Talk:Strontium chloride
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Strontium chloride is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
| Core | This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Most sections are there, but certainly need significant fleshing out. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC). |
|||
[edit] Homeopathy and the elements as a source
[1] This source is not reliable for describing the properties or common uses of chemicals. If you can find a source that says that this substance is notable for its use in homeopathy that is not written by a believer in homeopathy, then I think we have a reasonable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- ScienceApologist, we are discussing uses, not properties of SrCL. Scholten is a secondary source for the use of SrCl in homeopathy because he reviews primary sources for that use. Please be aware that WP:N is a guideline which applies to the topic of articles, not to individual statements within an article. Briefly mentioning this use is perfectly acceptable and falls within our policies; it is certainly not an endorsement of the use. Please stop edit warring and discuss the matter here first. - Neparis (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- But homeopathy doesn't, per se, use SrCl since it dilutes it beyond any of the ions being in solution. The point is that WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT apply. Homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience and taking them at their word that SrCl is used is not acceptable. If you can find a secondary source that indicates that SrCl is prominently used by homeopaths, then I'll be happy to add information about it. However, using a primary source written by a homeopath does not rise to the standards needed for inclusion. If they write that they use God in their solutions do we include that on the page devoted to God? What about if they say that they use dark energy? Or guinea pigs? Since there is no way for us to judge when they are telling the truth and when they are lying about the prominence of their use of a particular thing (and since there is no indpendent evaluation of how or even that they use such a thing) we need to use secondary sources only. It's a higher standard so that fringe ideas don't get unduly promoted on articles unrelated to them. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, we are not concerned with whether Sr ions exist in diluted homeopathic substances (a web search turns up various Sr preparations at "3x" (powers of ten) dilutions [2], a level at which Sr ions are easily both detectable and quantifiable). What is relevant is whether Sr is used in the preparation of homeopathic substances. Per WP:PSTS, Scholten is a secondary source for the use of SrCl in homeopathy because he reviews primary sources for that use. Simply mentioning that SrCl is used in homeopathy is not presenting or endorsing any particular view of homeopathy itself, and thus WP:WEIGHT, which refers to the proper balance of different views in an article, does not apply here. WP:FRINGE is not a policy, but a guideline which applies to promotion of fringe theories, not to a mere mention of a use of a chemical compound. - Neparis (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, since we are talking about homeopathy WP:FRINGE automatically applies. It is a fringe theory whether you find it on a page devoted to the subject or any other location. You fail to recognize that trying to get fringe theories mentioned in unrelated articles is a promotional gimmick used by promoters of fringe theories. To avoid this, we have carefully crafted rules for research and sourcing that haven't been met by the suggested reference. Scholten isn't independent of homeopathy and therefore he doesn't qualify as reliable to verify the prominence of homeopathy with respect to strontium chloride in order to adequately satisfy WP:WEIGHT. So we have zero reliable, independent sources that attest to homeopathy's prominence with respect to this subject. Meanwhile, I remind you that total exclusion of tiny minority opinions is allowed per weight policy. There's just so many ways to justify removing homeopathy from this article that I'm fairly astonished that anyone without an alternative stake in the broader issue would care to go to bat for its inclusion. How 'bout it, why is it important for you? What reader is going to be served by seeing a link to homeopathy and why? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but mentioning a use of a substance is absolutely not excluded by WP:FRINGE which is, in any case, just a guideline. An acknowledged use is a fact, and mentioning it is not expressing or insinuating any opinion or view that serves to advance any particular position, so WP:WEIGHT does not apply. It is irrelevant in terms of WP:PSTS, which is a policy, whether Scholten is independent of homeopathy (the subject). What matters is that he cites primary sources for the use of SrCl in homeopathy, thus making him a secondary source for that use. Unless you can present a valid argument relating specifically to WP:PSTS, I must conclude that you are unable to show that Scholten is not a secondary source per WP:PSTS. By the way, editors in content disputes are subject to WP:DR which is official policy requiring that editors "focus on content, not on the other editor", so please avoid asking whether, or why, a subject is, or is not, of personal importance to another editor. - Neparis (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is no reliable (that is independent) source that verifies that strontium chloride is actually being used in the way the homeopaths say it is. The fact is being challeneged and the onus is on you to provide a source that is independent that establishes strontium chloride as being notable for its homeopathic uses. This needs to be beyond a homeopathic reference. A mainstream news article, a mention in a peer-reviewed journal, a discussion in a book about chemicals, etc. are all acceptable. The problem is that promotional sources are absolutely not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Since you have not substantively deal with these issues, there is no reason that I should not remove the claim from the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, the issue is not how SrCl is used in homeopathy, but simply whether it is used. It is illogical and unnecessary in terms of Wikipedia policies to insist on verifying that "[SrCl] is actually being used in the way the homeopaths say it is." Also, WP:RS does not define reliable secondary sources as secondary sources that are independent of the topic. There is simply no such restriction in WP:RS — and WP:RS cannot make any because WP:RS is only a guideline. You have not yet presented any argument against use of the source that is properly grounded in policy. - Neparis (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:REDFLAG certainly applies here. If you could just find an independent source, all this would go away. What I am doing, frankly, is questioning the validity of your source. I don't trust it. I want to see a source that is not about homeopathy mention strontium chloride as being prominently used in homeopathy. So far, nada. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, the issue is not how SrCl is used in homeopathy, but simply whether it is used. It is illogical and unnecessary in terms of Wikipedia policies to insist on verifying that "[SrCl] is actually being used in the way the homeopaths say it is." Also, WP:RS does not define reliable secondary sources as secondary sources that are independent of the topic. There is simply no such restriction in WP:RS — and WP:RS cannot make any because WP:RS is only a guideline. You have not yet presented any argument against use of the source that is properly grounded in policy. - Neparis (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reliable (that is independent) source that verifies that strontium chloride is actually being used in the way the homeopaths say it is. The fact is being challeneged and the onus is on you to provide a source that is independent that establishes strontium chloride as being notable for its homeopathic uses. This needs to be beyond a homeopathic reference. A mainstream news article, a mention in a peer-reviewed journal, a discussion in a book about chemicals, etc. are all acceptable. The problem is that promotional sources are absolutely not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Since you have not substantively deal with these issues, there is no reason that I should not remove the claim from the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but mentioning a use of a substance is absolutely not excluded by WP:FRINGE which is, in any case, just a guideline. An acknowledged use is a fact, and mentioning it is not expressing or insinuating any opinion or view that serves to advance any particular position, so WP:WEIGHT does not apply. It is irrelevant in terms of WP:PSTS, which is a policy, whether Scholten is independent of homeopathy (the subject). What matters is that he cites primary sources for the use of SrCl in homeopathy, thus making him a secondary source for that use. Unless you can present a valid argument relating specifically to WP:PSTS, I must conclude that you are unable to show that Scholten is not a secondary source per WP:PSTS. By the way, editors in content disputes are subject to WP:DR which is official policy requiring that editors "focus on content, not on the other editor", so please avoid asking whether, or why, a subject is, or is not, of personal importance to another editor. - Neparis (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, since we are talking about homeopathy WP:FRINGE automatically applies. It is a fringe theory whether you find it on a page devoted to the subject or any other location. You fail to recognize that trying to get fringe theories mentioned in unrelated articles is a promotional gimmick used by promoters of fringe theories. To avoid this, we have carefully crafted rules for research and sourcing that haven't been met by the suggested reference. Scholten isn't independent of homeopathy and therefore he doesn't qualify as reliable to verify the prominence of homeopathy with respect to strontium chloride in order to adequately satisfy WP:WEIGHT. So we have zero reliable, independent sources that attest to homeopathy's prominence with respect to this subject. Meanwhile, I remind you that total exclusion of tiny minority opinions is allowed per weight policy. There's just so many ways to justify removing homeopathy from this article that I'm fairly astonished that anyone without an alternative stake in the broader issue would care to go to bat for its inclusion. How 'bout it, why is it important for you? What reader is going to be served by seeing a link to homeopathy and why? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, we are not concerned with whether Sr ions exist in diluted homeopathic substances (a web search turns up various Sr preparations at "3x" (powers of ten) dilutions [2], a level at which Sr ions are easily both detectable and quantifiable). What is relevant is whether Sr is used in the preparation of homeopathic substances. Per WP:PSTS, Scholten is a secondary source for the use of SrCl in homeopathy because he reviews primary sources for that use. Simply mentioning that SrCl is used in homeopathy is not presenting or endorsing any particular view of homeopathy itself, and thus WP:WEIGHT, which refers to the proper balance of different views in an article, does not apply here. WP:FRINGE is not a policy, but a guideline which applies to promotion of fringe theories, not to a mere mention of a use of a chemical compound. - Neparis (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- But homeopathy doesn't, per se, use SrCl since it dilutes it beyond any of the ions being in solution. The point is that WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT apply. Homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience and taking them at their word that SrCl is used is not acceptable. If you can find a secondary source that indicates that SrCl is prominently used by homeopaths, then I'll be happy to add information about it. However, using a primary source written by a homeopath does not rise to the standards needed for inclusion. If they write that they use God in their solutions do we include that on the page devoted to God? What about if they say that they use dark energy? Or guinea pigs? Since there is no way for us to judge when they are telling the truth and when they are lying about the prominence of their use of a particular thing (and since there is no indpendent evaluation of how or even that they use such a thing) we need to use secondary sources only. It's a higher standard so that fringe ideas don't get unduly promoted on articles unrelated to them. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, we are discussing uses, not properties of SrCL. Scholten is a secondary source for the use of SrCl in homeopathy because he reviews primary sources for that use. Please be aware that WP:N is a guideline which applies to the topic of articles, not to individual statements within an article. Briefly mentioning this use is perfectly acceptable and falls within our policies; it is certainly not an endorsement of the use. Please stop edit warring and discuss the matter here first. - Neparis (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Clearly WP:REDFLAG does not apply because the claim is wholly unexceptional. You may want to see a source "that is not about homeopathy mention strontium chloride as being prominently used in homeopathy", but, unfortunately for you, it is not a policy requirement to use one. I am still awaiting a valid argument based on policy. - Neparis (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- For this article, I tend to agree that strontium homeopathy is not relevant and could be excluded. The dilution is infinite, thus no SrCl2 is consumed and the associated properties, reactions, production, and structures have no bearing on what is not-SrCl2. We aren't judging homeopathy, just saying that its universe does not intersect with the topic of this article. If homeopathy employed measureable quantities, then my views would be different, for what they're worth.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The source provided in the initial revision[3] is Homeopathy and the Elements. Clicking on the heritage link there reveals that this work is on the edge of Homeopathy
- A "cutting edge" of homeopathy, the information is interesting, yet much of the materia medica is synthetic and, therefore, theoretical. It should be approached with caution. Not for the notice homeopath or one without experience.
- For inclusion a much better source from the homeopathy literature should be found.--Salix alba (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Regardless of the obviousness of a claim, reliable sources are required for all facts included in the encyclopedia. Homeopathy and the Elements is not a reliable source, and cannot be used even for statements that some individuals consider an obvious fact. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it not a reliable source? I agree it is not a reliable source for proving that homeopathy works, because no such source exists IMO. But it can well be a reliable source for proving that a homeopathic "product" is made out of diluting SnCl2, and that it is used for "attempting to treat" certain afflictions. Whether it works or not is irrelevant here. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
