Talk:Grape therapy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

On my talk page, you said: "While I accept some of your criticisms of the Grape therapy article, which I have tried to address, I cannot agree with your comment when editing ("dubious article") that implies you do not think the article is valid as a Wikipedia article. Just because something is probably quackery does not mean it is not a valid article for Wikipedia. People who come across the term Grape Therapy have a right to use Wikipedia to find out what it is all about. You might just as well say that half the articles about popular music singers should be deleted because the singers are crap, which they probably are but that does not negate the validity of the article."

Thanks for raising the issue, one that is typically controversial on Wikipedia where facts have to be posed against misinformation and myths, as grape therapy would be defined. The main problem with the grape therapy article is the absence of reliable sources 1) to indicate it is in current common use (European spas, etc.) and 2) to give a reliable basis for why it was (or is) thought to have any benefit. The sources we have for the article are inadequate or absent to resolve these issues. I edited further today to give it more context. We can discuss it further here or - better - on the grape therapy talk page where other editors can have input. Thanks and good luck. --Zefr (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two further academic citations, as well as two examples of where the grape cure is still practised today.Roundtheworld (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hi, the German WP now has an article on this which has been developed independently, so it may contain some additional content that might be of interest to you. For instance as far as the history is concerned: "The documentation of grape cures was first seen in a publication by [...] (1878)." We have found documentation that is definitely 100 years older than that. There is reason to believe that it actually goes back as far as the 16th century (unsourced as yet). --87.150.3.153 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I might have to correct this. The Google Books entry seems questionable, as this Lexikon apparently wasn't published before 1800-something. --87.150.3.153 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]