![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
A fifth edit would surely be an edit war :)
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."
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)
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).
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)
"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).
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
A fifth edit would surely be an edit war :)
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."
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)
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).
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)
"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).
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)