Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placebo (at funeral)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Placebo. This allows editors to (very selectively) merge any well-sourced content to that article or elsewhere. Consensus is against retaining this as an article, especially if one discounts the - sorry to be impolite - quite weird and difficult-to-follow comments by Lindsay658.  Sandstein  21:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Placebo (at funeral)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Badly written and practically unsourced article on a obsolete usage of the word "placebo". Even if this usage could be verified, WP:NOTDIC would apply. Zacwill ( talk ) 18:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not an article about an "obsolete" usage of the word "placebo". It is an accurate account of precisely how, and why, a "dummy drug" (as distinct from an "active drug") became known as a "placebo".
 * The current, ridiculous, c.1960s situation, where "placebo" (due to gross error in an imposed etymology) is alleged to mean "I shall please" -- rather than it actually meaning "a simulator" (a contraction/elision of "placebo singer") -- has created the absurd situation where a term, "placebo", is used for both the super-ordinate domain name, i.e. all "simulators", and for one of the sub-ordinate categories, i.e., a "simulator" that delivers a positive outcome.
 * Thus, one of the powerful tools provided by a standard Componential analysis, the "zero" (not applicable) for the "no effect" outcome, is immediately and completely removed from all discussions.
 * Then, through this mistaken and absurd practice one is forced to decide whether a "simulator" (qualitatively) pleases ("placebo") or (qualitatively)harms ("nocebo") -- with no restrictions upon how, were, why, when, and to whom the qualitative please/harm elements are effected, and how, were, why, when, and by whom the qualitative please/harm elements are measured.
 * This nonsense is compounded by the fact that many of the post-administration "placebo responses" of "simulators" that match the sought-after effects of the "active drug" 100%, may well be far from pleasant.
 * Finally, an understanding of "placebo" as a "simulator" (as distinct from "something that pleases") is far from an historical/lexicographical dispute. It is, give the current mistaken and ambiguous usage (see, for example, ) a critical issue for current medical science, and this article must be retained. Lindsay658 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Surely the history of the term "placebo" as it applies to dummy drugs belongs in the placebo article, and therefore this content should be merged (but not before it is rewritten and verified to meet encylopedic standards). Zacwill (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to argue for a change in accepted, standard medical terminology. We follow; we don't try to lead. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Zacwill seems that you are not aware that the scientifically and conceptually important historical material relating to the historically accurate "dummy-drug" meaning of "placebo" was, indeed, originally part of the Placebo article, but was removed, over time, by the weight of the holders of the "pleasing view" -- and for this reason, and no other, this article must be kept.Lindsay658 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The use of "(singer of) placebo" to mean "someone who came to a funeral, falsely claiming a connection with the deceased in order to get a share of any food and/or drink being handed out after the religious ceremony" was widely known in the Middle Ages and after, and singers of placebo were a widespread nuisance at funerals. For references, look up this Google search link. (The extra search terms are "exclude terms" to keep out references to a pop music group called Placebo.)
 * The only reference to placebo medications that I can find in the article Placebo (at funeral) is the one line "This may have helped to give "placebo" the English medical meaning of "simulator".", which I see no harm in.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What references? Following your Google link, I see a handful of blog posts, forum posts, and Wikipedia mirrors, but nothing that even comes close to a WP:RS. Zacwill (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete much of this content could be ported to wiktionary. Beyond that, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources so GNG is not met. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think this author understands the purpose of the Office of the Dead; it is in the Psalter and is not a formal ritual for the public. To take this and extrapolate to this means someone seeking to get food and drink at funerals is a hoax. Laughable. Has this author been reading Lindsey Davis? This sort of thing went on in pre-Christian ancient Rome with its professional mourners. This article is a complete hoax with no verifiability. The OED gives an Ecclesiastical context for this term. 1.1 Eccl. In the Latin rite: The name commonly given to Vespers in the Office for the Dead, from the first word of the first antiphon (Placebo Domino in regione vivorum, Ps. cxiv. 9, Vulg.).  It means this is used for worship, not funerary rites nor wakes. Fails verifiable evidence. WP:NRVE. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I personally would prefer a redirect or merge to Placebo over a full deletion, or possibly a transwiki to Wiktionary. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the article seems completely incoherent to me, covering all sorts of different possible meanings with completely inadequate sourcing. It’s a set of assertions which, in the absence of decent sourcing, may be original research. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to general article about funerals. This is poorly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: good faith undersourced essay. This is a notable topic, it doesn't entirely fit in either suggested merge targets. Per WP:TNT Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over. This article deserves a do over. Article history would be broken and of dubious value.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  15:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.