Talk:Snake oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] America centric?

Why is it that Wikipedia articles have a tenancy toward American based examples? This is NOT acceptable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.188.146 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason some Wikipedia articles may seem to gravitate toward American examples and information is that a significant percentage of its contributors are American, and a significant group of those American contributors would bemore likely to be familiar with American examples, causing some articles to seem America-centric. This is probably true even more so when you include Commonwealth countries, which ends up being because on the English Wikipedia many of the editors are from major English-speaking countries, and a significant portion of those editors are most familiar with their own countries, or neighboring countries. And I agree, it's not acceptable, and it's best that all editors try to make sure that all articles reflect a worldwide view of a subject, and help improve articles that do not wherever they are able.
That being said, I don't think this is a problematic article, and rather I think the whole thing is very thorough, and does not favor any particular country. So I'm notsure whatyou're talking about there. Calgary (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inventor = Schneier?

[Original page said: "This usage is due to Bruce Schneier."Jorge Stolfi]

This term was not coined by Bruce Schneier, it appears in the original 1991 PGP manual by Phil Zimmermann, which may be the first time it was used in print to describe questionable cryptography algorithms. Zimmermann picked it up from a friend in private conversation in the 1980s. (According to Phil Zimmemann)

Also Ken Olsen, founder and longtime chairman of DEC, once said (ca. 1985 or earlier) that Unix was just "snake oil". (The statement was meant in defense of VMS, whose continuing use bt the U.S.Government was a major source of revenue for DEC. Marketwise, DEC's rejection of Unix may have been a sensible position on the short term; but when DEC finally saw the light and moved into the Unix market, it was too late -- the market for Unix workstations and servers was already dominated by Sun and others, and DEC never managed to catch up.)Jorge Stolfi

[edit] PC ism too cutesy!

"salesperson" is a cute anachronism! --gender neutrality running away with facts. When will "king" be outlawed and replaced with "Monarch?"

"Salesman or -woman" would be an anachronism. "Salesperson" is perfectly accurate. Jeff Silvers 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly silly. 68.32.238.94 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new article needed? for the crypto flavor

I sense a need for a separate article snake oil (cryptography)...?Jorge Stolfi 16:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JS, Yup! I would agree, as I feel that a major part of the real world implementation / use / deployment / evaluation of crypto is an insufficient appreciation of the presence and significance of such snake oil. The Doghouse section in Schneier's monthly Crypto-Gram has managed, without apparent effort, to turn up some especially outrageous samples of the species (or genus, even?). The article cryptography had some coverage of this prior to its recent major changes.
As far as writing effectively on this aspect of things, it is my opinion that the point is not best made in isolation, but rather during discussion of other crypto topics. This is an empirical observation (as I've been writing on crypto for some time, and watching readers skip past awkward mention of their susceptibility to snake oil products / thinking) and is probably grounded in the persistent human tendency to evade uncomfortable topics. Thus, I'm not at all sure how to try to go about doing such a thing in the WP context for WP purposes. Suggestions? Ideas? Comments?
ww 17:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
JS, Your series of edits here today have very considerably improved the article. Congratulations.
As for a specific reference to the WC Fields movie, I looked briefly, but couldn't find it. It is, as much of his work was, more than mere funny, but great art. The actual scene is famous as the source of the phrase, "...and It CuRes HOARSENESS." Hard to illustrate properly with plain text fonts... I'll try to find the reference. It's a spot on skewering of the worst of the snake oil salesman's craft. ww

There is now a stub page snake oil cryptography containing the parag that used to be here, plus a short summary mostly culled from Matt Curtin's Snake Oil FAQ. Should it be renamed snake oil (cryptography) instead?
Jorge Stolfi 04:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jorge, If we are to have a separate article, then the convention in the crypto corner is indeed to follow the generic name with (cryptography). We will need cross links from crypto snake oil to snake oil and vice versa and all that of course, and the references to snake oil in assorted crypto articles will have to be adjusted to point in the right direction... But this is probably mere obiter dicta as you're undoubtedly already on top of it all. Glad to talk to you again. ww 14:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree that Snake oil (cryptography) is slightly better, because you can do the trick of [[Snake oil (cryptography)|]]. I've moved the page.— Matt 14:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] British related usage in pop culture

Can't really justify putting this in the article proper but I feel it nice to note that British DJ Danny Baker once said "he's talking out the back of a covered wagon" in reference to a caller who had given him some unlikely, far-fetched story. That was years ago but it's always lived with me. --bodnotbod 20:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] cnake oil composition

"Snake oil sold in San Francisco Chinatown in 1989 was found to contain: [...]"

  • Is the date correct, or should it be 1889? - Mike Rosoft 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

- The date (1989) is correct. The traditional Chinese medicine uses snake oil even today - it does not have the image of archetypal fraud there as it does have in US.

If you have a more precice reference for this please supply it. "Joe said so in 1976" is not a reference. "Bloggs, Joe 1976 The Composition of a sample of Chinese Snake oil, Journal of Reptilian Nutrition, Volume 4, page 12-13" would be the sort of thing were looking for. (62.237.141.28> please log in and sign your contributions) --Mig77 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out "Snake Oil" by R.A. Kunin, West J Med. 1989 August; 151(2): 208 - it contains a chemical analysis of Chinese snake oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.124 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference deletion wrong

Two references were deleted in the last few days, with a derisive edit comment, but the deletion was wrong-footed. Both references illustrate usage of the term snake oil, which is no longer limited to actual oily fluid (whether actually from snakes or not). I'll revert in a day or two (if I don't manage to lose track) unless something more than a derisive edit comment is offerred to explain the deletions. ww 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection with Semantic Web?

I don't understand why Semantic Web is listed in the "See Also" section. I couldn't find any occurence of "snake oil" or even "snake" on the Semantic Web article page. Could this be a joke, or a bot error?
FlorentGD 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was made as the only edit of an anonymous IP and doesn't seem to make any sense. It's gone now. -- Fyslee/talk 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Suppose the editor was claiming the Semantic Web was snake oil? Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded safe words

"It is likely that they did not understand the action mechanism of the Chinese product, or even know its functional ingredient." Likely? More like definitely. Was there someone in the 1700s who know what eicosapentaenoic acid was? --AnY FOUR! 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)