Talk:Woo/Archive1

Local neologism?
Um, is this a neologism of ours? human be in 18:53, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Strangely enough, no. I've been seeing it on Pharyngula, and followed it around the blogosphere.  Apparently, except for us, lots know about it.  AKA woo woo.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:56, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I believe, but it would take a long time to prove, that James Randi was using it as much as 5+ years ago in his column. Though I have to say I'm concerned that this page only covers medical woo -- there's far more than just that under the category. EVDebs 19:04, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Then let us wiki together and improve it.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:05, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm, ok. I found the article to be rather empty and useless, despite having a bunch of words.  Shouldn't it say "Woo is a generic term used by science bloggers to mean...."?  If that's what it is. In other words, if someone reads this, will they learn anything at all?  I didn't. I have now, slightly. human be in 19:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

"Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a wooster!"--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:07, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Feel free to ACD it.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:09, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No, not yet? If there is a term, even if rare or neo, and it can be described so if "I" run into it I'll understand it, and so that I can use it without sounding ignorant, I see no problem with it being here.  But right now the article begs the question.  Hopefully the Debster will come and help us out, since he is apparently more familiar with it. human be in 19:18, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Here's one example--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:20, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Post-it note on the Debsters improvements: thank you! I understood that. Nice job. human be in 23:48, 16 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I first saw the term in the 1980s, in radical environmentalist literature. Earth First! and related groups at the time had a mix of conservation biologists and population ecologists who were strictly science oriented, leftists and anarchists who were mostly interested in direct action protests, and people who were into earth-mother-goddess rituals, lifestyle primitivism and New Age shamanism.  Not a compatible mix at all.  The biologists didn't like all the "woo-woo" coming from the would-be primitive shamans, and called the earth-goddess rituals "pitching woo".  It's not a neologism by a long shot. Secret Squirrel 04:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1980s is neo enough, isn't it? It's not like Dickens used the term... 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's kinda sorta neo. Secret Squirrel 04:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A Woo Template
Perhaps we could design some sort of template for articles that are in the Woo category. If so, does anybody know of a free picture of that guy who hangs out at Chicago Cubs games, Ronnie Woo Woo or something.Jsonitsac 16:46, 10 February 2008 (EST)
 * Well, we do have a pseudoscience template or three, which pretty much cover things. Not that we wouldn't use a "woo" one if it was pretty :) human  18:56, 10 February 2008 (EST)


 * Perhaps this image may be of some use:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bachmann2011.jpg/220px-Bachmann2011.jpg   ThirdSection (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Woo in Crete!
Bad attack of WooWoo here: http://www.paleochora-woowoo.blogspot.com/

Been going on for a year or more but the lack of tourists in Paleochora this summer has had a major impact on the project. (Un)fortunately, it's rumoured that Ms Demena is now back in the UK and too busy chasing goats to blog any more. Mick McT 05:58, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Early food woo
I learned today about James Salisbury, inventor of Salisbury Steak and originator of one of the earliest of the modern fad diets. Bizarre how little things have changed. --Kels 17:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Hehe, what's really alarming is that things haven't changed much since the days of little understanding...  ħ uman  17:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

defeat in uk
Don't know if this has been noted: about discontinuation of woo courses at University of Central Lancashire (many other links in blog) Marghanita Laski 04:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Who cares, how is Susan? (OK, we care about you, too, but seriously, we want a report!!!)  ħ uman  05:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, that was weird. You edited as Susan, but signed as your girlfriend.  I take it you are out of hospital again?  ħ uman  05:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * perhaps they got hitched and are now of One Flesh (amazing how signing a bit of paper can change your DNA). Maybe "Marganita" accidentally forgot to log "Susan" out. But yeah, how is teh Susan? Totnesmartin 06:18, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry about that.mShe ("Susan")'s still in hospital - out (fingers crossed) Friday. I'm rushing about and using her PDA so don't want to mess up her settings by logging out etc. They won't let her have t'internet or phone at bed. Costing me a fortune in b0oks! This prodding a screen is awful don't know how she managed for as long as she did! Assuming she is out friday, we're going to suny Mandhester for the weeiend to see friends so probably not back on www  till m0nda/tuesday. ML 10:11, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * ACk! I didn't know she was sick or in teh hospital. Is it serious, and either way, give her my atheist prayers for what they are worth. HUGS!!!!!!!!-- 11:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Best hippy wishes from Totnes to both of you. 13:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT) Totnesmartin

Gaia
Hey Goonie, are you sure Gaia hypothesis doesn't belong on this list? It's pretty woo-ey I think. 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I don't actually think we ever reached an agreement on whether or not it is. But, add it back if you so choose. Conservative Punk (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be both - while it can be studied sciencishly, there's also the whole "whoa, dude, the planet's alive!!!" approach. 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Gaia hypothesis has been shown to be false, so its adherents are pseudoscientific. Kind of like Lysenkoism was pseudoscientific because it has been falsified. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rant
Thieves Oil. Apparently you rub it on your feet to ward off colds. Sounds like top-notch woo to me. Mumble rant grumble woo. DogP Marmite Patrol 22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find, although I have to say that looks like the shittiest Wikipedia article I have ever seen. 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's someone who actually sells the stuff, and nice and expensive it is too.  I can't find any other references to this bullshit that isn't clearly just quoting from what this 'Young Living' company claims about it.   Woo of the highest order I suspect.   Incidentally, like most wooists, it seems this company is making huge bank on these oils it sells - $100 for 5ml's of oil makes this something you wouldn't want to be powering your Hummer on.   Mind you, if you can get away with staggering profits like this, I may have to look into woomeistery as a business option for my own good self.   "Would Madam be interested in our most health-giving oil, Sandalwood?   Cheap at the price!".   DogP Marmite Patrol 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Friends and I have often contemplated going into audio woo, a field with no victims who aren't thoroughly deserving. In analogy with "thieves' oil", I'll call it "Ponzi Audio" or something - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a lot of detailed research (clicked on the first Google link) on this Young Living Oils company, and Quackwatch has an interesting article on them, and the guy behind them.  He's such a quack, he even ended up murdering his own newborn baby by drowning it during an underwater childbirth.   It's quite the read, and he's clearly an incredible scam artist.  Major success in snake-oil salesmanship.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on then, write it up. While WP may have an article on it as woobusters we should be a clearing house for rubbishing this stuff. 19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit.  Turns out I unearthed an entire shitpile here - there's just masses of info out there about this guy and his wooful company - google "gary young" and quack for hours of entertainment.   I may write something, but it looks like it's extensively covered elsewhere - and, of course, the source of much controversy as those who have been overwhelmed by the strong woo-field are passionate as all hell about the man and his oils.   Bizarre.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples and Others sections are superfluous
These are just article lists. They're basically redundant with, well, most of the wiki, and certainly Category:Woo. I was thinking of rewriting them but can't see much point, so have killed them with a blunt axe. If anyone loves them tremendously, do feel free to put them back in some non-redundant form - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Woo and advertising
Remove 3. and 6. from the list and 'much advertising' is described. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Origins
I always thought woo-woo came from the sound that flying saucers make in cheap sci-fi flicks. ThirdSection (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard a number of theories, that being one of them. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression was it's the sound you make when you see something impressive: "woooooo...". And as "woo" is generally dressing something up as more impressive than it is (like stage magic but without the sexy assistants and 80s hairstyles) that seemed to be plausible. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll exercise your nexus! 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just been reading Why The West Rules - For Now and learned that a wu is a Chinese shaman who practices divination, medium, necromancer, etc. It struck me as a possible source for the term. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For that matter, wu is also the Mandarin pronunciation for a Chinese character (无) that means "no" or "nothingness".--Cronocke (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, the various tones of the syllable wu have so many different meanings that it is practically guaranteed that at least one of them will have some coincidental semantic resemblance to the English woo. The same goes for Chinese syllables and English words in general.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're analyzing it from the wrong angle. It's less that the syllable wu has one coincidental meaning that aligns with "woo", and more that the character 无 is coincidentally pronounced like the word "woo". 无 is also the Simplified Chinese version of the character 無, which is famously used in a Buddhist koan - the one involving the Buddha nature of a dog. Now, whether Buddhism is itself "woo" is another question, but it is interesting that the character that means "nothingness" and "no" - and in some interpretations, means "this question should be unasked" - is pronounced the same way as the English neologism "woo". --Cronocke (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I also remember the term being used in the 1980s for people who were impressed by flashing lights and that sort of thing. If someone became a security guard or EMT in part because he or she liked playing with the emergency lights and other toys, he or she was said to be a "woo-woo."

"See also" links not highly relevant
The rationale for adding these links is that (a) they're examples of woo and (b) they need links to them. I removed them because neither is actually particularly relevant to woo in general, more so than hundreds of other possible links would be. A "see also" should be stuff particularly apposite to the topic of the page that isn't already linked in it, not a charity for lonely articles. Is there anything particularly worth putting in a "see also" section? These links don't cut it IMO - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they at all undermine the authority or coherence of the article? When I have some, change the section heading from "see also" to "examples" and add a bunch more, will that undermine the article? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They're semi-random examples tacked on the end without tremendous relevance, so yes, they would undermine the coherence of the article and hence, by reducing its quality, undermine its authority. Whereas removing them makes the article more coherent. Unless there's some reason why those particular examples and not anything else in a subcategory of Category:Woo, they should go - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but at least try and get hard-to-link-to articles linked to when you undo links to them, okay? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because the software says "o noez, these pages are lonely!" doesn't mean there's a deep reason to care. A cheap way to fix the problem is to put a navigation template on the pages, if you care that much, and it dresses them up as well - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "deep reason to care" is a case of increasing exposure to ideas. Some times we have good stuff that is simply buried, well, buried is the wrong analogy... on the great web of interconnected articles, they're out there on the edges, in oceans of isolation marked "here be dragons" with a little doodle of a sea monster with it. Give 'em some love with a link or two. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>gnostic  15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's kinda the way I see things. A lot of those articles on various kinds of woo are critical to our mission but hard to fit in to the network of articles. How's this for a compromise: we corral up everything that might be defined as "woo," we make an article called "Examples of woo," which will have a preface that briefly describes woo and says "here are some examples of woo debunked," and we  see also that article from here? PintOfStout  Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with list of pseudosciences overlap! But generally, if you were to distinguish woo and pseudoscience, that would be the way to do it. <font color=#CC0033>sshole 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why some things can't appear on both lists; in fact, if that gets those things onto more eyeballs, all the better, AFAIC. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Homeopathy Works?"
Um... no it doesn't. The placebo effect seems to be demonstrably real, but the foundation of homeopathy, and the claims of its supporters have nothing to do with the placebo effect. Their guiding principles are "like cures like", "diluting a treatement make it stronger", and "efficacy is determined by 'provings' (and not actual controled double-blind testing)." All of these principles are demonstrably false. Homeopathy IS woo -- as are all explanations for "why it works," since in fact it DOESN'T work.

A better example of the mix of woo with non-woo might be the statement "glass is not really a solid, but a supercooled liquid, which explains why old windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, as the glass flows under the influence of gravity over the years."

This works because there are elements of truth: a) glass is not a solid in the way we define crystaline solids; and  b) many old windowpanes are demonstrably thicker at the bottom.

But the explanation given for the true bits is woo: 1) glass is -not- a supercooled liquid, but in a class of its own between liquid and crystaline solids; 2) old windowpanes aren't thicker at the bottom because of "glass flow," but because due to an artifact of the process by which they were manufactured; and 3) not all old windowpanes are thicker at the bottom.


 * I don't see how the latter is woo compared to the homeopathy example. "Homeopathy works" because of water memory and potentisation is "woo" and people get better after taking it, whereas "homeopathy works" because of a well known and well quantified placebo effect isn't. There isn't even a grain of truth to many alt med explanations, but the fact that they work better than nothing (i.e., are placebos) isn't in dispute - so that aspect is "non-woo". Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>narchist 01:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears some editor fixed it by changing "works" to "may occasionally give results." There are some folks here on RationalWiki who are more eager to raise a stink on the talk page over what's obviously a minute poor word choice rather than simply altering the phrasing and maybe explaining why in the edit summary as Bob M did. The One They Call Mars (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Synonyms
As the article mentions, it's a terrible name, Any synonyms with the same connotation that could be included that aren't as cringe-inducing? Hmmph (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Irony
Article says, "As an ironic coincidence, the Chinese word "Wu" (巫) means a shaman, usually with magic powers.". But this is not irony.
 * I'd say the way 'irony' is colloquially used is broader than it's literal definition. Tielec01 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is pedantry over the definition of irony ironic? Now there's a brain-buster. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it does provide me with the opportunity to point and laugh at Alanis Morisette. The One They Call Mars (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be wū (note the tone).--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)