Talk:Water memory

(Dis)infobox
, can you please explain how the infobox benefits this article? I especially like the nutshell statement from WP:DISINFOBOX: " If there is one, make sure it isn't an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance." The history of this is messy and does not boil down to a single proposal date by a single person, nor does it have neat statistics that can be summarized without vastly oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. Nor are things like "alternative medicine" related scientific disciplines. Please revert your re-addition of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP, this is a poor infobox; the article would be better without it. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No. IP's vague claims did't explains what are the supposed "messy" or the "vastly oversimplifyng". In fact, the article and sources explains the origins of this pseudocientific claim from Benveniste's paper on Nature and the relations of WMemo with homeopathy and other alternative medicines. The infobox summarizes the article text. For me, these type of general unsourced claims sounds very similar to all other pseudocience advocates crying about the labeling their pet nonsense as a pseudoscience. Looking at history and talk of our inteligent design entry we can see the same approach. Furthermore, regulars at our Fringe theories noticeboard are experts on this type of whitewashing narratives. WP:PUSH and WP:GAMING also describe the IP behavior. Ixocactus (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , Please indent your replies; see Help:Talk for how to use talk pages, thanks. WP:AGF is there for a good reason.  Nothing about infobox disagreement has anything to do with gaming the system (which doesn't even make any sense here anyway) or POV-pushing.  Nor does any of this have anything to do with whitewashing.  My objections are to the infobox itself, not any of the rest of the article content.  Infoboxes are good when there are standard statistics to present, like birth date, etc, for biographies.  But they're not good when there's nuance or context needed to understand the information in it.  You said, "The infobox summarizes the article text.", but that's not what infoboxes are for.  Again, this has nothing to do with trying to water down (no pun intended) the treatment of the topic, but just getting rid of a terrible infobox.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This response is totally unresponsive, it's just a WP:ABF lashing out against a long-time, high-quality contributor (who happens to edit with an IP address). Given the lack of substantive justification for your revert, I'm going to re-remove the poor infobox.  --JBL (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I know how to ident. I was replying the IP claims only, not your agreement. This discussion was reported to Fringe theories noticeboard. Ixocactus (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Remarkable. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay explaining the opinions of some people about when an infobox should be avoided.
 * User JBL and the IPs are being very rude here: arrogantly moving other people's indentation around and explaining to them how to indent when they clearly know it, throwing around baseless AGF and NPA accusations, chest-beating about being such a wonderful editor, pretending that an essay is policy, and ignoring the actual reasoning of the opponent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Even more remarkable. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVILITY challenge: offer an argument that refers only to the merits (or not) of the infobox that was in the article (or variations thereof), without making personal commentary about anyone else. The IP's done it; I've done it; can you?  --JBL (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can have a look at the infobox and know what the article is about in two seconds. To read the lede, I need far longer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead section of the article is 5 sentences long; the first 2 sentences convey all of the information that is both in the infobox and unproblematic. --JBL (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like if you think there's something insufficiently clear or complete or to the point about the first (60-word) paragraph, that would be a worthwhile discussion. (Personally I think it's ... ok?  The "this is fake" part could be somewhat stronger, perhaps, or earlier in the paragraph?  But basically it seems to me that it contains all the essential information.  Is there something more it should say?)  But that's a different discussion from this one. --JBL (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, your reasoning is that your personal requirements for getting a quick overview on the subject are fulfilled without the infobox, and other people's personal requirements do not matter, therefore the infobox must go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not a sourcing question, it's a "does the infobox do a good job of the task of an infobox?" question. The answer to that question is "no, it does not": the "related scientific disciplines" is a list of three things that are not scientific disciplines, the "subsequent proponents" list is pointless and unsourced, and the other information is conveyed much better in the (short, accessible) lead of the article.  In short, the only things the box adds to the lead section are problematic, and the article would be better without the box.  (This is without getting into the behavioral question of reverting and running to a noticeboard without bothering to offer a substantive defense of the content under discussion.)  --JBL (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If RS call it psedo it would seem to me that having a psedo infox box is acceptable. Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's going to have an infobox, the pseudoscience infobox is appropriate; that is not the question under discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Below I put the removed infobox (without the water image/caption) for register and improvement of this discussion. Unlike previous vague claims, and denial of sources, the topics, claims, origyear and other template parameters are sufficient and necessary for "a good job of the task of an infobox". Waiting for more input of our fellow fringe watchers before ANI, since "if its going to have a infobox" and "the question under discussion" sounds as smokescreens to divert attention. Ixocactus (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So that's 0 affirmative argument in support of this infobox, but heavy doubling down on the violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your editing history suggests you are broadly competent, it is a shame you cannot abide very straightforward behavioral policies here.  --JBL (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding: the infobox is here since 2008. Ixocactus (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and? Lots of unjustifiable things have been on Wikipedia since 2008 that no one has noticed or cleaned up -- see WP:UNCHALLENGED and WP:LONGTIME. --JBL (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do like info boxes, especially on a mobile device. Not sure I agree it is ugly or out of place. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed infobox: