Talk:Snake oil/Archives/2012

inventor = Schneier?

[Original page said: "This usage is due to Bruce Schneier."Jorge Stolfi]

---

This term was not coined by Bruce Schneier, it appears in the original 1991 PGP manual by Phil Zimmermann, which may be the first time it was used in print to describe questionable cryptography algorithms. Zimmermann picked it up from a friend in private conversation in the 1980s. (According to Phil Zimmemann)

---

Also Ken Olsen, founder and longtime chairman of DEC, once said (ca. 1985 or earlier) that Unix was just "snake oil". (The statement was meant in defense of VMS, whose continuing use bt the U.S.Government was a major source of revenue for DEC. Marketwise, DEC's rejection of Unix may have been a sensible position on the short term; but when DEC finally saw the light and moved into the Unix market, it was too late -- the market for Unix workstations and servers was already dominated by Sun and others, and DEC never managed to catch up.)Jorge Stolfi

This is an interesting observation and Ken Olsen may well have said this, but it was not in 1985. I was using VAX workstations with UNIX in 1985-87. DEC demise had more to do with the general collapse of large-scale systems and mini-computers (the contrast, at the time, was between mini- and micro-, the latter representing the PC market). Unlike IBM, DEC failed to recognize the market failure and did not shift its focus in time. UNIX foibles were only peripheral. Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that what led to DEC collapse was lack of new technology and hopeless delays on the projects they were working on. IBM ran into similar problems and simply cut the losses by shrinking from that market sector, first by trying to sell businesses on their microcomputers (PC desktops and laptops), then left the sector all together, focusing on chip development, service and integration and spinning off the PC division to Lenovo. DEC tried a similar strategy by shifting to commercial storage, PCs and portal services, but that eventually failed as well and the company was stripped by Compaq (PCs), EMC² (storage and services), and Yahoo (Altavista). Suspicion toward UNIX were only a small part of DEC's failed strategy, and even if Olson actually said that, it was well before 1985. Alex.deWitte (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The 80s were the time of MASK. The evil forces in that series used an oil tanker truck, which had "snake oil" painted on its side in huge letters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seKBykbmPe4 84.56.76.163 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PC ism too cutesy!

"salesperson" is a cute anachronism! --gender neutrality running away with facts. When will "king" be outlawed and replaced with "Monarch?"

"Salesman or -woman" would be an anachronism. "Salesperson" is perfectly accurate. Jeff Silvers 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly silly. 68.32.238.94 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WAAAAAHHHH!! Cry some more! --68.123.154.173 (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, if you check actual period material, the terms used were "vendor", "seller", "salesman" (and it usually was a man). This applies both to actual "snake-oil salesmen" and to the proverbial ones. Whatever the case, however, the current description can use contemporary language as long as it does not pretend to represent authentic historical material. A general description that mentions "salesperson" sound fine to me, depending on context. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

new article needed? for the crypto flavor

I sense a need for a separate article snake oil (cryptography)...?Jorge Stolfi 16:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JS, Yup! I would agree, as I feel that a major part of the real world implementation / use / deployment / evaluation of crypto is an insufficient appreciation of the presence and significance of such snake oil. The Doghouse section in Schneier's monthly Crypto-Gram has managed, without apparent effort, to turn up some especially outrageous samples of the species (or genus, even?). The article cryptography had some coverage of this prior to its recent major changes.

As far as writing effectively on this aspect of things, it is my opinion that the point is not best made in isolation, but rather during discussion of other crypto topics. This is an empirical observation (as I've been writing on crypto for some time, and watching readers skip past awkward mention of their susceptibility to snake oil products / thinking) and is probably grounded in the persistent human tendency to evade uncomfortable topics. Thus, I'm not at all sure how to try to go about doing such a thing in the WP context for WP purposes. Suggestions? Ideas? Comments?

ww 17:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JS, Your series of edits here today have very considerably improved the article. Congratulations.

As for a specific reference to the WC Fields movie, I looked briefly, but couldn't find it. It is, as much of his work was, more than mere funny, but great art. The actual scene is famous as the source of the phrase, "...and It CuRes HOARSENESS." Hard to illustrate properly with plain text fonts... I'll try to find the reference. It's a spot on skewering of the worst of the snake oil salesman's craft. ww

There is now a stub page snake oil cryptography containing the parag that used to be here, plus a short summary mostly culled from Matt Curtin's Snake Oil FAQ. Should it be renamed snake oil (cryptography) instead?
Jorge Stolfi 04:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jorge, If we are to have a separate article, then the convention in the crypto corner is indeed to follow the generic name with (cryptography). We will need cross links from crypto snake oil to snake oil and vice versa and all that of course, and the references to snake oil in assorted crypto articles will have to be adjusted to point in the right direction... But this is probably mere obiter dicta as you're undoubtedly already on top of it all. Glad to talk to you again. ww 14:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Snake oil (cryptography) is slightly better, because you can do the trick of [[Snake oil (cryptography)|]]. I've moved the page.— Matt 14:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

cnake oil composition

"Snake oil sold in San Francisco Chinatown in 1989 was found to contain: [...]"

• Is the date correct, or should it be 1889? - Mike Rosoft 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

- The date (1989) is correct. The traditional Chinese medicine uses snake oil even today - it does not have the image of archetypal fraud there as it does have in US.

If you have a more precice reference for this please supply it. "Joe said so in 1976" is not a reference. "Bloggs, Joe 1976 The Composition of a sample of Chinese Snake oil, Journal of Reptilian Nutrition, Volume 4, page 12-13" would be the sort of thing were looking for. (62.237.141.28> please log in and sign your contributions) --Mig77 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out "Snake Oil" by R.A. Kunin, West J Med. 1989 August; 151(2): 208 - it contains a chemical analysis of Chinese snake oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.124 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reference deletion wrong

Two references were deleted in the last few days, with a derisive edit comment, but the deletion was wrong-footed. Both references illustrate usage of the term snake oil, which is no longer limited to actual oily fluid (whether actually from snakes or not). I'll revert in a day or two (if I don't manage to lose track) unless something more than a derisive edit comment is offerred to explain the deletions. ww 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Connection with Semantic Web?

I don't understand why Semantic Web is listed in the "See Also" section. I couldn't find any occurence of "snake oil" or even "snake" on the Semantic Web article page. Could this be a joke, or a bot error?
FlorentGD 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was made as the only edit of an anonymous IP and doesn't seem to make any sense. It's gone now. -- Fyslee/talk 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose the editor was claiming the Semantic Web was snake oil? Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded safe words

"It is likely that they did not understand the action mechanism of the Chinese product, or even know its functional ingredient." Likely? More like definitely. Was there someone in the 1700s who know what eicosapentaenoic acid was? --AnY FOUR! 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

= Derogatory stereotypes ==

I have removed this material as a list of likely "snake-oil" traffickers:

For example, Lawyers, Auto Salesman, and Nigerians are Snake Oil salesman.

Swindlers are to be found in all professions and ethnic groups, and these three groups need not be mentioned as examples.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahistorical bias

The history section is tendentious and patronizing. It is also largely historically incorrect. Ready availability of industrial chemicals in the 1880s and later lead to a rapid explosion of imitation and pharmaceutical markets. Snake oil was only one of many products that came on the market in the 1880s-90s only to be subjected to scrutiny a decade or two later. Other products that met with resistance were, for example, margarine and cider vinegar, both rapidly evolving regulatory regimes around them independently from the formation of the FDA. Both were considered to be fraudulent and not without reason. But the snake-oil issue is quite different, as the product has generally been viewed as harmless placebo with fraud being the outlandish medicinal claims and not misrepresentation of the product itself (although I'm sure, a portion of the market included fake snake oil as well). More to the point, Snake Oil, in at least two forms, remained on the market and was being sold through druggists at least through the early 1920s. One "snake oil liniment" was being peddled for corns and blisters. Another changed its name to Miller's Antiseptic around 1918, but continued to advertise as "Miller's Antiseptic, formerly known as Snake Oil" at least into 1921. It is at this time--between 1919 and 1925--that the derogatory reference to snake oil and snake oil salesmen/vendors gained prominence, which is one reason for Miller's change in name. It is absolutely false to claim that the product met with derision from the beginning of its sales--in fact, the opposite is true. The product was indeed met enthusiastically as a cure-all, but such claims were not unusual--various diuretics and laxatives were also being promoted as indispensable to general good health, as were other products, such as Coca Cola. The cultural layer of anti-snake-oil sentiment was added in the 1930s and it is in this period that snake-oil salesmen became a Western cliche. The History section is in need of serious revision to reflect actual history and historical scholarship, not pop-history from children's encyclopedias of the 1950s-70s. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you may be the best person to add to this article, as it has suffered from a mish-mash of references that color each other inappropriately. Please do go ahead and edit away! Herbxue (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant article reference deleted

An anonymous poster added a paragraph under Claims of Efficacy:

A 2011 study may suggest that the fatty acids in Burmese pythons may be used to promote beneficial cardiac growth. (Science, 10.28.2011. Fatty Acids Identified in the Burmese Python Promote Beneficial Cardiac Growth)

I've reviewed the article and it does not contain any claims whatsoever as to the efficacy of "snake oil". Instead, it is a study of how Burmese python processes fatty acids to enlarge its heart temporarily, as a method of storing nutrition. An application to human health involved imitating the metabolic process, not using snake oil in pharmacology. There were also some issues in formatting and style, but it's a moot point since I deleted the entire piece. Please do not re-post. Alex.deWitte (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Page split

It looks like the page would be well-served by splitting into two pages - one focussing on the term "snake oil" as used as a reference to quackery, and a second on actual snake oil, the oil produced by snakes. Both would probably be short stubs I would think, but having them together is simply too awkward. An alterative would be simply removing the information regarding oil from snakes. Since it's not really recognized as a treatment for anything and is only really noteworthy because of it's omega fatty acid content, it could pretty easily be simply included as a note on the omega fatty acid and snake pages. It's completely irrelevant to the snake-oil-as-a-term and certainly shouldn't be used to promote the idea that snake oil was actually a valid treatment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Space is not a consideration, but the split makes no sense to me. The two parts are inextricably linked and the part describing physical snake oil would contain virtually no meaningful information that would not have to be duplicated in the other article.

--Alex.deWitte (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Space isn't a consideration, but logic is. Articles should deal with a single topic, so an article on the use of the term "snake oil" to refer to quackery should focus on that. Part of the discussion should illustrate the origins of the term. Using the page to point out that snake oil is actually an effective treatment is illegitimate on two grounds. First, the page is about the term, not the oil (making it a coatrack and/or content fork). Second, there is no real evidence it is a useful treatment. If it's due to it having lots of omega fatty acids, there are numerous dietary sources. I have no real problem with simply purging essentially all the content on snake oil as an effective treatment since this isn't the page for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WLU. I was uncomfortable with the odd pairing of describing the phenomena of the Snake Oil as symbol of quackery with the potential benefits of omega 3's when I first read the article. I think this article should mainly stick to the uniquely American cultural phenomenon. Discussing the actual properties of snake oil (largely unknown to those early proprietors of cure-all's) could be done in articles on the snake species itself, in an article on the use of snakes in traditional medicines or shamanic practices, or in an article on sources of omega 3's.Herbxue (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the alleged benefits of snake oil as a medical treatment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bunk additions

I haven't checked on this article in a while and found it decimated by an eager editor who decided that all explanations of snake oil remedies were of the "snake oil is awesome" variety. I restored some of the material that I had previously added, but there may be other material that might have been trimmed by careless stomping. In addition, a recent edit added a secondary explanation that claims to have been derived from a book by William S. Haubrich. Sorry to be blunt, but the claim is complete bunk. There is absolutely no evidence for the claim that any corruption of the name occurred between "Seneca Oil" and "Snake Oil". Indeed, Seneca Oil is the early reference to petroleum that was found seeping through the ground in parts of what is now New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The material indeed had been used earlier by local tribes in their sacred rituals--largely because it allowed to set water on fire--but also for some folk-medicine purposes. There was also a product marketed in the 1830s as "Seneca Oil", which consisted entirely of this "seepage". However, this is the end of the line for Seneca Oil. From the 1850s forward, Seneca Oil was used almost exclusively for refining and then burning. The salt mines and other locations in the Ohio River Basin became the source for the first commercial operation for mining petroleum. Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company was formed in 1853 and renamed Seneca Oil a few years later. There was no further association between Seneca Oil and medicinal ointments after that. In contrast, rattlesnake oil has been used as a common remedy for a variety of purposes (cough, sore throat, softening of corns, etc.) since the late 18th century. The appearance of "Snake Oil" references in the 1880s coincides with the decline of references to "rattlesnake's oil" (or similar) in print. The resemblance between "Seneca Oil" and "Snake Oil" is incidental and superficial and no evidence exists of any connection between the two. Unless further evidence is presented linking the two, I will assume that Mr. Haubrich simply made it up and will remove the reference to this material--it simply does not appear to be credible. The newspaper article is not an independent citation as it simply refers back to Haubrich's book. In general, using spurious news stories for historical information of this type is a bad idea. Alex.deWitte (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)