, as it is more general than the "safety" section. It would make more sense to begin with the history section. Thoughts?Edaham (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable if verifiable sourcing is available on who actually came up with it. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult in the extreme. this is an alternative to the various Hopi, Egyptian, ancient nonsense, which is so readily available, but it also doesn's seem to be particularly WP:V. What we really want to say is that the history is ambiguous, because of the number of different claims made about its history, but to state that we would need an V&RS to claim that there is no RS in a VS.... how I love being a wikipedia editor... Edaham (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to siberian villagers makes much more sense than other mythical origin claims,and it seems like a good trace to explore, ie: ethnographic publications could be checked for a verifiable report. My guess would be that a connection between church candles as offering, something in the line of dispelling evil could be the start of this process in early modern times, like the beginning of the XX century. But finding such verification would take the reading of ethnographic literature, which would take enormous time. 80.98.236.19 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ear candling. 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:

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) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscientific?

It works for me.

Laws of physics apply too: heat, pressure, logic, common sense.

The [1] (first reference) article might be invalid: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/ear-candling-fool-proof-method-1010

Stefek99 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the cites and comments are from traditional medicine

As a naturopath I have known people for decades that swear by the procedure and have used it myself. I will work on finding attributions that satisfy Wikipedia but in the meantime this article is very biased from a traditional medical pov - much like they also discredit energy work and many other practices they would prefer to believe have no value because they do not make money for traditional medicine and at least for some people have value where traditional medicine fails. Oraclebear (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oraclebear Articles with medical claims have to abide by WP:MEDRS. Additionally, this lies close to an area where WP:FRINGE applies also. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]