text:
Talk:Ayurveda

Nano-ayurvedic medicine
The article Nano-ayurvedic medicine was recently created. I just blanked and redirected it here. There may be some useful information for expanding this article available in the sources used there. See this revision if you'd care to dig through the references. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Now a redlink because it was restored and I draftified. See Draft:Nano-ayurvedic medicine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ayurveda using population in india
the article says "It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using ayurveda" coined with somewhat vague citations such as people in nepal (Not in india) using ayurveda as first aid.This projects a false narrative that 80% people in india uses ayurveda over modern medicine, But according to latest data 90% of indian population prefers modern medicine over ayurveda and other pseudoscientific medications.(Which makes sense as  people's health will be in jeopardy if they use alternative pseudo medicines for chronic illness instead of real medicines)

Here I'm linking a news article about it https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/90-of-indians-prefer-allopathy-over-ayush/articleshow/47981441.cms

Here's the National Sample Survey Office(NSSO) survey report that shows that 90% of  Indians use allopathic or modern medical treatments as primary health care treatments.(refer Table 10). https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_71st_ki_health_30june15.pdf

Deejayyyoung (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Err no it does not, as it doesn't say that. That is a bit like trying to say that people using a bus never use cars. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wording is quite problematic giving the impression that 80% of indians depends on ayurveda as their primary medical care ,It'll be wiser to add at least that they use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care. Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And I disagree it gives that impression. Niter for us to make your susgesrted edit the sources must say " use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care.", not that they just use it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You would find the sources supporting the claim of 80% use are of very poor quality. One of them says 80% of Nepal population use ayurveda as first aid(Like a band aid?) and other one is about heavy metal poisoning in ayurveda, And the third one is from a low quality book about herbal medicine apparently written by a bcom(business degree) graduate . Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are only the sources we use in the lede, there appear to be others in the body. So you need to find a source actually contesting what we actually say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not my burden to prove the flying spaghetti doesn't exist but the burden of ones who claim that they exist in the first place . Check and verify the deteriorate quality citations used to claim absurd assumptions. Deejayyyoung (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Read wp:v wp:consensus and wp:burden. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion
Hi, @MrOllie, you reverted my very careful edits wholesale. That is explicitly Could we discuss things here, calmly, before agreeing on a text that satisfies us both? You gave the reason "the mainstream position is not just another competing opinion" and I agree with you. And if you read my edits, I carefully avoided saying this.

The issue is this: Ayurveda has a long and literate history, very similar to the medicine of Hippocrates and Galen. If you look at the WP entry for Hippocrates, for example, it starts "Hippocrates of Kos ... was a Greek physician of the classical period who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine." That entry doesn't start by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscience". That is because few people today accept and practice Hippocratic medicine wholesale (although parts of Hippocratic medicine are still important, such as the Oath). What is the issue here? It is that Ayurveda as practised today in a modernised and globalised form and as contrasted with modern establishment medicine is a pseudoscience. Sure, no problem. But in, say, 1000 CE, in South Asia, it was not an alternative in the modern sense; it was the most professional and learned system available, just as Galen's medicine was in Europe. So how do we express all this in a manner that doesn't upset the people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience, but at the same time explaining to WP readers that Ayurveda has a history, just like Greek medicine.

The second issue is that Ayurveda - pseudoscience as it may be - is still supported by the Governments of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. India has a whole ministry devoted to Ayurveda, and the country is full of Government Ayurvedic colleges, clinics, and so on. People go to university and get degrees and doctorates in Ayuveda. Somehow, in a WP entry on "Ayurveda" we need to express this, again without upsetting people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience.

What do you suggest? I tried my best to do this, and I emphasize again that I did not present pseudoscience as "just another competing opinion". How would you express the historical and sociological dimensions of this topic?

Wujastyk (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I suggest we keep the existing treatment in the lead section, which covered all the history. You relocated that into a new section - it did a better job summarizing the article than your new version did. Also, adding unnecessary attributions like Most practitioners of modern establishment medicine consider absolutely is casting the mainstream position as an opinion. This sets up a false balance where proponents of Ayurveda are given equal validity to mainstream medicine. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 * There is no denying that if MDs would practice today what Hippocrates practiced then, it would be labeled WP:CB. That's thoroughly accepted in the West: Western MDs and Western medical authorities have for the most part rejected that as Ancient superstition. Indian government did not reach a similar conclusion. That is, the West has removed Ancient superstitions from medical science, India didn't. Again, there is no denying that two centuries ago that was far from settled. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @Tgeorgescu and @MrOllie, are you aware of the long history of struggle in India during the 20th century to find a government policy that recognizes the merits of indigenous tradition but at the same time privileges modern establishment medicine? This has been significant, involving more than twenty government commissions of different types that examined issues in diagnosis, pharmacy and other topics, working their way towards a system that is acceptable to the various stakeholders in the pluralistic health care situation in India. This has been documented in many publications by medical anthropologists and medical historians.  What has emerged in the contemporary India establishment is a modernized form of Ayurveda in which modern clinical skills and ideas are taught alongside traditional concepts and therapies.  It's really quite bizarre in some ways.  What I'm getting at here is that a medicine practiced under the name "Ayurveda" is not one monolithic thing.  Very often, doctors with Ayurvedic qualifications will be measuring blood pressure, using stethoscopes and dispensing antibiotics. I have been an observer in clinical situations in which the Ayurvedic doctor routinely referred patients to allopathic clinics for ailments that he felt were not in his purview.  Furthermore, what is touted under the name "Ayurveda" in European and American settings is very different again.  It's often a hybridized system presenting a melange of CAM ideas with a patina of Ayurvedic terminology.   Don't you think it would be helpful to readers if we could capture some of this history and diversity in the WP article?   Wujastyk (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but one of the many benefits that Wikipedia enjoys is that we can follow what the best available sources say, and we do not have to be concerned with following government policies. I believe it is more 'helpful to readers' to summarize the best available, mainstream sources, and they're quite clear about this. Your point seems to be that Ayurveda is practiced more like Integrative medicine - but the mainstream opinion on that is quite clear, too. When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience.
 * PS: Adding citations when you have an obvious conflict of interest with the authors of those sources is not a good idea either, you should not do that again. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie I did not for a minute suggest that anyone should follow government policies. I wish you would read more carefully.  What I said was that such policies exist, and a WP article should document what exists.  We all need to keep NPOV and make these articles descriptive.  While we do have strong views, WP isn't the place to vent.  We're here to describe people, events, institutions and history as neutrally as we can.
 * A lot hangs on what you mean by "the best available, mainstream sources." It seems to me that there is a lot of scholarly historical, anthropological and ethnographic literature that doesn't get referenced in this WP page.  That's what I'm trying to introduce.  There's a mountain of untrustworthy writing about Ayurveda out there, most of it produced by self-promoting practitioners and people with a nationalist agenda making presentist claims for ancient sciences.  We need to guide our readers towards the best expert consensus on matters of medical history and related interpretative disciplines.
 * You say "When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience," and I think that's an important point. But perhaps it's more like an emulsion than a solution. The 400,000 or so ayurvedic physicians in India are pracising a complex series of diagnoses and therapies, some of which are pseudoscientific, and some of which are identical to the practices of establishment-qualified doctors.  That's why medical anthropologists refer to situations like India's as sites of plural medicine.
 * I don't recall citing authors with whom I had any conflict of interest. Could you point out what you are referring to?  When I add citations, I am careful to cite solid, peer-reviewed academic materials.  And I cite materials that support the point I am making (obviously), not materials with which I disagree or have a conflict of interest.  This is all in line with WP policy, with which I am very well acquainted, and normal academic writing practice.
 * Gotta go.
 * Wujastyk (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't recall adding multiple references to Dominik Wujastyk? You've done it several times, most recently in the reverted edit being discussed here, which was only a few days ago. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing me up with my wife, Dagmar Wujastyk, who has written on the modernization and globalization of Ayurveda, ancient medical ethics, and other topics. Wujastyk (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding citations either to your wife or to yourself is an obvious conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not. I've been down this road before, and discussed it with the gods of WP.  What matters is to cite reliable public sources.  And your remark assumes that my wife is alive or that I agree with her.  You should actually read the cited works and think about what they say before making superficial judgements.
 * Wujastyk (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either the 'gods of WP' were mistaken or you misunderstood. This is exactly the kind of thing that the COI guideline is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wujastyk Your edit would never be accepted. You cited Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, a pseudoscience journal. Please check WP:CITEWATCH before you edit. All the books you cited are unreliable WP:MEDBOOK. — hako9 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hako9 No, I didn't cite the JAIM.  That was someone else and, incidentally, it was cited as evidence that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.  By all means delete it.
 * Look, we're trying to have a good conversation here about how to strengthen this WP article about Ayurveda. We need to read carefully and accurately and try to think the best of each other.
 * Wujastyk (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The diffs do not lie: . We can see in the article history that you did. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not add that citation. I don't read JAIM and have no interest in it.  You must have misinterpreted the diffs.  Wujastyk (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll believe the Wiki software and my own eyes, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, where Hippocratic/Galenic medicine is still practised, we do in fact say that it is pseudoscientific, and that its practitioners have been described as quacks, in the lead. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I don't disagree (read what I said). But you wouldn't start a WP article on Hippocrates by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscientific". You might say - see Hippocrates - that Hippocrates was someone, "... who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. He is traditionally referred to as the "Father of Medicine" in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field, such as the use of prognosis and clinical observation".  I.e., give the history and background.  Then you could say, "contemporary practitioners of Hippocratic medicine are practicing pseudoscience."  If you read the WP entry on Hippocrates (the authors of Hippocratic corpus), you'll notice that he  is given a great deal of positive description for discovering all sorts of things for the first time.  For example, "Hippocrates is credited as the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not because of superstition and gods." or "Hippocratic medicine was notable for its strict professionalism, discipline, and rigorous practice."  Parallel statements could be made about ancient Ayurvedic physicians and ancient Ayurvedic medicine (in fact Ayurveda is so similar to Hippocratic medicine that at one time medical historians used to claim that early Indians adopted Greek medicine from Alexander's generals who remained in India after his death.)  There's a great deal in the classical Ayurvedic classical treatises about how to identify quack doctors and how dangerous they are.  The article on Hippocrates doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" or "quack" once.  Why?  Because no community is practicing Hippocratic medicine today on a large scale.  That's where Ayurveda and TCM are different.  They are trying to drag a largely obsolete medical system into the present.  So that's a very important thing to describe and that's where one could use terms like "pseudoscience."   It would be completely pointless to accuse Hippocrates of being pseudoscientific.  Science in the modern sense didn't exist in the fifth century BCE, so it's a meaningless assertion.  What does this mean for the WP entry on Ayurveda?  How can we improve it?
 * Wujastyk (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean anything for the WP entry on Ayurveda. You seem to be conflating historical figures with medical systems. Brunton (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brunton What I am suggesting that this article would be better if we disaggregated historical description from contemporary issues of practice and pseudoscience.  I do not see that this is problematic.  Could this article not have a history section describing the history of Ayurveda in a neutral and objective way, as well as a section describing how the practice of modern and global Ayurveda is problematic from all sorts of perspectives? Wujastyk (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is still being practised, so we treat it as a system that is still being practised. "Disaggregate" it all you like (short of a WP:POVFORK, obviously), it is still being practised. And description of the system as currently practised will need to stay in the lead. Brunton (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our articles on ancient Vedic doctors do not claim they practiced pseudoscience, either; in fact, some of them actually employ in-universe descriptions of Ayurveda in Wikivoice, which is a much more serious breach of NPOV and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But are they practicing today? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @JoelleJay Yes, that article on Charaka is very poor too, for many reasons. Basically, the problem is that non-historians try to write about historical topics.  Most people writing about Ayurveda are either contemporary practitioners or else motivated by feelings of national pride.  I did try to improve that Charaka article, back in 2020.  Some of my references to secure dates and serious literary history are still there, but they are drowned out by vague, unsubstantiated assertions and references to equally poor publications by non-specialists.  Wujastyk (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note

 * WP:FTN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ayurveda


text:
Allan Donald

Allan Anthony Donald (born 20 October 1966) is a South African former cricketer who is also the former bowling coach of Bangladesh national cricket team. Often nicknamed 'White Lightning' due to his quick bowling, he is considered one of the South Africa national cricket team's most successful pace bowlers. He was an integral member of the South African team in its resurgence into international cricket since readmission and played an influential role as a frontline genuine seam bowler to boost South Africa to new heights. During his playing career, he was known for his bowling speed and aggression on the field. He is also remembered for his infamous runout during South Africa's loss in the 1999 World Cup semi-final match against Australia. Donald is the first South African to take 300 Test wickets.

Donald was one of the top fast bowlers in Test cricket, reaching the top of the ICC Test rankings in 1998, peaking with a ranking of 895 points the next year. In One Day Internationals (ODIs), he reached 794 points in 1998, ranked second behind teammate Shaun Pollock. He shared the new ball with Pollock from the 1996/1997 tour of India until his retirement in 2002. Donald is known for his friendship with Pollock especially when they used to be regular bowling partners for South Africa. Donald described Pollock as South Africa's Glenn McGrath. He featured in four World Cup tournaments for South Africa in 1992, 1996, 1999 and 2003.

During his playing career, he was well known for applying zinc cream on his cheeks and nose to avoid the effects of sunburn. Donald was one of 10 South African cricketers to make their test debuts during their one-off test tour to the West Indies in 1992. He was part of South Africa's first ever ODI team as well as South Africa's first ever World Cup team. He had picked up a total of 38 wickets across the four World Cup tournaments he played and is currently the second all-time leading wicket taker for South Africa in World Cups, after Imran Tahir.

Since retiring Donald has been a coach with a number of teams, including international sides. From 2018 to 2019 he was the Assistant Coach at Kent County Cricket Club in England. In 2019, Donald was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame.

Early life
Donald played cricket, soccer and rugby as a child and completed his primary education at the Technical High School.

He once took 9/16 against his uncle's school Grey College in Bloemfontein and made it to the Orange Free State team in 1984. However, he injured his groin and could not take part further before reaching the standards required to play at first-class level. He subsequently missed out the opportunity to play on the Nuffield Week and also missed out on an opportunity of potentially being picked for South African schools cricket side. But, he still managed to be picked as a twelfth man for South Africa Schools XI in 1984 and 1985. He had to wait one more year following the injury to make his first-class debut in 1985.

Domestic career
In November 1985, he made his first-class debut in the Currie Cup playing for Orange Free State against the Transvaal cricket team at the age of 19 and was included for the match at the last minute as an injury replacement to Corrie van Zyl who injured his foot badly prior to the match. He was originally supposed to be the twelfth man of the side during the match but was called upon by his captain Chris Broad just ten minutes before the toss. He managed to pick up just the sole wicket of Jimmy Cook on his first-class debut at Transvaal, Johannesburg.

He became an integral member of the Warwickshire County Cricket Club and was a mainstay of the club for several years. He played an important part in helping the club to win the 1989 NatWest Bank Trophy by picking up 14 wickets in the tournament, the most by any bowler in that tournament. The club released Merrick following the end of 1989 season which paved way for Donald to become a regular fixture in the side. However, his county career was clouded with confusions yet again as Warwickshire signed Australian batsman Tom Moody for the 1990 season. Largely, to his relief, the club persisted with Donald by handing him a long-term contract commencing from the 1991 season, despite the consistent performances from Moody in the county championships. He repaid the faith nearly helping Warwickshire to win the 1991 County Championship with his bowling prowess capturing 83 wickets at 19.68 as he was behind only Pakistan's Waqar Younis in terms of the bowling averages during that championship.

He was a crucial member of the side which claimed two trophies including the 1995 NatWest Trophy and 1995 County Championship in a single English season in 1995. He also picked up a tally of 89 wickets in 1995 for the club. He was the joint highest wicket taker during the 1995 NatWest Trophy picking up 11 scalps along with Anil Kumble. Interestingly, Warwickshire had initially told Donald that the 1995 season would be his last with the club in order to recruit West Indian veteran Brian Lara. However, Lara pulled out for personal reasons and as a result Donald was handed a further two-year contract with the club. His long association with the Warwickshire club which dates back to 1987 was finally ended in 2000 with both Donald and the club mutually agreeing to part ways. He later joined Worcestershire County Cricket Club for the 2002 season.

He made his T20 debut for Eagles against Dolphins at the 2004 Standard Bank Pro20 Series.

ODI debut
He made his ODI and international debut for South Africa against India on 10 November 1991 at Eden Gardens, Kolkata which also turned out to be South Africa's comeback return to international cricket after serving years long ban from international cricket due to apartheid. It was also South Africa's very first One Day International appearance as well as South Africa's first competitive international match in 22 years and Donald was the second cap of the South African ODI side. He picked up a five-wicket haul on his ODI debut including the priced wickets of Ravi Shastri, Sachin Tendulkar, Navjot Singh Sidhu and despite his heroics with the ball, South Africa lost the match by three wickets. His fifer also gave a glimmer of hope for Proteas as South Africa gave good fightback against a strong Indian batting line-up in its attempt to defend a meagre total of 177. His bowling spell of 5/29 in 8.4 overs stood as the best bowling performance by a South African bowler on ODI debut for 24 years and the record was later surpassed by Kagiso Rabada who returned with the bowling figures of 6/16 against Bangladesh on his ODI debut in 2015. He became the first South African bowler to take a fifer on ODI debut as well as the first South African to take a five-wicket haul for South Africa in ODI history.

1992 World Cup
He was included in South African squad for the 1992 Cricket World Cup which also marked South Africa's maiden appearance in a World Cup tournament. On 26 February 1992, he featured in South Africa's first ever World Cup match which was against Australia and starred with the ball in the first match of South Africa during the 1992 World Cup. He picked up 13 wickets in 1992 World Cup (the most for South Africa during the 1992 World Cup) at an average of 25.3 and at an economy rate of 4.21.

Test debut
He made his test debut on 18 April 1992 at the age of 26 against the West Indies in the one-off test tour to the West Indies at Barbados, a test match which also marked the historic occasion of being South Africa's first test in nearly 22 years since their readmission. The test match also marked South Africa's first ever test match against a non-white nation as it was also their first test ever against the West Indies. On his debut he scored a pair including a 21 ball duck in the first innings. However, he shined with the ball on his test debut picking up six wickets (2–67 and 4–77) for the match inclusive of a four-wicket haul in the second innings. He also picked up the priced wicket of Brian Lara. However, West Indies managed to win the one-off test by 52 runs to take the series 1–0.

During the Boxing Day test match against India which commenced on 26 December 1992, he recorded one of the best bowling performances of his career with 12 scalps for the match picking up five-wicket hauls in both innings to help South Africa win the match by nine wickets – Donald was adjudged the player of the match. He grabbed 5/55 in the first innings to restrict India to just 212, following it up with a spell of 7/84 in the second innings to restrict India to just 215.

He was part of the South African test squad which toured to England in 1994 to play their first test series in English soil after a gap of 29 years and also their first series in England post-apartheid era. He became the first South African bowler in 39 years since Hugh Tayfield to pick up a five wicket-haul at Lord's and he sealed his spot in the Lord's honours boards.

He featured in South African ODI and test squads for the historic home series against England in 1995 as it marked the first instance of England touring South Africa to play a test series since South Africa's readmission to cricket scene. He won the man of the series award for his display with the ball as he also picked the joint most wickets in the series from either sides along with Dominic Cork with a tally of 19 wickets. In the second match of the series at Johannesburg, the battle between Atherton and Donald became intense especially with the way Atherton batted towards the end of the match to save England from defeat by scoring unbeaten 185 off 492 balls, chasing of 479.

1996 World Cup
He was part of the South African squad which reached quarter-finals of the 1996 Cricket World Cup. During a group stage match between the United Arab Emirates and South Africa in the 1996 World Cup, UAE skipper Sultan Zarawani faced Donald without a helmet as he only wore a sunhat on his head, which literally frustrated Donald and the gesture of Zarawani had prompted him to bowl fierce bouncers on the batsman. Sultan came to bat when UAE was reeling at 68/6 in a huge run chase of 322 and was subsequently hit on the head by a fierce bouncer delivered by Donald. Donald recorded in his autobiography that he feared initially that he had killed him. Despite the blow, Zarawani still continued to refuse the offer of a helmet but only lasted six more balls before he was dismissed and taken straight to hospital. For the quarter-final against West Indies, Donald was left out of the team so that two spinners could be selected, a decision later described as "the single biggest mistake of the tournament". He was the leading wicket-taker for South Africa during the 1996 World Cup, with eight wickets.

He played a key role in South Africa's triumph over India in the final of the 1996–97 Standard Bank International One-Day Series where he recorded 3/48 in the final. He was also the leading wicket-taker of the tournament with 18 scalps. During the Tri-series final at Durban, Donald "got involved in an incident that has since caused [him] a lot of grief". Donald was being hit around the park by Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid in the final as Dravid top-scored for India with 84. He received media backlash for possibly using racial languages during his spat with Dravid. Donald said he got carried away and confronted Dravid face-to-face saying "This isn't such a fucking easy game". He was an" member of the South African which won the four nation Sameer Cup 1996–97 where South Africa emerged victorious in the final after defeating Pakistan by 7 wickets and he was the leading wicket taker during the tournament taking 14 wickets.

Leading wicket taker
He led the bowling charts in test cricket for the year 1998 as he ended up as the leading wicket taker in across all test matches for the calendar year 1998 with a tally of 80 wickets. His record tally of 80 wickets is also the fourth most by any bowler in a single calendar year in test cricket history just behind Shane Warne (96 scalps in 2005), Muttiah Muralitharan (90 scalps in 2006) and Dennis Lillee (85 scalps in 1981). On 26 December 1998, during a test match against the West Indies, he became the then quickest South African to reach 250 test wickets (now the fourth fastest bowler in test history to reach 250 test scalps) in terms of number of test matches and he achieved it in his 50th test match. His South African record was later surpassed by his successor Dale Steyn who did it in 49 test matches.

He was one of the key players to miss out the inaugural edition of the ICC KnockOut Trophy in 1998 as he alongside Klusener and Roger Telemachus were undergoing a mandatory forced period of rest as per the player management policies, guidelines and directive of CSA. He also subsequently missed the 50 over cricket tournament at the 1998 Commonwealth Games.

He was part of the South African squad in their tour of England in 1998 featuring in both test and ODI squads. Across the five match test series Donald recorded 33 wickets, the highest by any bowler from either team during the series. Donald alongside Atherton were awarded the player of the series trophy. During the fourth test of the series at Trent Bridge South Africa batted first, scoring 374 in its first innings. England responded with 336, with Donald taking 5 wickets. In their second innings, South Africa only scored 208 leaving England a target of 247 to win the match. Michael Atherton was at the crease when Donald began a spell of bowling both would later describe in their respective autobiographies as one of the most intense periods of test match cricket they ever played.

1999 World Cup
In the 1999 Cricket World Cup, South Africa had progressed to the semi-finals, and Donald until then had an excellent tournament, taking 12 wickets in 8 matches.

In the 1999 Cricket World Cup semi-final between South Africa and Australia, Donald was the last batsman on the South African team. Australia batting first making only 213, Donald taking 4–32 and Pollock 5–36. The game swung back and forth with South Africa eventually needing to score 16 runs off the last 8 balls to win with only one wicket remaining. Klusener scored consecutive fours on the first two balls of the over (bowled by Damien Fleming), levelling the scores and leaving South Africa with only 1 run to win in 4 balls with Klusener on strike. The third ball was a dot, and Donald narrowly escaped getting run out when he backed out too far and tried to get back to his crease. The fourth saw Klusener mis-hit his shot to mid-wicket fielder Mark Waugh. Klusener went for the run, although chances of a run-out were high and two balls were still remaining. However, Donald at the other end, keeping his eyes on the ball and hoping to avoid another mix-up like in the last delivery, did not see Klusener sprinting down the pitch and did not hear the call to run, and Klusener was almost at the bowler's end by the time Donald (who had also dropped his bat) began running. By then, Waugh had thrown the ball to Fleming, who rolled it to Adam Gilchrist who took the bails off at the other end, meaning Donald was run-out by some distance for a diamond duck as Donald was only halfway down the pitch, thus ending the match with the scores level. However, a tie meant that Australia progressed to the final since they had beaten South Africa in the group stages of the tournament. Although the match technically ended in a tie, South Africa had previously lost to Australia in the Super-Six phase, and needed to win outright to progress to the final. As commentator Bill Lawry put it during the final ball:"'...this will be out surely – oh it's out, it's gonna be run out...oh, that is South Africa out – Donald did not run, I cannot believe it. Australia go into the World Cup Final – ridiculous running with two balls to go. Donald did not go, Klusener came – what a disappointing end for South Africa.'"

In 2014, Klusener stated in an interview that Donald was not to blame for what happened. Klusener stated that he became impatient and, although he made it to the bowler's end, there was genuinely no run. After the match, he was cross at himself and regretted attempting the run.

Donald finished the 1999 World Cup tournament as the second leading wicket taker for South Africa with 16 scalps just one wicket behind Klusener. His 16 wickets came at an impressive average of 20.31 and at an economy rate of 3.96.

Post 1999 World Cup
His reputation started to take a hit among public following South Africa's exit from the 1999 World Cup as public opinions on him were mostly critical of his approach regarding running between the wickets especially when he engaged in the brainfade runout which cost South Africa a golden chance to reach their first ever World Cup final. Although, he was largely successful with the ball throughout the tournament, his World Cup heroics with the ball was largely overshadowed by the runout incident which is still remembered by South Africans. He was seen as a villain by many South Africans and he received negative publicity due to media bashing him for his blunder during the crucial stage of the semi-final. He received severe opposition from ardent cricket fans upon his arrival to South Africa from England after the World Cup semi-final.

On 19 November 2000 during the first test of the three match home series against New Zealand, he reached the milestone of 300 test wickets, the first South African to achieve the feat.

He announced his retirement from test cricket in January 2002 soon after playing the first test match of the three match home series against Australia at Johannesburg. He broke down with emotions as South Africa endured a crushing defeat in the hands of Australia by an innings and 360 runs. However, it was later revealed that he was forced to give up test cricket due to flow of injuries which started to take a toll on his fitness levels and body. On 13 September 2002, he became the fastest South African bowler to pick 250 ODI wickets in terms of matches (148), a feat he achieved during the group stage match between South Africa and the West Indies during the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy and also became the third joint-fastest bowler in the world to do so along with Waqar Younis in 148 ODI matches.

He featured in his fourth and final World Cup tournament in 2003 which was also a home World Cup for himself as the tournament was jointly conducted by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya. By, the time he was already 37 and way past his prime. He retired from ODI cricket and from international cricket following South Africa's disastrous 2003 World Cup campaign where South Africa were knocked out from group stage for the first time. He himself too had an awful World Cup tournament personally as he managed to pick up only one wicket in three matches with a mediocre average of 133.

He retired from all forms of cricket in 2004 after playing in his final home domestic season citing deterioration of physical conditions.

When he retired, he was South Africa's record wicket-taker with 330 Test wickets at an average of 22.25, and claimed 272 One Day International wickets at an average of 21.78. Both of these records have now been overtaken by Dale Steyn and Shaun Pollock respectively.

After retirement
Having retired from playing, Donald pursued a commentary stint with the South African Broadcasting Corporation. (SABC) in their coverage of South Africa's home Tests, alongside former teammate Daryll Cullinan. In May 2007, Donald was appointed as a temporary bowling consultant for the England cricket team. His involvement impressed many, and was praised by several players. Donald's original brief contract was extended until September 2007. Donald decided not to continue with his coaching role at the end of September 2007, citing the strain of touring and his wish to be with his family. Donald was a coach at Warwickshire County Cricket Club, and in partnership with fellow coach Ashley Giles helped the county to win the Second Division of the County Championship in 2008.

Donald coached the reigning Zimbabwean domestic champions, Mountaineers, in 2010. He served as the bowling coach for the New Zealand cricket team for the ODI series against Pakistan, and the 2011 Cricket World Cup. In May 2011, he was one of the top contenders who was willing to become the fast bowling coach of Australian cricket team but he lost the opportunity as Cricket Australia opted to pick countryman Craig McDermott instead. As a result, according to a report in May 2011, Donald decided to rejoin New Zealand cricket coaching staff after previously serving in an interim capacity on a contractual basis and he was tipped to sign a two-year deal with New Zealand Cricket. However a month later as of June 2011, he later reversed his decision and stated he had ambitions in order to secure a coaching position in South African cricket.

In July 2011, Donald joined Gary Kirsten's coaching team as bowling coach to the South African cricket team. Kirsten left his post in May 2013, and Russell Domingo was appointed as his replacement. Donald was the bowling coach of South Africa under head coach Domingo; he was replaced by Charl Langeveldt. Donald was also the bowling coach of Royal Challengers Bangalore in the Indian Premier League. In 2012, there were reports claiming that he would join the Bangladeshi coaching staff but he denied such reports insisting that he would remain with he South African cricket.

He was appointed as the bowling coach of the Pune Warriors India for the 2012 Indian Premier League replacing Geoff Marsh. He was later promoted as the head coach of the Pune Warriors India for the 2013 Indian Premier League.

Donald stepped down from the position of South Africa bowling coach after the 2015 Cricket World Cup.

In 2016, reports emerged that he would be considered in an interim capacity as a temporary bowling coach of Australia for the test tour to Sri Lanka and home series against South Africa.

Donald was appointed assistant coach at Kent County Cricket Club in early 2017. He was expected to join the county at the start of the 2017 season but was denied a work permit as he did not, at the time, hold a suitable coaching qualification. As a result, in April 2017, Sri Lanka hired Donald as bowling consultant for the ICC Champions Trophy 2017 and Donald did not work with Kent during the 2017 season. He was successful in obtaining his Level 3 coaching qualification during 2017 and formally joined Kent in early 2018, leading the team during the 2017–18 Regional Super50 competition ahead of the 2018 English season. He also subsequently left Kent at the end of the 2019 season.

In September 2019, he joined as a consulting coach the Free State Cricket Union for all Free State cricket teams for the duration of October 2019.

In February 2020, he was appointed head coach of the Knights franchise for the upcoming 2020–21 CSA T20 Challenge.

In March 2022, he was appointed as the pace bowling coach of Bangladesh national cricket team until the 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup.

Legacy
South African wicket-keeper batsman Dane Vilas played the role of him in the 2008 film Hansie which was based on the life story of former Proteas captain Hansie Cronje.

Fellow South African seamer Nantie Hayward who used to admire Donald and considered him as his role model stated that he had probably played in the wrong era due to the presence of Donald. He conceded that his international career was cut short due to South Africa penetrating with Donald and Makhaya Ntini but recalled the Donald's epic spell to Atherton in the 1998 test as something he was glad to have witnessed it and claimed that it was one of the best bowling spells that he had ever seen.

Atherton was known as Donald's 'bunny' as Atherton has been dismissed by Donald 11 times across 17 test matches.

Donald was also loyal towards his former captain Cronje whom he referred to as a person with the ability to lead the side with ease and called him as a natural leader.

In July 2019, Donald was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Allan Donald


text:
1984 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

The 1984 European Parliament election was the second European election to be held in the United Kingdom. It was held on 14 June. The electoral system was First Past the Post in England, Scotland and Wales and Single transferable vote in Northern Ireland. The turnout was again the lowest in Europe. In England, Scotland and Wales, the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party were in alliance, collecting 2,591,635 votes but not a single seat.

The election represented a small recovery for Labour, under Michael Foot's replacement Neil Kinnock, taking 15 seats from the Conservatives. In the general election of 1983, they had only had a vote share of 2% more than the SDP–Liberal Alliance (although they had nearly 10 times more MP's elected) and 15% less than the Conservatives. This was the last European election in the UK in which the governing party won a majority of seats.

A by-election to the British Parliament also took place on the same day in the Portsmouth South constituency - the Alliance gained the seat from the Conservatives.

United Kingdom
Source: UK Parliament briefing

 * Overall (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) turnout: 32.6% (EC average: 61%)
 * Overall votes cast: 13,998,190

Great Britain
Source: UK Parliament briefing

''Total votes cast – 13,312,898. All parties listed.''

Northern Ireland
''Source: Northern Ireland Social and Political Archive

Constituency results
Source:


text:
In the clear

In the clear may refer to:
 * Plaintext, unencrypted information
 * "In the Clear", a song by Foo Fighters from Sonic Highways
 * In the Clear, an album by Ivy
 * "In the Clear", a song by Cap'n Jazz from Shmap'n Shmazz

title: In the clear


text:
Lake Aschersleben

Lake Aschersleben or Lake Gatersleben (Ascherslebener See or Gaterslebener See in German) is a former long but shallow lake in Germany, northeast of the Harz Mountains. The lake was about 12 km long and stretched from the town of Aschersleben until the village of Gatersleben. Originally, it was a natural lake which eventually silted up. From the middle of the 15th until the beginning of the 18th century, it existed again as a man-made lake, afterwards the area was converted into agricultural land. Part of the land is now covered by several artificial lakes which formed as a consequence of underground and opencast lignite mining in the 20th century, the largest being the Concordiasee.

The lake had formed naturally and had attracted settlers in prehistoric times, but eventually silted up. In 1446, a dam was constructed near the village of Gatersleben on the order of the bishop of Halberstadt and water from the river Selke was diverted into the lakebed, leading to the restoration of the lake. By an order of Frederick I of Prussia, the lake was completely drained after 1703 and the lakebed was converted into agricultural land. Two new villages, Friedrichsaue and Königsaue, were founded.

The lakebed contains 20-25m thick Pleistocene and Holocene sediments, from the Eemian Stage (previous interglacial period) to the present. Fluviatile, limnic and periglacial sediments interchange. All in all, 11 sedimentation cycles are present.

title: Lake Aschersleben


text:
Polynomially reflexive space

In mathematics, a polynomially reflexive space is a Banach space X, on which the space of all polynomials in each degree is a reflexive space.

Given a multilinear functional Mn of degree n (that is, Mn is n-linear), we can define a polynomial p as

 * $$p(x)=M_n(x,\dots,x)$$

(that is, applying Mn on the diagonal) or any finite sum of these. If only n-linear functionals are in the sum, the polynomial is said to be n-homogeneous.

We define the space Pn as consisting of all n-homogeneous polynomials.

The P1 is identical to the dual space, and is thus reflexive for all reflexive X. This implies that reflexivity is a prerequisite for polynomial reflexivity.

Relation to continuity of forms
On a finite-dimensional linear space, a quadratic form x↦f(x) is always a (finite) linear combination of products x↦g(x) h(x) of two linear functionals g and h. Therefore, assuming that the scalars are complex numbers, every sequence xn satisfying g(xn) → 0 for all linear functionals g, satisfies also f(xn) → 0 for all quadratic forms f.

In infinite dimension the situation is different. For example, in a Hilbert space, an orthonormal sequence xn satisfies g(xn) → 0 for all linear functionals g, and nevertheless f(xn) = 1 where f is the quadratic form f(x) = ||x||2. In more technical words, this quadratic form fails to be weakly sequentially continuous at the origin.

On a reflexive Banach space with the approximation property the following two conditions are equivalent:
 * every quadratic form is weakly sequentially continuous at the origin;
 * the Banach space of all quadratic forms is reflexive.

Quadratic forms are 2-homogeneous polynomials. The equivalence mentioned above holds also for n-homogeneous polynomials, n=3,4,...

Examples
For the $$\ell^p$$ spaces, the Pn is reflexive if and only if $n$ < $p$. Thus, no $$\ell^p$$ is polynomially reflexive. ($$\ell^\infty$$ is ruled out because it is not reflexive.)

Thus if a Banach space admits $$\ell^p$$ as a quotient space, it is not polynomially reflexive. This makes polynomially reflexive spaces rare.

The Tsirelson space T* is polynomially reflexive.

title: Polynomially reflexive space


text:
St. Paul Pioneer Press

The St. Paul Pioneer Press is a newspaper based in Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States. It serves the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area. Circulation is heaviest in the east metro, including Ramsey, Dakota, and Washington counties, along with western Wisconsin, eastern Minnesota and Anoka County, Minnesota. The paper's main rival is the Star Tribune, based in neighboring Minneapolis. The Pioneer Press is owned by MediaNews Group, controlled by Alden Global Capital. It no longer includes "St. Paul" as part of its name in either its print or online edition, but its owner still lists the paper's name as the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the paper also calls itself the St. Paul Pioneer Press on its Facebook and Twitter pages. Its URL and digital presence is TwinCities.com.

History
The Pioneer Press traces its history to both the Minnesota Pioneer, Minnesota's first daily newspaper (founded in 1849 by James M. Goodhue), and the Saint Paul Dispatch (launched in 1868). Ridder Publications acquired the Pioneer and the Dispatch in 1927. Ridder merged with Knight Publications to form Knight Ridder in 1974. The two papers were operated for many years as separate morning and evening papers, but in 1985 were merged into the all-day publication the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch, which later dropped the "and" from "and Dispatch" in 1986, simply becoming the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch. The publication eventually made the transition to a morning-only paper, and on March 26, 1990, the word "Dispatch" was dropped. The paper is sometimes called the "Pi Press", just as "Strib" is used for the Star Tribune.

During World War II the paper had war correspondents in the field. There were 30 correspondents from various papers at Iwo Jima, including A.J. Crocker of the Pioneer Press.

From 1947 to 1949, the newspaper printed the comic strip Li'l Folks, by Twin Cities native Charles M. Schulz. This comic introduced a number of characters who would later return in 1950 in the syndicated comic strip Peanuts, including Charlie Brown and a dog strongly resembling Snoopy.

In 1952, the Dispatch began sponsoring a treasure hunt as part of the Saint Paul Winter Carnival. Clues to finding a medallion are printed in the paper, and the first person to find and return it with the clues and a registered carnival button wins a sum of money. The prize started off at $1,000 and as of 2004 rose to $10,000.

The paper has won three Pulitzer Prizes: in 1986, 1988, and 2000.

On March 10, 1999, the day before the University of Minnesota men's basketball team was to begin play in the NCAA Tournament, the Pioneer Press published a story written by George Dohrmann with allegations that a staffer wrote coursework for many Minnesota basketball players within the past five years. Immediately, Minnesota suspended four players suspected of academic fraud, and in 2000, the NCAA vacated all postseason appearances by Minnesota from 1994 to 1998 and docked scholarships for four years, among other penalties. Dohrmann would win a Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting in 2000 for his reports on the scandal. Dohrmann and his editor prepared for hostile reactions to the newspaper from the local community. Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura accused the Pioneer Press of timing the article to be published around NCAA Tournament time for the sake of "sensationalism journalism," and the Pioneer Press got many hostile calls and letters in response to the story.

In 2004 the Pioneer Press made news itself. The great-great-grandson of George Thompson, a former owner/editor of the paper, took a 1914 pocket watch of his grandfather's to the Antiques Roadshow when it came to St. Paul. There he learned it was not ordinary, with an estimated value of $250,000. Afterward, the grandson sent the watch to Sotheby's, where it sold for $1.5 million. The Pioneer Press Patek Philippe is on display at the Patek Philippe Museum in Geneva. In 2020 the show updated its appraisal of the watch's value to $2–3 million.

The McClatchy Company acquired the paper in June 2006 when it bought Knight Ridder. As owner of the Star Tribune, McClatchy had to sell the Pioneer Press because of antitrust concerns. The Pioneer Press was subsequently sold by McClatchy to MediaNews Group later in the year.

The hedge fund Alden Global Capital now owns a controlling share of the Pioneer Press. In its operating year of 2017, The Pioneer Press under Alden announced a profit of $10 million with a 13% operating margin after Alden cut the newspaper's workforce to around 60 people. Alden has faced notable criticism for this from editorial staff of The Denver Post.

In 2006 the Pioneer Press had 206 reporters, copy-editors, and editors who were members of a union. By September 2023, that number had dropped to 29.

Notable journalists

 * Joseph H. Ball, who was a columnist for the Pioneer Press before becoming a Republican U.S. Senator for Minnesota
 * Jacqui Banaszynski, writer, editor and winner of the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing.
 * Jim Caple
 * Nick Coleman
 * George Dohrmann, winner of the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting, for stories about the University of Minnesota basketball scandal.
 * Dick Gordon
 * Herb Greenberg
 * Deborah Howell, executive editor and vice president who died in 2010.
 * Mark Kellogg, the first Associated Press correspondent to die in the line of duty when he was killed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
 * Katherine Lanpher, columnist and later co-host of The Al Franken Show
 * James Lileks
 * Robert Ridder, former reporter, later a director for Knight Ridder.
 * Jim Romenesko, Internet reporter for the Pioneer Press from 1996 to 1999, now blogger at JimRomenesko.com
 * John Sandford/John Camp, author of the Prey series of crime novels and winner of the 1986 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing.
 * Joe Soucheray, general columnist and host of the KSTP afternoon program, Garage Logic.
 * Charley Walters, sports columnist

title: St. Paul Pioneer Press


text:
Hard Eight (film)

Hard Eight (originally titled Sydney ) is a 1996 American crime film written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson in his feature directorial debut, and starring Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson. It is the expansion of the short film Cigarettes & Coffee. The film follows the life of a senior gambler and a homeless man. It premiered at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival.

Plot
Sydney Brown, a well-dressed senior gambler, finds John Finnegan, a homeless man, forlornly sitting outside a diner in Sparks, Nevada. He offers him a cigarette and buys him a cup of coffee. John tells Sydney that he lost the money in Las Vegas and he needs $6,000 for his mother's funeral. They travel to Vegas, where Sydney helps John win the money. Two years later, John becomes Sydney's protégé. Sydney is calm and reserved, and displays a fatherly care for John, who is unsophisticated. John has a new friend named Jimmy, who does security work. John is attracted to Clementine, a cocktail waitress in Reno. Sydney meets Clementine, and learns that she moonlights as a prostitute. Although Clementine believes Sydney might want to use her services, he wants to build a connection between her and John. Sydney asks John to show Clementine around the town.

After receiving a frantic phone call, Sydney finds John and Clementine holding an unconscious tourist hostage in a nearby motel because he did not pay Clementine for sex. Sydney learns that John and Clementine have called the hostage's wife, threatening to kill him if they do not get the money. After finding Jimmy's gun, Sydney convinces John and Clementine to flee the motel, advising them to leave town for a honeymoon as they have recently been impulsively married. While leaving, Sydney removes the evidence from the motel room.

Sydney meets with Jimmy, who tells him that the couple did not call the police. However, Jimmy explains that he has heard stories of Sydney killing John's father in Atlantic City. Jimmy pulls a gun on Sydney and threatens to tell John unless Sydney gives him $10,000. Sydney says that he does not have it, but he can give $6,000 cash. They go to Jimmy's suite, and down to the casino floor, where Sydney gets the money from the cashier and gives it to Jimmy. John calls Sydney from a roadside phone to update him on their honeymoon trip. During the call, Sydney tells John that he loves him like a son. After hearing that, he thanks him and says that he also loves him. Sydney sneaks into Jimmy's house, kills him and retrieves the money. The next day, Sydney returns to the diner where he met John and covers his bloodstained shirt cuff with a jacket sleeve.

Cast

 * Philip Baker Hall as Sydney
 * John C. Reilly as John
 * Gwyneth Paltrow as Clementine
 * Samuel L. Jackson as Jimmy

Some of Anderson's collaborative actors appear in the film, including Philip Seymour Hoffman as a craps player and Melora Walters as Jimmy's girlfriend.

Production
Originally titled Sydney, it was Anderson's first feature film and the expansion of the short film Cigarettes & Coffee. The main character Sydney was named after Hall's previous role in Midnight Run. Hall, Walters, Reilly and Hoffman later starred in Boogie Nights and Magnolia.

Anderson said that he cast Hoffman in a supporting role after seeing him in Scent of a Woman. According to Hall, Hoffman improvised most of the dialogue his character says in his only scene in the film.

Release
The film premiered in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival. In 2018, Anderson said he was working on a Blu-ray release of the film. An Australian Blu-ray was released by Viavision in October 2020 with two commentaries, a deleted scene and footage from the Sundance Institute Filmmaker Lab.

Reception
Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half stars out of four, writing "Movies like Hard Eight remind me of what original, compelling characters the movies can sometimes give us." Stephen Holden of The New York Times wrote "Hard Eight is not a movie that wants to make a grand statement. It is really little more than a small resonant mood piece whose hard-bitten characters are difficult to like. But within its self-imposed limitations, it accomplishes most of what it sets out to do. And the acting is wonderfully understated, economical and unsentimental." On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 82% based on 49 reviews, with an average rating of 6.9/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "An absorbing showcase for Philip Baker Hall, Paul Thomas Anderson's feature debut is a gamble that pays off handsomely." It is described by some authors as a neo-noir film.

title: Hard Eight (film)


text:
Talk:Bach flower remedies

On the origin and action/non-action of Bach Flower Remedies
moved Probrooks discussion from my (AaadaamS) talk page to here, where it belongs

Hi, I just want to comment on some of your revisions on my edits to the Bach flower remedy page.

Regarding Bach Remedies, you can only claim he imagined healing properties, this is a personal point of view which is not objective or neutral, as it also implying that Bach is a charlatan, that he is "making it up", again that would be a personal point of view or represent a point of view which is not neutral. WP:5P2

You should back up this claim that he used his imagination, as he himself would not state this in his own writings.

You state in your editing comments, "there is no known mechanism which explains how any such transferral works" or comments to this effect regarding Bach flower remedies. That there is no known mechanism by which bach remedies may work which is known may simply mean the mechanism is yet undiscovered by science. Science of 2015 has not discovered all mechanisms of possible action - surely?

Also, Bach remedies are not a dilution, they are not homeopathic preparations. The beginning of the article implies they are supposed to contain some physical substance, when that is not actually the case, unlike homeopathy when there is generally some amount of substances, the Bach remedies are considered to be only vibrational remedies.

It is worth noting that Bach remedies have not undergone extensive scientific research with decent sample sizes, so we cannot know for sure whether they work or not (from a truly neutral point of view)

By the way I should point out I make flower essences as a hobby, and last year made many in northern Norway. People commonly report amazingly clear dreams and a great feeling of clarity after taking them. I have been making flower essences for almost 20 years.

My experience of making flower essences, is that the flower actually talks to the individual who is making the essence and tells them of their qualities. You cannot tell me this process is one of imagination, except as your own personal belief.

This may seem curious to the western mind, but this is common sense to most indigenous people, who have been talking to plants for many thousands of years in many different cultures and it is common practice for those in many different cultures to do so.

Probrooks (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are indeed manufacturing these concoctions yourself and you earn an income (however small), you are required to list your conflict of interest on this talk page, see Conflict of interest in the "Declaring an interest" section. It is good that you are honest about this.
 * You are not a WP:RS reliable source in the Wikipedia sense when it comes to medical claims, see WP:MEDRS.
 * Bach himself is the primary source on this subject, we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources on the methods that he used.
 * The correct place for this discussion is the talk page of the article, so I moved it here.
 * And yes, these are dilutions, it would be factually incorrect to call them preparations because the word implies that the liquids have medical benefit when there is no reliable source stating that they do. Calling them preparations would mislead the readers of this article. As far as reliable sources say, these are liquids where something has been dissolved and that's a dilution. There's no such thing as a vibrational anything.
 * These dilutions have been examined scientifically and have been found to have no intrinsic medical agency. Claiming that they do is indeed at best imaginative.
 * I would not write that Edward Bach is a charlatan (that's your interpretation) because he was an educated physician and he may have contributed usefully in other areas. I would rather write that he was mistaken on the healing potency of his dilutions than he was a charlatan.
 * And in general it is up to the person making strong statements as to the mechanisms of these concoctions to come up with the references to support the claims. As editors, we are supposed to be discussing sources.
 * AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagination is always a factor if the subject or clinician has knowledge of the intervention. That is the whole reason for double blinding of clinical trials. Still, no outside observer could know what he imagined or believed. No reliable source could exist to justify statements in the voice of the encyclopedia regarding his state of mind. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi LeadSongDog, thanks for your input. So then we write neither believed nor imagined? My preference would he he claimed this or that because that's an action and doesn't refer to the state of mind. AadaamS (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to read wp:WTW, particularly the wp:CLAIM section. "Claimed" is regarded as casting doubt on the veracity of the thing claimed. "Said", "declared", "asserted", "wrote" are neutral alternatives. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was unaware of this guideline and thanks for pointing it out. AadaamS (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog,

 * There's no such thing as a vibrational anything.

That is a personal interpretation. Flower essences are in fact marketed as such. And so there is a certain measure of disrespect and disregard in dismissing the beliefs and practices of others - as a non-thing! Again, this is not WP:5P2. Shouldn't wikipedia accurately share and communicate the beliefs and ideas of others in a neutral manner when in fact communicating about the subject matter? And not attempt to tell others what is real or not real? It is up to the reader to make up their own mind, not for wikipedia to preach any particular ideological viewpoint if indeed this pillar of neutrality is abided to.

 * These dilutions have been examined scientifically and have been found to have no intrinsic medical agency. Claiming that they do is indeed at best imaginative.

This is not the issue, as Bach remedies are not designed to treat medical conditions, but typically emotional, mental or psychic states. People may use them as comforting agents, say the Bach rescue remedy, and that could be perceived as placebo by some. Others say it is because there is an actual action of the life force of the flower upon the individual.

Again, dilutions is the incorrect term. There is never supposed to any physical substance of the flower in the final product, unlike homeopathic products. People who make flower essences consider the vibration or essence of the flower is carried into the water, as water is considered a kind of conductor and carried of such information. These understandings are not accurately reflected in this page, and it just looks like uninformed editors trying to make flower essences look like homeopathic preparations.

 * * I would not write that Edward Bach is a charlatan (that's your interpretation) because he was an educated physician and he may have contributed usefully in other areas. I would rather write that he was mistaken on the healing potency of his dilutions than he was a charlatan.

You misinterpreted me. To say he imagined the effects of the flowers, rather than using a form of intuition or other form of understanding - is to imply charlatism.

As someone who knows about these essences, and makes my own, I understand how difficult it is for individuals to believe and understand how powerful they can be. It still amazes me to be honest. I don't doubt there is an effect, a mechanism of action, which science has hitherto not yet understood. If we truly want this article to be neutral, it should be open to the possibility of such a mechanism of action, which would also mean that millions of people are not deluding themselves regarding what they are experiencing or by giving placebo an excessive power.

 * And in general it is up to the person making strong statements as to the mechanisms of these concoctions to come up with the references to support the claims. As editors, we are supposed to be discussing sources.

The scientific data on flower essences and Bach remedies is clearly very slim! The present page does not go into detail ANY of the studies on flower essences as others have mentioned on this talk page, and instead leans toward considering them a form of charlatism as simply quoting Edzard Ernst which I think doesn't really inform the reader very much as to what scientific studies have been carried out and for what conditions.

This article gives a more thorough overview of the science carried out on Bach remedies in a more neutral manner.

http://sososcience.com/2013/05/29/bach-flower-remedies-do-they-work/

I think it is easy to see that thorough scientific testing of flower essences/Bach remedies has not yet occurred, as only a few issues have been tested.

The clinical trial using Bach Remedies for depression linked here suggests that flower essences are very effective as stated by others on this talk page.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75640.php

Probrooks (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our policies about medical (including psychologically active substances) really do force us to reflect the current scientific understanding of these products. Wikipedia should avoid giving any undue weight to small, unreliale studies and non-expert opinions which might misrepresent these fringe topics. This is especially true of remedies that pruport to cure serious diseases such as depression. Please refer to WP:MEDRS.

 * As far as mainstream science is concerned, there is no reliable study that suggests that these remedies are effective at treating anything. Also the notion that fluids can posess "vibrational energies" is a highly speculative notion with no grounding in actual science. As yet nobody has been able to detect a "vibrational energy" of the sort you appear to be proposing. These are claims which you may hold dear but have no place in Wikipedia unless you can provide suitable medically reliable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

--Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Salimfadhley,

Once again, Flower essences and Bach remedies are considered primarily for helping to facilitate a shift in perception and being within the self and personality. If you read the list of Bach remedies, and their qualities and what emotional issues they are designed to treat, you will see this. This is certainly a hole in this article, and when I have time, I may start work on such an addition to the article.

http://www.bachcentre.com/centre/remedies.htm

I am not saying there should be any claim that vibrational energy exists on the wikipedia page, only that it is through this mechanism of action that proponents say they Bach Remedies do work, rather than stressing they are ONLY a dilution, which quite frankly, looks completely foolish on this page. We can say, Bach believed and proponents believe they work through a certain mechanism, which I think should be clarified.

I don’t hold vibrational energy “dear” as you indeed claim. I only experience the effects of flower essences/Bach remedies as self evident and believe we should report the mechanism of action as proposed by Bach and others who utilise these remedies, rather than impose the present medical view as the truth, which again is not neutral.

The amount of scientific studies on Bach remedies is so slim and to used to treat particular conditions like stress and anxiety, I myself would not expect any positive result, and so I believe these studies are basically useless.

>As yet nobody has been able to detect a "vibrational energy" of the sort you appear to be proposing.

To say that nobody has been able to detect vibrational energy is incorrect. Vibrational energy has been detected by people of many cultures for thousands of years and the words Prana (from India) and Chi (from China) communicate a direct awareness of vibrational energy.

In terms of scientific studies and research on vibrational energy, there certainly is research, but this is not the place to discuss that.

I’d honestly like to see more scientific research on Bach Flower remedies and flower essences in general and I don’t think Bach Remedies are so fringe, as many pharmacies in the world today contain rescue remedy.

Skepticism and doubt have their place, but also personal viewpoints and ideologies of doubt which attempt to close the case betray neutrality.

Skeptically minded need to temper their viewpoint, practices and point of view with some respect toward the point of view and beliefs of others, which at the very least, should be clearly communicated if the subject is being discussed.

Probrooks (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Hey User:Probrooks this isn't a forum - and neither your or my opinion about this subject counts for much. What matters is the reliable secondary sources we can find for the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi mystic energy already has its own article, see Energy (esotericism). Also I would like to point out that editors who prevail in talk page discussions are ususally those that overwhelm their opponents with WP:RS and none of the sources you have given so far qualify as WP:MEDRS. In fact, one of the sources you posted (sososcience) are explicitly discouraged for use by Wikipedia editors, such as blogs WP:SPS. The dearth of scientific data should be an indication to the subject's lack of a scientific foundation. AadaamS (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

——

Thanks for the link! User:AadaamS I'll have to contribute to that Energy (esotericism) page, as there are actually a lot of studies that have been carried on such energy which are not mentioned and it is yet another biased page talking in absolutes.

No, this is not a forum, but I'm discussing this subject with people here who edit this page who clearly don't know much about bach remedies, in the hope they can become a bit more informed about them. I wonder how many people who are watching this page have actually taken bach flower remedies/flower essences? I will spend time gathering more sources for this article soon enough.

The dearth of scientific data only speaks of the lack of money in flower essences. Some of the studies that have been done, had issues with people not actually taking the remedies! I also question whether medical sources are required at all, Bach remedies largely treat states of mind and emotion, not physical diseases or psychological conditions. Although, I did post that study which strongly indicates bach remedies may be useful for treating depression. Bach Remedies are also technically considered "food stuffs" and not medicines.

http://www.nightingale-collaboration.org/news/157-bach-flower-remedies-foods-not-medicines.html

Probrooks (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Probrooks, please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia before making any contributions. The rules might seem unintuative but I'd urge you to stick with us and try to understand things before you get into another deep discussion. This really isn't the forum to try to change the rules. In general appeals to personal expertise in a subject will not be well received on Wikipedia - what we actually require are reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * hi there are guidelines that have stood the test of time when it comes to editing medical and scientific topics and any edits you do that do not confirm to those are overwhelmingly likely to be reverted. All editors must follow the rules on sourcing or else Wikipedia will turn into a blog. If you find these guidelines too constricting, I can only encourage you to seek other outlets for your desire to write about your personal opinions such as Wikia or a blog of your own. A user's personal experience is largely irrelevant when writing in Wikipedia, what matters is good sourcing. The ground rule is very simple: do not add anything to Wikipedia that can't be WP:V verified (read the link) by reliable sources, those are described here: WP:RS (read this). Failure to adhere to guidelines will lead to your account being blocked, especially after having been made aware of those same guidelines. Finding reliable sources for medical subjects is outlined in this guideline: WP:MEDRS. AadaamS (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

--

Salimfadhley Simply put, there are many aspects which are not well written because the editors don't have first hand or even extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Obviously, many editors just see some "WOO" here, therefore the tone is writing which has been set, is often disrespectful to the subject matter - as well as being inaccurate.

Secondary sources are one thing, but the wording referencing such sources should be accurate and clear, and reflect an understanding of the subject matter so as to communicate about it to the general public in an purely factual and not emotive or biased manner.

As I stated above, I am going to spend some time finding reliable sources on this subject matter.

AadaamS As I have just stated, Bach flower remedies are now not considered medicines, but food stuffs in the UK. Therefore, they do not fall under being a medical subject. I do not understand what basis for your claim that Bach flower remedies are a medical or scientific topic? And therefore should require WP:MEDRS? Can you please explain this?

Probrooks (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Any claim within an article that BFR have any medical benefit ("better dreams/digestion") or scientific property (such as "energy") needs to be backed up by sources, even if the subject as a whole concerns food, building materials or whatnot. UK authorities cannot relieve the editors of this subject of their duty to back up scientific or medical claims. There is no guideline to stop you from writing about the taste, texture or nutritional value of BFRs as food as long as those statements are sourced. AadaamS (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog

You say Bach flower remedies cannot be called "preparations", however this is exactly how the Oxford dictionary defines them.

"Preparations of the flowers of various plants used in a system of complementary medicine intended to relieve ill health by influencing underlying emotional states."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bach-flower-remedies

Probrooks (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me, it was AadaamS. Please read more carefully. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Clicking preparation in the link you provided shows the word can be used for either food or medicine, perhaps the OED intended food. It's clearer for the reader to be unambiguous and use a word which doesn't imply medicine at all. AadaamS (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point is moot - Bach Flower Remediesm whether categorized as food or something else purport to have some kind of medicinal or psychological effect beyond what we might expect from a solution of ethanol and water. For example, the US website claims that the produce is able to replace negaive emotions with positive emotions. It is precicely this claim that is unproven and must never be misrepresented on Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, but also, we should be clear about the claim that is being made, and that claim should be represented clearly, without prematurely shooting it down because of the sketpical agendas of some editors.

Clearly communicating the nature of Bach remedies I think lets readers make up their own mind. A lot of the syntax here I find too persuasive in nature and one sided, just because a handful of studies were carried out on Bach remedies and materialists can see no way they can work, doesn't mean that many people don't take them seriously and in their practices see major changes, shifts and healing in people. Although, many people would like to think they can only be a placebo, that is still only a point of view, which is not a NPOV.

Probrooks (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These remedies are obvious quackery & nonsense - that's the reality, not just a "POV" and of course respectable sources say so. Wikipedia's purpose is not to indulge lunatic viewpoints. Unless there's some proposal for article improvement based on viable sources I suggest we close this section as pointless. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Alexbrn Of course it is a personal point of view the remedies are "quackery and nonsense". The use of flower essences and Bach remedies is quite prevalent in the wider world (beyond the borders of the UK), and they are not actually a lunatic subject matter. This is of course a personal value judgement, and represents an attack on people who work with bach remedies as lunatics! I'd like to think we are just discussing this subject as an overview as most editors here clearly do not believe that Bach remedies can be anything but placebo. I have plans to edit this article and am presently doing so to make it less biased, with many new reliable sources. Thanks! Probrooks (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality is not a viewpoint, nor do we pretend it is. If you want to promote this kind of nonsense, you'll need to do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-

Dear Alexbrn It is not a matter of promoting "nonsense", but ensuring this article is neutral and fair regarding the different points of view, scientific studies in the world about this subject and presenting them fairly and clearly.

I just found an article by Edzard Ernst and the first line communicates "Bach flower remedies (BFR) are amazingly popular." Which tends to highlight what I say about BFR's as not being lunatic or fringe as you would like to think.

http://edzardernst.com/2015/10/bach-flower-remedies-too-good-to-be-true/

Edzard communicates here about a recent randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial which shows that BFR cream can help treat carpal tunnel syndrome. He admits he doesn't know what to think about this study, as it appears "too good to be true" This is worth noting, as Edzard is perhaps the most prominent critic regarding the efficacy and science behind BFR's.

It is worth reading the comments too. Cheers!

Probrooks (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 * dear Probooks. We do not "promote nonsense" here. You need to thoroughly read our WP:PAG before making further clumsy edits to articles. This will not be allowed to continue. Follow Policy and you'll be OK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As Edzard said:
 * I have to admit, I am not sure. It was published in one of the worst journals I know which has attracted our attention on this blog before. It was published by authors from Cuba who I know nothing about. More importantly, its findings sound far too good to be true.
 * If I had been the editor in charge, I would have asked for the original data and had them re-analysed by an independent statistician. As we cannot do that, our only option is to apply common sense and wait for an independent replication before conceding that BFR are effective.
 * So the source fails WP:MEDRS and the findings are implausible. And we're supposed to include that in order to "balance" the reality-based perspective? I think not. See WP:PARITY.
 * And no, the marketing claims of flower remedy vendors do not confer validity on the vague and nonsensical "vibrational" claims. Vibration is objectively measurable, you'd need to show measurement of frequencies and amplitudes, along with credible evidence that this has any therapeutic effect. Along the way you'll need to overcome the second law of thermodynamics. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

'He imagined that early-morning sunlight passing through dew-drops on flower petals transferred the healing power of the flower onto the water,' obviously expresses a point of view. Changing 'imagined' to 'believed' or something like 'asserted' would repair this. Edzard Ernst always concludes that it's 'only' the placebo effect. Snugglepuss (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Does strong alcohol have no effect?
I'm just wondering why this article and other systematic reviews do not reference the alcohol in the solutions. It's not an inconsiderable strength and the alcohol may have a very real affect - I've not found any reference to this in any of the peer reviewed literature - can anyone else find anything on this? It strikes me the method of saying it is a placebo effect is invalid as the placebo in this paper also contained alcohol - so perhaps the test should be for micro-dosing brandy! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088761850100069X Jack Nunn 03:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that source is related to another subject no? Were you just thinking out loud or have you see. Something specifically related to the effects of alcohol in BFR correction, I was opening the wrong thing. Edaham (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.bachcentre.com/en/remedies/ https://www.directlyfromnature.com/How_to_take_the_Bach_Flower_Remedies_p/fr-004.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  19:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bach flower remedies


text:
Milchem

Milchem Inc. was formed in 1963 to manufacture and market drilling fluids and oilfield chemicals. The company's home office was located at 3920 Essex Lane in Houston, Texas. It had regional sales and service offices throughout North America and the world.

Background
In 1971, Milchem was acquired by Baker Oil Tools.

In 1985, Baker announced that it would combine its Houston-based Milchem Drilling Fluids subsidiary with competitor New Orleans-based Newpark Drilling Fluids forming Milpark, with Baker getting 64% of the merged company and Newpark Resources Inc. parent of Newpark Drilling Fluids taking 36%. Combined revenues at the time of the merger were estimated at $225 million per year.

In 1987, Baker merged with Hughes forming Baker Hughes and Hughes Drilling Fluids was merged into Milpark.

In 1993, Milpark became a product line within Baker Hughes INTEQ.

In 2004, Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids was established as a stand-alone division of Baker Hughes.

title: Milchem