Talk:Jáchymov

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

de:Jáchymov

Corresponding English-language article:Jáchymov
Worth doing because: much more information?
Originally Requested by:--210.128.247.147 08:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Status: done Staffelde 20.22, 3 Sep 2005
Other notes:
Supported:

(“1743” ?)

I removed following sentence : In 1743 Bohemia became part of Austria and thus later of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Bohemia was part ouf Habsburg empire since 1526, however administratively it was separate kingdom, similarly to hungary or duchy of austria. So I believe that the reference to the year 1743 (the year when Maria Theresia was crowned as Bohemian queen) was just some mistake. Xmort 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. Franklin anecdote

I’m far from a reliable source, but one of my early grade-school memories is of a paperback kids’ edition of (excerpts from) B. franklin’s autobio (perhaps from Scholastic Press), in which ol’ Ben recounted crossing a river, and paying the boatman with “a Dutch dollar” (probably years or decades before the revolution). FWIW. —User:Jerzy/User:JerzyA/2601:199:C201:FD70:3C3E:7CBD:CA23:F3A1 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily vandalized by nationalist(s)

Should be lectorized. Nankea (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Wikipedia:Be bold. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience in 'Spa' section

The content written in this section is highly dubious, relying on disproven pseudoscience that has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. It's clear from the edit history there has been disputes about this from other contributors, and I don't see how this section can be left in without some serious rewriting. Of course, that will require those removing it and those replacing it to accept whatever replaces it. --TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is supported by reliable sources. There are several radon spas in Europe, read for example this article. FromCzech (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's disputing the existence of these spas, and the first sentence of the section is perfectly fine. The rest of the section, however, presents a number of disproven assertions about the alleged "healing effects" of exposure to ionising radiation, which is the problem. As per the NPOV rules regarding pseudoscience if these claims are to be included they should be identified as contradicting scientific consensus. TheGlaswegian (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provisionally reworded the section so that, while the spa is still mentioned, the concept of radiation hormesis is not being presented as scientific fact. TheGlaswegian (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The spa is successful and have existed for over a hundred years, and yet you claim that the effects of their treatment have not been proven? Source, please. FromCzech (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not those challenging it. If I declared that radon exposure made your skin turn green, it would not be on you to provide sources to disprove me. I have no objections to listing what purposes people seek radon therapy for - as you say, that has nothing to do with the efficacy of said treatment - but I must state that there should be at least mention that this is outwith the existing majority view of international regulatory organisations and scientific literature.

I've made another provisional edit, where I've kept the distinct 'Spa' section and the list of treatments, just with a brief phrase clarifying that they involve the contested concept of radiation hormesis. I also cleaned up the language a little to improve how it reads, but I've tried to keep the basic information consistent. Hopefully this is a more acceptable form that can address both our concerns. TheGlaswegian (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ailments that are treated here have nothing to do with whether the treatment is effective or not, so there is also nothing to question. FromCzech (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]