Template:Did you know nominations/Kambo cleanse
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yoninah (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kambo cleanse
A kambo ceremony
- ... that people willingly burn their skin and spread frog poison on the wound to detox themselves (pictured)?
Created by OneUpOnUs (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
- Problematic from WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE perspective, because people do not "detox" themselves, they attempt to "detox" themselves; and then this kind of detoxification is not actually a thing, it's a fake concept. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I had the same concerns; a better phrasing might be something like
- ALT0a: ... that people willingly burn their skin and spread frog poison on the wound in a pseudoscientific treatment called the kambo cleanse? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree with both of you, such an obvious mistake. I like SpicyMilkBoy's alternate hook and I also have a another suggestion (although I think I still prefer SpicyMilkBoy's).
- Just a comment, the link is somewhat misleading because it looks like it would link to the detox article rather than Kambo cleanse. It's best to state the name of the article in the hook. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- In that case I still prefer yours. OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- ALT0b could be interpreted to say that you can "detox" yourself, which in the alt-med sense is meaningless. ALTa works, but I'd suggest something more likely to pique curiosity than rejection. 04:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- In that case I still prefer yours. OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- ALT0c: ... that people willingly burn their skin and spread frog poison on the wound in an occasionally lethal variant of the detoxification marketing myth?
- In all of these suggestions, the reference is to "people." Is it better to say something like, "people in the West have been using a traditional medicine treatment..." or "indigenous people of South America have used Kambo cleanse, a practice that has spread to the West"? I don't think these specific suggestions are great, but note that it becomes clearer what is meant by "people." TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Perhaps something like this (although the phrasing isn't so catchy - maybe someone else can punch it up):
- ALT1: ... that kambo, a traditional practice among indigenous South Americans in which frog poison is applied to burnt skin, is used as alternative medicine in the West?
- ALT0d ... that participants willingly burn their skin and apply frog poison to the wound in kambo, a South American folk medicine practice that has spread to the West?
- I'm not sure about ALT0c because the "detoxification marketing myth" bit or equivalent wording isn't in the article and might be hard to include without getting into WP:SYNTH territory (even though it's obviously true). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that something can kill you is always hooky. You'd almost think that we humans take an instinctive interest in learning about lethal dangers.
The "marketing myth" is cited in the article liked to from "detoxification", which I think is acceptable, as that's what a reader will naturally click on if they want information about marketing myths. - There is a somewhat odd practice, especially in the US, of specifying ethnicity in medical contexts, despite the fact that it is usually either irrelevant or a proxy measure (say, for how many malarial ancestors you've had, or for poverty). I suspect this is an expression of a deep-running belief that the US-genic hypodescentic caste system has biological foundations (which it doesn't; biology is not hypodescentic). If the hook is talking about medical effects, not cultural context, I'm not sure that we need to distinguish traditional indigenous people from other people. The reader will probably figure out that we mean human people. While it's obvious that the Westerners modify the practice and use it differently, and this may make it more dangerous, frankly it would be more worth mentioning if they didn't, and this topic is a completely different hook. If we do go with a cultural hook (like ALT1 and ALT0d) we should say that the indigenous people are Panoans, rather than using only descriptive exonyms. HLHJ (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Very good points - to be clear, what led me to specify indigenous vs. Western use of the procedure is that it seems ahistorical to refer to the traditional practices as "pseudoscience", "alternative medicine", or "detoxing" - but it's fair enough to say that it should be assumed that the Western practices are different. We could bypass that issue entirely with a phrasing like
- ALT2: ... that multiple deaths have been associated with the kambo cleanse, which involves burning one's skin and applying frog poison to the wound?
- Except this hook doesn't explain exactly why people would do that - but maybe that'll make people want to click the link and find out. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- No that could work, the "cleanse" part hints at the reason why people do it enough I think OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Entirely agree on the ahistoricity; ALT0c, I think, accommodates this by addressing only the motives and outcomes for some participants (frankly, I know nothing about the traditional practice). "Cleanse" is a good hint, and we don't have to say why; ALT3 would be OK, though I think it weaker than ALT0c. HLHJ (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- ALT3a: ... that multiple deaths have been associated with burning one's skin and applying frog poison to the wound?
- That's a good option too. I think we might as well leave this up to the DYK reviewers now - we've given them a lot of hooks to choose from. And I'm getting tired of typing all these colons. :P SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Although I've just thought, since "detox" does have some legitimate meanings, perhaps the wl should make this clear. HLHJ (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that people willingly burn their skin and spread frog poison on the wound in an occasionally lethal variant of the detoxification marketing myth?
- Agreed. Although I've just thought, since "detox" does have some legitimate meanings, perhaps the wl should make this clear. HLHJ (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Entirely agree on the ahistoricity; ALT0c, I think, accommodates this by addressing only the motives and outcomes for some participants (frankly, I know nothing about the traditional practice). "Cleanse" is a good hint, and we don't have to say why; ALT3 would be OK, though I think it weaker than ALT0c. HLHJ (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- No that could work, the "cleanse" part hints at the reason why people do it enough I think OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that something can kill you is always hooky. You'd almost think that we humans take an instinctive interest in learning about lethal dangers.
- That's a good point. Perhaps something like this (although the phrasing isn't so catchy - maybe someone else can punch it up):
- In all of these suggestions, the reference is to "people." Is it better to say something like, "people in the West have been using a traditional medicine treatment..." or "indigenous people of South America have used Kambo cleanse, a practice that has spread to the West"? I don't think these specific suggestions are great, but note that it becomes clearer what is meant by "people." TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I had the same concerns; a better phrasing might be something like
Full review needed, including of the various ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing..., at least you guys gave me a lot to work with. Toreightyone (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Initial Review:
Article:
Newness:
- created a day before nomination
Length: - 5664 B
Copyvio Check: - 36.7%, but the percentage is attributed to the quotes
Neutrality:
Grammar:
Sources: - every claim is sufficiently sourced, great use of scholarly articles
Hook:
Length: - all are <250 characters
Image:
- For the image provided, I'm just curious as to where it mentions that the video is under CC BY-SA 3.0, usually Youtube videos would have to disclose the copyright within the description, within the video, or on their separate website. The only thing I found on [1] was that they reserve the rights to copyright.
Content: - for ALTs 0a, 0d, 1, 4; I'll let the promoting admin decide as they all work
Neutrality:
Source: - within the article
QPQ:
- Not required as first DYK nomination
Overall: 
Everything is good to go for ALTs 0a, 0d, 1, or 4, although some concerns need to be addressed regarding the image - please see the comments above. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. The video the image comes from is this one on YouTube, it mentions in the description that it's licensed under Creative Commons. When I click on the CC link in the video's description it takes me to a Youtube help page on CC. From there I clicked on the "CC BY" link taking me to the CC 3.0 page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode which I understood to mean that the video was CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed. Hopefully I've done that correctly, it was my understanding that Youtube videos under CC license can be used? OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
... How did I not see that, I honestly don't know how I overlooked that. Everything is good to go! I also substituted the CC BY-SA 3.0 license on the commons page with a Youtube-specific template. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem :) OneUpOnUs (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT4, but there is no mention of the detoxification marketing myth in the article. The talk page also has a lengthy discussion of the impartiality of the article, so this will not be promoted anytime soon. Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I agree it's not yet ready. The article has some MEDRS problems (I think I've fixed or templated most of them). "Myth" is cited in the detox article to which it links; it this acceptable, or should it be repeated in the main linked article too? That kambo is a "detox" variant is now cited in the article, along with "detox" being a marketing strategy. HLHJ (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem :) OneUpOnUs (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. The video the image comes from is this one on YouTube, it mentions in the description that it's licensed under Creative Commons. When I click on the CC link in the video's description it takes me to a Youtube help page on CC. From there I clicked on the "CC BY" link taking me to the CC 3.0 page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode which I understood to mean that the video was CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed. Hopefully I've done that correctly, it was my understanding that Youtube videos under CC license can be used? OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Wanted to comment in support of ALT0a. It's straight to the point and makes it clear that detoxing is a psuedoscience. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- As the nominator hasn't been on Wikipedia since early February and there hasn't been many updates to this nomination in over a month, the issues will need to be addressed or else the nomination may be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting Narutolovehinata5, as far as I can tell the issues that were brought up have been dealt with and I think the nomination should proceed. What are your thoughts on the matter HLHJ and SpicyMilkBoy? You've both done a huge amount of work on the page. OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with it if others are. More could be added, and really should be once more medical research is completed. There has been discussion of changing the title (which would affect the body text). OneUpOnUs? HLHJ (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting Narutolovehinata5, as far as I can tell the issues that were brought up have been dealt with and I think the nomination should proceed. What are your thoughts on the matter HLHJ and SpicyMilkBoy? You've both done a huge amount of work on the page. OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please see and comment on the DYK nom withdrawal discussion. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Per the discussion on HLHJ's talk page, there appears to be agreement between the nominator and other editors that the article is not suitable for DYK at this time and the nominator will now be withdrawing this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
