Talk:Ear candling

Motion that safety be removed from the article

Motion that the word safety be removed from the article.

I had this process done today. It was very strange and in my opinion very ineffective. However the process could never be described as dangerous or unsafe. The wax (or whatever they claim it to be) is captured by the protector long before it even gets to your face. To say this is an unsafe of dangerous practice is just a fallacy and should be stricken from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaxContour (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

One person's experience can't be used as evidence, and there are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article to support the description of the practice as unsafe, for several reasons. --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but one's failure to follow (common sense) safety procedures is not an evidence that the candle "should not be used on grounds of it's hazardous nature", it's simply a proof that the rather simple safety measures must not be neglected when the candle is used. Whether it could be beneficial to any health condition is an altogether different matter. This section for example: <A 2007 paper in the journal Canadian Family Physician concludes:

"Ear candling appears to be popular and is heavily advertised with claims that could seem scientific to lay people. However, its claimed mechanism of action has not been verified, no positive clinical effect has been reliably recorded, and it is associated with considerable risk. No evidence suggests that ear candling is an effective treatment for any condition. On this basis, we believe it can do more harm than good and we recommend that GPs discourage its use."[8] > is talking about considerable risk without clarifying that the risk is posed the common sense hazard of a lit candle placed close to the face, so this paragraph can yield to the false assumption that no matter how the candle is used, regardless of safety measures it risks the user's health. Such generic warning, that can be used as fearmongering instead of explaining what exactly poses the hazard, can be accepted in a journal, but it is far from an encyclopedical style. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

removed sentence from lede

The "claim by one manufacturer" is not helpful for the lede, it is not properly sourced (WP:RS) and the link appears to be dead. This kind of sentence relates to a highly specific aspect of the subject of EC. Also, if the link were working, it appears to be a self published or primary source. Consider reintroducing the text with better sources into the body of the article. Edaham (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Reply Here is an archived link to the source provided. In this case, Angelfire served as the publisher, not the author, of a reliable (albeit primary) source: a letter from the director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Seems reasonable to keep it out of the lead, though - pretty specific. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Reply Thanks for that quick follow up. There's a section in the article already on "origins". I will add a sentence to that section regarding Hopi based on the link you provided after I have made a quick but necessary effort to verify it via a web search for similar material.Edaham (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:ReplyAh! I can see you've already done that now. However now I'm worried that there should not be a section called "origins" until it has information on what the origins are, rather than a list of what they are not. Until we have some solid information I suggest one of the two options. 1)remove that section until it contains solid info on earliest recorded use or 2)rename the section "Disputed Origins", which is a more accurate description of what that section now contains.Edaham (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The section was there (has been for a while); I just added an archiveurl. "Claims of origin" may be a reasonably neutral title for the section. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree, although ideally it should be expanded to include genuine origins, then we can just keep the section title simple. Once the "origins" section contains sufficient information on the earliest use of EC, I also suggest putting that section at the top, as it is more general than the "safety" section. It would make more sense to begin with the history section. Thoughts?Edaham (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable if verifiable sourcing is available on who actually came up with it. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Difficult in the extreme. this is an alternative to the various Hopi, Egyptian, ancient nonsense, which is so readily available, but it also doesn's seem to be particularly WP:V. What we really want to say is that the history is ambiguous, because of the number of different claims made about its history, but to state that we would need an V&RS to claim that there is no RS in a VS.... how I love being a wikipedia editor... Edaham (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The link to siberian villagers makes much more sense than other mythical origin claims,and it seems like a good trace to explore, ie: ethnographic publications could be checked for a verifiable report. My guess would be that a connection between church candles as offering, something in the line of dispelling evil could be the start of this process in early modern times, like the beginning of the XX century. But finding such verification would take the reading of ethnographic literature, which would take enormous time. 80.98.236.19 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ear candling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628222621/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=a124f47e-ba20-482e-8acf-3e772e868e4f to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=a124f47e-ba20-482e-8acf-3e772e868e4f
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005070247/http://www.nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/story.cfm?content=145396&archive=24%2C20%2C2005 to http://www.nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/story.cfm?content=145396&archive=24%2C20%2C2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413061322/http://en.biosun.com/ohrkerze/ to http://en.biosun.com/ohrkerze/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific?

It works for me.

Laws of physics apply too: heat, pressure, logic, common sense.

The [1] (first reference) article might be invalid: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/ear-candling-fool-proof-method-1010

Stefek99 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

All of the cites and comments are from traditional medicine

As a naturopath I have known people for decades that swear by the procedure and have used it myself. I will work on finding attributions that satisfy Wikipedia but in the meantime this article is very biased from a traditional medical pov - much like they also discredit energy work and many other practices they would prefer to believe have no value because they do not make money for traditional medicine and at least for some people have value where traditional medicine fails. Oraclebear (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oraclebear Articles with medical claims have to abide by WP:MEDRS. Additionally, this lies close to an area where WP:FRINGE applies also. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The section on conventional methods for removal of wax is quite incomplete

I am a fairly new editor and don't want to wade in on a controversial subject without input so any thoughts appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiveWs (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Having received no objections or suggestions, I have revised the section "Conventional methods for removal of earwax". This is a very brief discussion compared to WP:earwax but now is more accurate than the incomplete section previously provided. FiveWs (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is off-topic. This article only needs a brief mention of conventional methods which are covered in detail at Earwax. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts, but the topic was already included and I thought it needed improvement. However, if people are coming to an article looking for information about removing ear wax it seems appropriate they would get a bit of information about options. FiveWs (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ear candling isn't really that though. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)