Talk:Homeopathy

Another approach to the pseudoscience category issue

The following post was made at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal:

A principled scientist should learn how to explain science. It would be just as wrong to withdraw from editing WP as to withdraw from teaching science courses to nonscientists. There is no need to "label" pseudoscience, just to explain it. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to give an object description of even the most absurd theory. an objective description will make it plain to everyone but the convinced anti-science POV. There is no need to resort to labels to explain things to a unprejudiced reader. (and no hope at all that a label convince the prejudiced to look at things more scientifically). Homeopathy (for example), explained in any straightforward way, is obvious nonsense, and I do not see what is gained by trying to say it is pseudoscience--it will only give the impression that the scientist is the bigot. Those who resort to opprobrium always give an impression that it is they who are prejudiced. The thing to do with the ignorant is to teach them, and those who want to defend science have the obligation to learn how to do it patiently. DGG (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above, we also know the following statements of fact:

• There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
• In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
• Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
• The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
• Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
• Most homeopathic organisations, despite claims of science, also talk about 'healing energies', 'disharmony' and other, less-scientific and more spiritual concepts (NB: discovered to be more correctly 'some' than 'most'. This point may be disputed/ignored)
• Homeopathy does work as a placebo and this is a good thing
• Homeopathy exists as a CAM, has a strong and interesting history, and has a place in modern culture
• Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths

For references for some of the above statements, please see Society of Homoepaths and Ben Goldcare, Lancet author, journalist and medical doctor, and the various references throughout this talk page and its archives. From the above, I suggest the following means to go forward:

1. No pseudoscience category or infobox DGG's comment included above is a sound one, and explains why these are not needed. Also, see the next point.
2. Mention in the lead of critics calling homeopathy pseudoscience We have plenty of references for this, and so a mention at least in passing is warranted.
3. Lead focuses on the history, cultural and ethical issues These are the least controversial issues and arguably the most interesting.
4. Lead should mention some of the 'spiritual' elements The 'disharmony' approach and similar are common enough to form an important part of understanding homeopathy.
5. Lead should mention but downplay the method of homoepathic preparation It is this preparation that is the direct cause of all the fuss. Various homeopaths seem to have differed on the 'strengths' advised. There is not really much to state on this topic anyway.
6. Lead should mention, following homeopathic preparation, that science cannot justify it The logical place to criticise the method of action is where the method of action is forced via the preparation process.
7. Lead should mention briefly the positive studies There has been positive studies, we should acknowledge this fact.
8. Lead should then strongly highlight the weight of evidence against any effect The weight of evidence is against any effect, this is clear.
9. Lead should clearly highlight the major ethical issues A lot of sceptics highlight the ethical problems as their major concern
10. Article should concentrate upon the history and cultural aspects of homeopathy since these are the least controversial, the least changing, and the easiest for an encyclopaedia to document
11. Article should detail clearly the 'spiritual' aspects As stated previously, it appears that 'disharmony', 'life energy' and other terms actually seem quite common. The more clearly we detail these, the less homeopathy in general appears like a science (which means the pseudoscience tag is harder to apply, and science-based sceptics will care more about the ethics than the methods).
12. (something here about preparation, method of action, efficacy and lack of evidence) This point has yet to be formed fully. Aside from the detail in preparation needed to explain the modern process of homeopathy, this should not be focused upon in detail. Similarly to the lead, positive studies must be detailed, however the vast weight of evidence against any efficacy over and above placebo must then be made explicitly clear.
13. Article should discuss the non-disputed benefits of homeopathy Believe it or not, there are some non-disputed benefits of homeopathy which even sceptics will agree with. Increased patient contact time, greater communication and strengthened placebo response are all well documented. These factors allow alternative medicine to provide excellent support for chronic conditions and diseases.
14. Article should go into detail regarding the current ethical controversies surrounding homeopathy There are homeopaths out there who advocate homeopathy alone as a defence against malaria and discourage their clients from seeing doctors and taking regular medication. Other homeopaths argue that AIDS can be treated effectively with homeopathy alone and discourage the use of highly effective anti-retroviral treatements. Less serious issues include discouraging the use of regular medication, not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints, and so on.

I am certain that some pro-science people will prefer that a harder stance is taken on the scientific claims, but for those I offer the olive branch of the increased 'belief' aspects and the downplay of homeopathy's own claims to 'science', coupled with the focus upon the ethical aspects. I am equally certain that some pro-homeopathy-is-science people will disapprove, but equally they receive less prominent criticism based off the weight of scientific evidence, and I remind them that most sources at least mention a spiritual connection if not focus upon one [1] [2] (mentions 'vital life force', but otherwise tries to be scientific in style). In reading around to support my previous paragraphs, I encountered numerous homeopathic organisations that claimed to be a 'science' and did not document beyond passing mentions any form of spiritual aspect. As such, I am not likely to support again the suggestions I am making here. If desired, the 'science' aspect may be detailed more, but this will have to be coupled with the scientific community's responses and patently obvious flaws being noted. If you do not agree to all the article and lead suggestions, please discuss this so that we may sensibly move forward. Most importantly, can we please get agreement on all the above statements of fact aside from the 'spiritual' aspects. All the rest of the statements are strongly supported by all the evidence. LinaMishima (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some who have called it a "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion.

• As for the use of the term "disharmony" - this is simply another way of saying that the physiological systems are not in a state of "homeostasis".
• Regarding the criticism of "not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints" - that implies that those utilizing homeopathy are not doctors. Medical doctors and licensed health professionals utilize homeopathy in conjuction with other modalities, including prescription drugs. (Even some of the homepathic medicines, both oral and injectable, are prescription only.) Of course, there are non-physician homeopaths, and all (that I know of) seek to work with their client's treating physician in a cooperative team effort for the greatest benefit possible.
• As for extreme positions, such as advising against vaccinations, those are maintained by only some homeopaths. Making this a major issue in this article would be inappropriate, since there are medical doctors and other health professionals - who do not use homeopathy - that hold such opinions also, and the articles on their professions do not criticize the entire profession for the actions of a few. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you will notice that I was advocating not using the pseudoscience category. It's right up there in bold, plain for everyone to see. So why you decided to act as if I was suggesting the category be used is completely beyond me.

Most homeopaths are not medical doctors. Those with the biggest practices may be, but the common existance of homeopathy courses which do not have a requirement of being a medical doctor to enter makes it clear that more people are likely to qualify without being doctors than those who are. Doctor is a term bestowed for a certain level of academic achievement, and most homeopathic courses seem to be of bachelor level at most.

The problem with what you are saying is that it is simply not documented by the evidence that homeopaths are in general playing ball and acting ethically. Within the UK, there has been investigations which have shown homeopaths to routinely not refer patients to medical doctors for matters such as malaria protection. As stated, it is these ethical matters that fuel sceptics the most.

As mentioned, the statement of fact regarding spiritual aspects may be discarded as being wrong, and you will note that within these statements, the ethics issue refers to 'certain' homeopaths (a limited, not absolute, group). Given these two points, do you agree with the statement of facts? LinaMishima (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that homeopathy is valid science is ALSO a value judgment. Instead of saying that Wikipedia should strive for a false middle ground on a black-and-white issue, we should obey the stated policies of Wikipedia and report on what the scientific community believes, rather than worrying about Wikipedia itself concluding anything (a violation of WP:OR). The scientific community unambiguously believes homeopathy to be pseudoscientific and false, and any article must reflect that. The talk page is not a forum to argue about this; we are only to report, with citations, what the actual authorities in the field have decided. And there is no lack of clarity there.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore Arion's baseless baiting and clear COI. Thankfully I don't recall suggesting that we ever call homeopathy a valid science. Do you agree with the statement of facts as written (free choice regarding the spiritual nature 'fact' that doesn't have much basis any more)? What about the suggestions on how to proceed with the article? LinaMishima (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I was just about to thank you for your well researched and reasonable suggestions, and then I read the unhelpful personal attack upon me: "baseless baiting and clear COI"!

• I know you were arguing against maintaining the "pseudoscience" category. I merely brought it up because the category is still there at this very moment, and that was the title of this section.
• Skeptics have used the tactic of questioning the ethics of homeopaths for years. That is no different than their other attacks upon health professionals in other specialties of complementary medicine. Placing this in the lead would be as wrong as placing it in the lead of articles on other health professions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I appologise, that was not the most diplomatic of wordings. Hopefully you can see how I reached the assumption of baiting, and the COI is an issue in this debate. But that does not excuse my wording. I appologise.

Given the wording of the statements of facts (that certain, meaning specific, homeopaths, are unethical), can I get a plain statement of agreement?

I shall go and find references for you regarding the ethics issue. I am afraid that calling the claims 'attacks' does not negate their documented nature. The sources I will no doubt find may seem biased, but judge the actions detailed, not the way those are presented. LinaMishima (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Less biased, highly reliable sources: BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, Letter to BMJ detailing brief study, Article in Nature (see the part regarding difficulty getting details of what is taught on homeopathy BSc courses)

Ben Goldcare's writings: Published in The Guardian, Published in The Guardian (legal threats to hosting company before rebuttals, corrections, dealing with author directly, etc), Published in The Guardian, Transcripts of the Malaria & homeopathy investigation

Other blogs (not fully RS, but worth noting in talk for the record): Homeopath turns to internet regarding cancer, More coverage of AIDS & Malaria issue, More on homeopathy and AIDS, Immunisations and disagreement between homeopathy organisations

I will agree that most of these document a single pair of recent cases, however this is what you would expect - it is always easier to source information for current events than those long past. The involvement with the MMR scandal is however a good example of a different ethical issue. The fact that homeopathic organisations cannot agree and fail to enforce their own rules is another key element that points to serious lapses in ethical judgements (Professional organisations should always enforce their rules). Perhaps the controversy is less outside of the UK, but here it is regularly reported. LinaMishima (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But which one of these would you consider a RS for saying "Ethical problems in Homeopathy ..." Anthon01 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding you comments, "Most homeopaths are not medical doctors." Is there any sourced data that confirms the percentage? We should consider not only if they are medical doctors but also other healthcare practitioners. IOW, what percentage of homeopaths are exclusively homeopaths. Also, "The problem with what you are saying is that it is simply not documented by the evidence that homeopaths are in general playing ball and acting ethically." The prevalence of this issue is important to determine also. We need sources to confirm the scope of the problem. Statements by homeopathic organizations should be considered as well. For instance a statement of standards published by a major homeopathic org that says we support the use of prep X as a sole therapeutic agent for malaria should be considered for inclusion; the converse should be considered as well.

One of the aspects missing in this discussion is lower vs. higher (>12c or 24x) dilutions. We need to address this issues separately. The science and plausibility of lower dilutions would be easier to accept than the higher dilutions. Homeopathy is in the process of evolving. Using RS, that should be reflected in the article as well. Their attempts to 'clean up' the practice, especially as more healthcare professionals add homeopathy to their therapeutic armament, should also be reflected in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept LinaMishima's apology, but I disagree that COI is an issue. You would want (but probably not get) someone that has experience in cardiovascular surgery to add imput in editing an article on Cardiovascular surgery. I would never try adding or changing the content of an article about Numismatics or Netherlands Antilles - about which I know very little. (I might do some simple editing to correct grammar or typos if I came across the article.) This article, as with all articles, should also have input from those who know something about the subject!

I disagree with bringing up the ethics issue in the lead. As I mentioned earlier, placing this in the lead would be as wrong as placing it in the lead of articles on other health professions.

Other than the ethics issue, I endorse the spirit of LinaMishima's suggestions. The specific details need to be worked out, such as my contention that research supporting homeopathy should not restricted to the point that positive results appear to be a fluke or due to laboratory mistakes. Of course, all research results, both postive and negative in all fields of science, can be affected by poor research design or procedural mistakes, or a host of others variables.

I hope to address the issues that are unique to homeopathy that need to be dealt with in the article. Unfortunately time constraints do not allow me to do that right now.

In response to Anthon01, I do not have percentage data you asked about. I believe that homeopathic organizations may be able to provide that information. As for potency levels, some homeopaths restrict themselves to only using the lower potencies, others use both lower and higher dilution levels. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that in regards to the potential COI issue, I've put up a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy. We can redirect all discussion of that there and try to clear up whether this presents any problem. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Seems to me that Lina's ideas are fine and would be a good goal to shoot for. If COI is an issue (seems to be) it needs to be addressed. Also denseness should be checked at the door. •Jim62sch• 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable removing the category. Homeopaths present themselves as science. Science doesn't support their claims, yet, they still make them. Removal of the category would seem to be a sort of prescribed back room editor compromise on Wikipedia to make us (meaning every contributor pro & con, to this talk page) but is not in the interest of the reader. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In return for removing the category, we reduce the prominence given to homeopathy's claims of being a science, so it's not all that bad. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, being pseudoscience is determined (in part) by how they present themselves out in the real world, not how we present them on this wiki. In a perfect world, these things should work independantly. However, compromise might have to be made here. I'm just not sure what the best compromise is. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I have a real problem with compromise solutions that are based in conflict reduction for Wikipedia, and not based on the reliable sources, the real world, good writing and the interests of the reader. Second, I don't see a support for this compromise from the pro-homeopath side. They want the category gone, but don't seem to be flocking to a compromise solution. If we remove the category all we've done is betray our Wikipedian principles to lessen the shouting from a vocal fringe minority. Yuck. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment for SchmuckyTheCat: You do grok that WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience sets a specific threshold for categorization? With or without the category, all the scientific arguments and criticisms will stay. --Jim Butler^(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse User:LinaMishima's proposal. I too would prefer to retain the pseudoscience category, but there does need to be some give and take, and all removing the category does is make Wikipedia slightly more difficult to navigate; it doesn't fundamentally compromise WP:NPOV, unlike some of what some editors have been seeking. I agree with Schmucky, though, that we shouldn't proceed with this compromise until we've gotten some signal that it will be respected by a majority of editors on all sides. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified endorse: Clearly quite a bit of consideration went into this, and it's a winner. I can't see any flaws here, at least nothing of significance (speaking as a generally science- and CAM-literate editor, and not as a homeopathy expert). Lina's proposal is one of the best I've read in a long time, clear on the details, appropriately broad in scope, and very much based in NPOV and VER. It never ceases to amaze me how much fine work people are willing to do for free on WP, and I encourage others here to recognize this window of opportunity for what it is. I've seen a few rounds of CAM article edits, and IMO, it's not going to get better than this: the article can only get more POVishly hyperskeptical or more POVishly advocate-y, either of which will induce a pendulum swing and more edit warring. Lina, hat's off to you! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: It's simple to cut through this. If someone struck a match in front of people 400 years ago, it would be seen as un-scientific. Science is too narrow a field to attempt to understand homeopathy in. Those who can, just do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.67.154 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Homoeopathy

Um, this has started adding Category:Homeopathy everywhere it is used. That probably isn't a good thing: It means that sub-categories like Category:Homeopaths get all their contents duplicated, and lot of user-space temp pages were getting categorised (I've commented it out of those for now; it can be readded if/when they jump to article space. - I also nominated a couple ancient userspace temp pages for deletion - fair notice.) I'm inclined to delete the category from the template, but am worried this might de-categorise articles we want categorised.

Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. Both articles that should be in subcategories, and articles in related categories, such as Alternative Medicine, would be placed in the category by this template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've made this change, and then I saw your "this might de-categorise articles we want categorised" comment. I'll leave it up to you what to do, but I think putting it back isn't a good option. Manually cat'ing them seems to be the only option (using what links here, and finding relevant articles?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking "What links here" for the box should get all the ones that should be catted but ain't. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition from NCCAM

I noticed this at the Citizendium article on homeopathy, and suggest adding it here:

In the USA, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, funds research into homeopathy. According to its statement on homeopathy[3], controlled clinical trials of homeopathy had produced mixed results; in some, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo, but in others, more benefits were seen than expected from a placebo. Despite the lack of clear empirical support for homeopathy, the statement concluded that "Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary."

That last sentence, while provocative, is a significant view from a reliable source, so it looks like it should go in. I think the whole para is well-written, and of course OK to use under free license.

The paragraph in CZ is from a section called "Medical organizations' attitudes towards homeopathy". That might be a good one to add here too. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What? You want a sentence that says that NCCAM reliably reports that some people believe that scientific explanations of homeopathy are not necessary? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so dismissive. I thought the statement was self-evident, but maybe it isn't. In particular it speaks to the question raised repeatedly here, of whether homeopathy claims to be science (and can therefore be pseudoscience). According to this statement, at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science (and don't care). --Art Carlson (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it now ... Art's irony-frisbee sailed right past what's left of my brain... --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't see where it says at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science. Some people don't believe that science is all-knowing, therefore they try harmless remedies even though the scientific proof is lacking. If it 'works,' that all the proof they need. There is a whole lot in conventional medicine, that has yet to be proven via RCTs. Medicine goes forward anyway. Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i would refrian from inserting that informaiton into the article until we have clear consensus on how the artilce shoudl be structured. Smith Jones (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Art: As you probably know that is true. Many people don't care about or for that matter trust science. Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

for Art: Sure, I'd think it's fine to exactly quote and attribute to NCCAM the statement: "Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary.". There are people who have that view, and NCCAM is without question fine to quote for the viewpoints of proponents of homeopathy. Actually, all the bullet points in this section are reasonably-stated. They cut more slack to homeopathy than a lot of people do, but it's not over the top... not like they are saying "some people feel that the earth is flat, but concede the evidence suggests it might be shaped more like a frisbee". cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the NCCAM a reliable source, personally, but it certainly is notable. As for this particular quote, I think what's novel here isn't that they're saying people don't care about science, but that they (the NCCAM) don't. Basically, they've tested it, failed to find sufficient positive evidence to meet the burden of proof for a claim as implausible as homeopathy, so they go back and say that the science isn't relevant anyways because it's safe and people think it helps. Of course, I have no doubts they wouldn't be saying this if the science had come out in Homeopathy's favor. They're simply trying to put a positive spin on a null outcome. It's not our place to source spin here; we should stick to the more solid facts. Now, such a claim that scientific proof is irrelevant might be notable if it's consistently made in cases independent of attempting to spin a lack of finding such proof.

Sorry if I got a bit convoluted there. You follow what I'm saying? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Infophile - yes, I think I do follow, but I don't think I'd go quite as far as to say NCCAM endorses the statement quoted (note the others in that same section). I do concede some bias on their part, but they're leaning toward cutting slack ("might be placebo"), not ridiculously distorting evidence. They are reliable for representing a range of views that some people do hold, even if they are minority ones. Although few scientists would go as far as to endorse the view that evidence for efficacy doesn't matter, there are certainly some (probably more clinicians than researchers) who hold this view:

"There is a point of view that homeopathy does work, but that modern scientific methods have not yet explained why. The failure of science to provide full explanations for all treatments is not unique to homeopathy."[4]

I think we should include that quote as well. NCCAM is a great V RS for saying such views exist. But I agree that for stuff much beyond that, like weighting various views or accurately depicting the depth and breadth of critical views of CAM, they are not a V RS. Does that make sense?

The NCCAM quotes may raise hackles, but it's all within the scope of describing debates fairly. The rebuttals to such points raise hackles as well, and we cite those too, like Goldacre, who is quite lucid. This was a good sarcastic zinger, in response to arguments that observed efficacy is such that it must exceed placebo: "The mysteries of the interaction between body and mind are far more complex than can ever be permitted in the crude, mechanistic and reductionist world of the alternative therapist, where pills do all the work." cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it, so my interpretation there was off. However, the way it is, it comes with another problem: the "Some people say" part. I seem to remember some guideline somewhere to avoid it because it's essentially meaningless: You can get some people to say anything. Now, it is a step removed from us here, with the NCCAM saying that some people say that. Frankly, I'm sure some people do say that, but it's meaningless in the end unless we know who's saying it. I'll also retract what I said about not considering them a reliable source. As long as we keep their POV in mind, they're likely one of the most reliable pro-Homeopathy sources, so I'm not going to fault using them in principle.

Anyways, other comments on the paragraph: It calls this page a "statement," though I'm not sure if that's the best term for it. The other points about the results of miscellaneous studies are already stated within our article; we don't really gain much by saying the NCCAM agrees that this is the case. The last quote could be useful if it were a bit more specific, though it might be worth including anyways. Perhaps what we could do would be to put a sentence at the end of our section on scientific appraisal of Homeopathy saying that this a counter to the lack of scientific evidence. After that, we might be able to source a counter-claim that there is indeed a harm if people use Homeopathy instead of proven treatments (and then any response to this, if present). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:WEASEL. It tells us not to do that, but I don't think it addresses other sources doing that. Anthon01 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit unclear on that point. Eh, I wouldn't worry about it too much. We just have to properly source the statement to the NCCAM and it shouldn't be a big deal. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that works ok. Not sure how to weight them, but common sense wise, some folks do hold views in the ballpark of what NCCAM is citing, or else homeopathy wouldn't retain the following it has (and it is bigger outside the US). regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction, Jim, it is smaller in the US than practically everywhere else on this planet. Take Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba even, all 'on your doorstep' and all with big homeopathic presence. Great masses of seriously deluded folks. Peter morrell 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) ... yes, agree, bigger outside the US. Quite big in India, isn't it? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the main point: As I recall, there used to be a section dealing with the NCCAM in extreme detail - though it may have been another article - but it was very cherry-picking, quoting only the positive statements, leaving out the others. In any case, such a wishy-washy document doesn't seem all that useful, particularly as, reading around the NCCAM pages, one gets the feeling that parts of it are really formulaic - e.g. they seem to be phrased in very similar ways for very different therapies. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, Appendix II is interesting - the only unambiguously positive metaanalysis is the Linde 1995 one which the authors later disavowed the results of. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam -- yes, it's not so much important to quote NCCAM per se as to somehow fairly represent the minority views they depict (as represented by the last two bullets here). NCCAM is a good source that such views exist, and that they're more than tiny-minority; not suggesting more than that. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on RSN for NSF source

In archived talk, I posted:

I've posted at the Noticeboard for Reliable Sources, here, requesting clarification on the reliability of the NSF paper for the assertion that NSF regards homeopathy as pseudoscience. Summary: When X source quotes Y as saying "foobar", can we cite it as "X says foobar"?

Please feel free to have a look at comments there, and add your views. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you can't say NSF says foo if the NSF says merely that someone else (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) says foo. You can say who says it, and cite the NSF paper as source. Why are you asking? Did someone think that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look more at the previous discussion, however, I must point out that you seem to have slightly misrepresented the question. The statement in question seems to have been "The NSF classifies homeopathy as pseudoscience," not "The NSF says XXX". That could be correct, if the document shows that they have adopted someone else's classification. However, as I read it, there's no explicit support for that, either. All three of the mentions of "homeopathy" in that report chapter are in attributed quotes or attributed paraphrases of their cited sources; if they've said that the NSF has concluded that homeopathy is pseudoscience, I haven't found that bit yet. Their broad definition "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" is broad enough to argue for almost any topic to be included, since it's not about the topic but about how unspecified agents present the topic; there's no way to have an NPOV application of that definition, since from some points of view homeopathy is in, and from others it's out. So, it would be much better to be explicit about who classfies homeopathy as pseudoscience; the present statement in the lead is weasel worded, as it doesn't say who, but lists a bunch of refs that are not necessarily the answer to that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is always best to attribute the source of a controversial statement. In this case, quoting a statement and then citing its source is the best solution. Otherwise you get the impression that Wikipedia is officially proclaiming something in a particular POV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewind a bit to where this was first raised as an issue: It has to do with the presence or absence of the Pseudoscience category on this article. That's one case where we can't simply note according to whom it's pseudoscience. There was an agreement that if some organization on the scale of the NSF were to declare Homeopathy (or any subject) pseudoscience, then the category would be merited. So the question was, could this instance qualify for that situation? Now, even if not, it's still a matter of debate whether the word of a lesser organization would be sufficient, and what minimum we do set. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very unusual for NSF itself to take a formal position on anything. Even when reporting uncontroversial research that they've sponsored, they couch it in terms like "A recent paper by A.B. Smith and C.D. Jones finds..." A better place to look would be the National Academies of Science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, placing a quotation of an individual of some notoriety stating his opinion that homeopathy is a "pseudoscience" can and should be included in the article within a criticisms section (not in the lead), with proper citing. However, placing a "Category:Pseudoscience" on this article is not acceptable, since it makes it appear to be a value judgement by Wikipedia. The slippery slope aspect of this issue cannot be underestimated. Just yesterday, there was a "Pseudoscientist" category on the article about a cancer researcher [[5]]. What's next, a campaign to place "Pseudoreligion", "Pseudoauthor", "Pseudoactor", etc. on articles? Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily in favor of describing homeopathy as a pseudoscience or using the pseudoscience category. However, if we decide to do so, I am pretty sure a large number of reliable sources of major bodies and notable figures branding it as such can be found.

The category is just to assist in navigation. It is not to give some official stamp of approval to this label by Wikipedia. The current system does not allow for citing and footnotes in the categories, so for controversial categories it is less than ideal. What has to happen is a fundamental rethinking of how we categorize things in controvesial categories.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Filll that we should rethink how we categorize things in controvesial categories. The "Pseudoscientist" category placed on Stanisław Burzyński's article points out the inherent problems that could soon spiral out of control everywhere on Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Filll and Arion 3x3. What I think we need is to combine the good parts of both categories and lists. Categories help navigation because they automatically add the topic to a master category page; lists are annotated and thus allow for qualification and NPOV. We would need to tweak the wiki software to do this. Either make it possible to annotate entries on the category page, or tweak lists so that adding items to them shows up somehow on the topic's page: maybe a "lists that link here" under "what links here" in the toolbox at left. Something like that, along with judicious naming of lists/categories ("alleged crappiness", "disputed wonderfulness" etc.), could work okay. --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• At #Proposal to improve things it says, "Various homeopathic organisations claim to be scientific". As far as I can tell, the current version of the article does not provide any systematic coverage of "homeopathic organisations"; a few are mentioned in various contexts in the article, but I do not see any basis upon which a reader could judge what the statement: "Various homeopathic organisations claim to be scientific," actually means. The term "various" is vague. Maybe it would be possible to have a section of the article that systematically describes existing "homeopathic organisations" such as medical schools that teach homeopathy and organizations that attempt to represent professional and commercial interests related to homeopathy. In such a page section, it would be possible to state the positions of the organizations with respect to the scientific elements of homeopathy. As an example, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine is a medical school where homeopathy is taught and it has this page which links to the National Center for Homeopathy as a source for learning about homeopathy. The website for the National Center for Homeopathy has statements such as, "There is plenty of solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy." In the end, I think it would be possible to document that homeopathic organizations include both scientific and non-scientific claims/approaches to homeopathy. In particular, I doubt that it makes sense to try to define homeopathy as a scientific discipline. At best, I think it would be possible to try to document the existing balance between the extent to which homeopaths and homeopathic organizations self-identify as scientific and the extent to which they do not adopt a scientific approach. I suspect we would end up being able to say that there are some claims made about the scientific nature of homeopathy by homeopaths and homeopathic organizations and then it would be possible to document the counter claims about pseudoscience in the context of a reaction to specific existing assertions about the scientific nature of homeopathy that have been made by specific homeopaths and homeopathic organizations. Any less rigorous approach to dealing with the "homeopathy as pseudoscience" issue seems doomed to endless argument. Let's try to line up specific sources, citations and quotes that can be presented to Wikipedia readers and that would allow them to judge for themselves to what extent homeopathy tries to be scientific. I think doing so would help Wikipedia place the claims about "homeopathy as pseudoscience" in their correct context. --Memenen (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Explaining probation

It would be useful if someone explained carefully here what article probation actually means, if the article is under probation or soon will be.--Filll (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation is what everyone should read. — Scientizzle 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we have anti-science and non-science admins deciding how this works? Wow. Excellent. Wikipedia is going to be a laughingstock, except medical schools are adding Quackademic Medicine to their curriculum. Everyone head to Sedona to cure your cancer. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved admins cannot participate. Anybody who's been editing doesn't get to enforce. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please pass the poi. Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, let me clarificationalize the electrode. OM made a statement about "anti-science and non-science admins" and you responded with a remark about "involved" admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How would he know who is non- or anti- if they are uninvolved? What am I, for instance? Everybody is allowed to have a point of view, but those who are engaged in the content disputes will not be enforcing. If enforcement goes against Wikipedia policies, I imagine that those admins will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Science does not own Wikipedia, nor do the Alt.Med folks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And... and... when I start a sentence it ends with the wrong fusebox... serioushly, I think admins with expertise in science should deliberately refrain from editing certain topics, but follow them enough to intervene in an educated way where necessary. But WP's always gonna be a madhouse until it adopts some sort of non-wikiality "gentle expert oversight", as at Citizendium. And if not, let it be a resource for popular culture, and leave more academic topics to the grownups at CZ. Only reason I'm still editing here is that I know people read WP, but in some sense that's just "enabling" a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think different wikis have different organizing principles for good reasons. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be anything but what it has always been, but Citizendium may be a better place for some people and Wikinfo for others. Personally I find the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be a strong point and this is the only encyclopedia project I've found worth my participation. —Whig (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation means that there is a reduced tolerance for violations of Wikipedia's core policies and other policies. Editors who are disruptive can be banned from editing any articles or group of articles where they may be disruptive, or they can be put on revert limitation (e.g. 1RR instead of 3RR), to reduce edit warring. See Wikipedia:General sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Activity seems to have reduced somewhat since the probation started. A good thing? Probably --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly amazing. De profundis clamavi ad vos scientia prudentiaque! •Jim62sch• 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Google dosen't do Latin yet: (roughly?) "About to pour forth secretly to you knowledge practical judgement!" --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"From the depths I have called to you, O Science, O Reason!" •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Throwing in the towel

Well, I've had enough. The last straw was rewarding barnstars to pro-homeopathy editors for not being entirely in the wrong in their harassment and vexatious complaints.[6] This article is off my watchlist. The "probation" nonsense is an utter sham. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, to paraphrase an editor above, "it must be working". ROFL. •Jim62sch• 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was not attempting to vex anyone. Anti or pro-homeopathy, what difference does it make? Please AGF. Anthon01 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My assumption was that the probation was placed to curb disruption form editors on both sides or extremes of the discussion. Am I mistaken? Are anti-homeopathy editors favored over pro-homeopathy editors? Anthon01 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line here, and this is likely not your fault, is that if the barnstar were seen by all as merited, there'd be no dispute: as it is, it has cost us one good editor. Perception can, and often does, outweigh "reality". The same is true regarding the purpose of the probation. Did you know that the Charles Darwin article is now on probation? Unreal, yes?

Well, it can get worse. Obviously, we all need to rein ourselves in a bit, but this probation may have some very unintended consequences for WP.•Jim62sch• 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So tell me what probation intentions were? Don't you see everyone is jumping the gun? My assumption was that content disputes don't give a anti-homeopathy editor rights over a pro-homeopathy editor. Since the probation warning yesterday I have not touched the Deadly Nightshade article. However an anti-homeopathy editor has reverted twice in the span of a few hours without any consensus. He has ignored editors on the talk page that are trying to work towards an agreement. Before yesterday I would have reverted his edit at least once. But due to the warning I avoided the article page completely and focused my attention on the talk page. Instead of touching the talk page, I brought the issue to AN/I. What have I done wrong? Anthon01 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying you did anything wrong in this case.

As for jumping the gun, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_probation_for_Homeopathy •Jim62sch• 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read that section several times earlier today. Is there a particular part you would like me to read? Anthon01 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not about to drag this conversation out to extreme lengths. •Jim62sch• 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. I just didn't get your point. Anthon01 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to end the conversation here. Anthon01 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to distill things

Very little of this talk page seems to have been devoted to actually trying to reach consensus on the article's content (this is probably partially because some editors don't believe a consensus is possible, and others have explicitly said that they're not really very interested in consensus). Because I'm foolish and naive, I'd like to try to bring discussion in that direction. To that end, could editors please elucidate what their problems are with the article as currently written? Please be as specific as possible. Also, in the interests of keeping this thread reasonably uncluttered and therefore readable, I'd suggest that people not respond to others' posts in this thread, but rather create additional threads to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article shows signs of POV pushing. Could we invite people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality to go over it and provide feedback? Often, when neutrality and citations are improved, the level of conflict can be reduced. I see references to an advocacy site, www.quackwatch.org. That does not look like a reliable source for anything except their own views. Could that reference be replaced with a reference to scholarly work that says essentially the same thing?

Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article seems too long. Can it be reduced through copy editing, or perhaps summary style? Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not looked at it recently, I believe the version we had right around going to GA was about right. I and ScienceApologist carefully divided the material into pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy pieces. We found that it was about 60% pro-homeopathy and about 40% skeptical. I think that this division is about right. I also think that the Beneviste affair, which was in some versions but might not be in presently, is important to have. I am not wild about discussing homeopathy around the world, but it is in there by consensus. My personal opinion is that it belongs in a daughter article, not this article. I am not sure about using "quackwatch.com". Surely there must be a better reference, unless quackwatch is just reprinting something from somewhere else?

In my view, the main problem that has roiled this page is several people who do not want there to be any negative material in the article, such as mainstream views, or do not want there to be negative material in the LEAD, or want to lump all the negative material in one section at the bottom. As far as I am concerned, none of these is acceptable if the article is to meet NPOV and LEAD requirements, and MOS guidelines.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick clarification on your last point: that is a problem with the process by which this article is being edited; I'm more wondering about problems with the article as it currently exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Just what is wrong with quackwatch.org? For what is it an "advocacy site" besides good science and true, verifiable facts? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch appears to be a website controlled by one person, effectively a blog. While the information might be accurate, I see no evidence of independent fact checking. The site is asking for donations. This is not the type of site that Wikipedia normal uses as a reliable source. If you would like a community discussion of Quackwatch, please feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jehochman^Talk 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One person who is a medical doctor and thus a reliable source on the topic of medicine. Is there a rule against "sites controlled by one person" in the reliable source guidelines that you can point me to? All I see is a note about self-publishing which specifically notes "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Quackwatch meets both of those requirements.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Verfiability. I am fairly sure that Quackwatch is not a suitable reference for this article. This is a controversial situation and better references are available. Why can't we find a peer reviewed, academic journal? Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying "no it's not" is not a worthwhile response to my explanation of why it is acceptable. What portion of the verifiability guidelines to you believe it violates?Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - WP:SPS Quackwatch has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking. Such sources are not used in controversial situations, especially when better sources can be found. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! In any case, I do not see anything on either the Reliable Sources page or the Verifiability page that instructs us to take into account whether a source "solicits contributions." Are you making up that rule or am I missing something? The world's pre-eminent source on medical quackery, written by a medical doctor, which has been sourced in numerous peer-reviewed publications, is the BEST source on a topic of medical quackery! How could it not be? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! Yes, and we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source Friarslantern (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch's mission statement makes clear that their job is advocacy, not neutral reportage. If they say something important, it will be picked up by independent media that we can cite as a reliable source. Additional opinions are available via the Reliable sources noticeboard. Please go there and start a discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sites are not bound by Wikipedia's interpretation of what NPOV is. Wikipedia editors are bound to using sites which meet the verifiability and reliable-source criterion, which Quackwatch does in every respect.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked a bit. This essay has been cited by universities and used as a resource for coursework. It appears to be reprinted in at least one newsletter. I think that this, given with the WP:SPS material probably makes it ok. We might change the citation to the newsletter or some other place where it was reprinted however.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the advocacy and fundraising question: And how is this different than the Homeopathy sources?--Filll (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! If you have time, you could make a list of all the suspect references, then editors can review and replace them as appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you suggesting that only sources that do not have a POV ("advocacy") be quoted, and/or that no non-profit organizations may be quoted, since they all, quite openly and legitimately, request donations. They can't survive if they don't do that. If so, this is a radical reinterpretation of NPOV. This matter has been discussed so many times now that it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Only the enemies of Quackwatch and the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience here have been making these arguments. I am not making an accusation against you, but I'm just stating the history of this issue. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an uninvolved editor, Jehochman, using WP policies to provide a fresh look of the issue of Quackwatch. Although, I agree that donations doesn't preclude the use of a site, Quackwatch is clearly a partisan site and should be used judiciously. It is obvious that not only the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience make these claims as Jehochman is neither of those. I suggest that a influx of experienced non-involved editors onto this page will help this page move forward. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How many edits can someone make to this page before they can no longer claim to be an "uninvolved editor"? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread got off track a bit...Jehochman, did you see this Quackwatch#Usefulness_as_a_source? Quackwatch may be an advocacy site with a format like a blog, but it's not your average livejournal or blogspot. It's more like citing The Huffington Post. — Scientizzle 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a little different then the Huffington Post as Quackwatch is mostly one editor vs. a multitude at the Huffington Post. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, yes, it's clearly different from HuffPo in several ways. My blindingly obvious point was that though it may be "effectively a blog" it's not a bad source to use. Perhaps it's not the best to use for sourcing certain claims, particularly if there happens to be a peer-reviewed secondary source that says the same thing, but it's in no way inappropriate per WP:RS. There are multitudinous examples of "effectively a blog"-type sites that can be used as reliable sources in many fields on many articles. — Scientizzle 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Quackwatch as a one man show, doesn't have the benefit of contrasting input, from many different sources, and is therefore subject to editorial bias. Many blogs have comments which help to moderate their content. Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said for many Alt-Med journals, even those that claim to be peer-reviewed. I haven't checked the alt-med references in THIS article, but if QW is inappropriate, than so are the others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My take on Quackwatch is: go ahead and cite it as a balance to vanity claims on fringe, tiny-minority topics, if good secondary-source V RS's don't exist. Is there anything in particular at Quackwatch re homeopathy that hasn't been said by a better (e.g., secondary, cf. Jehochman) source? Goldacre pretty much nailed the critical state of the art, and he's secondary, so what exactly does Quackwatch provide here? --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch can potentially be used as primary source to support a statement of the form, "Critics of homeopathy, such as Quackwatch, say that homeopathy is quackery because..." The nature of the source needs to be identified so biases are clearly. I think it would be preferable to use peer reviewed academic journals. I have used blogs as reliable sources in a featured article, search engine optimization, because this is an unusual topic that is not covered by academic sources. That article was the subject of edit wars until the sourcing was improved. Since then, it has been extremely stable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I hope you realize that if we go down this path we will lose most of our pro-homeopathy sources as well. Therefore, I would ask you not to encourage this. I want this article well-sourced, and I am loathe to lose our marginal sources for homeopathy, both pro and contra. Get it? This will not be one-sided like you hope if it picks up steam. Most of the homeopathy sources I want to use for my new article in the sandbox will get flushed if you do this. I probably would no be able to use many of Peter morrell's excellent writings on the subject as sources if you do this. And so please, please please let us not go there. Our articles on homeopathy will suffer badly if we remove these marginal sources or unconventional sources.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Take out the rubbish, and focus on verifiable facts. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, with an occasional primary source used to fill in the gaps or provide additional context. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree with Jehochman. I think the rules are too often ignored. Are there many pro-homeopathy sources? Give me an example of what you think would go in such a purge? Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: You misunderstand my intentions. I hope to improve the project. Lets go where the sources take us. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New quote from authoritative source and V & RS

{{editprotected}} I would like to add the following to the end of the following section: Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness

• Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics." He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."

BTW, this happens to be yet another of myriad mainstream sources that quote Stephen Barrett as a reliable source of criticism of off beat practices, quackery, and pseudoscience. Fyslee / talk 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the last sentence? Are you promoting or elevating Quackwatch? Anthon01 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that as an afterthought because of the ongoing discussion above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Quackwatch It is literally one of hundreds of quotings of Barrett and Quackwatch made by mainstream and press sources in a positive manner, which shows that mainstream sources, governmental and university sources, and the media often quote Barrett since he is the world's leading authority on quackery. -- Fyslee / talk 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, Barrett is not being quoted in the suggested addition. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What! And give the pro-alternative-medicine-quackery advocates yet one more chance to speak out on this page -- NO WAY! ;-) Friarslantern (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) strike that... this is too sensitive a discussion to joke around :-( ....-the pro-quackery user Friarslantern (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment by Friarslantern is highlighting the underlying problem which remains: We have a large body of people who do not know what NPOV is, or do not know how to interpret NPOV, or do not intend to stay within NPOV, FRINGE. LEAD etc. Until you correct this underlying problem, there will be terrible trouble here.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. It seems there are editors from both POV that don't understand NPOV & NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this would probably be a good addition, but I don't think it meets the criteria for a protected edit. That is, I suspect there's going to be controversy about it. ;) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...you could be right considering the types of disruptive controversy against policy we have experienced. I have always interpreted the wording "If....a desired change warrants advance discussion" as referring to "legitimate" controversy. Attempting to keep out sources that are in harmony with policy because one "doesn't like it" isn't legitimate controversy, but disruption, and the article probation should hopefully keep that to a minimum, for the first time in ages. Any "advance discussion" (controversy) should legitimately apply policies as a means of showing how the addition would be improper. Lacking such argumentation, disruption is likely a logical interpretation. The author, the source, and the quote are impeccable. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to determine consensus - who has been proposing this edit? Sandstein (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the proposer. It is a notable quote, from a notable person, published in a very V & RS (Newsweek). It's about as impeccable as they come and I'm proposing that it be placed in an appropriate section of the article. I believe all polices are being followed. It's an encyclopedic addition that enriches the article. You can try it out and see how it looks. It's a bit hard for me to do at the moment....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, Fyslee... quote is more than fine... and in general, I'm amazed at the signal-to-noise ratio on this page. Whew! --Jim Butler (t) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Some months ago it was decided that quackwatch and Barrett were not acceptable as RS for this article. Check the archives. Peter morrell 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely true, and Barrett is not the source. (He just happens to be quoted as a reliable source by mainstream sources, for the umpteenth time.) Read the quote above. -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, at what point do my predictions (above) of ensuing disruption (already fulfilled above) get recognized and a warning handed out? -- Fyslee / talk 07:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see a disruption? Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a useful quote. But I don't think it's so urgent as to need an immediate edit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. I just want to see legitimate editing attempts that should be uncontroversial to reasonable minds continue. A page protection is not intended to prevent that from happening. This happens to be a very significant quote from a very significant source, Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee / talk 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be good. V and RS, and adds the views of a high-up homeopath. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You said, adds the views of a high-up homeopath. How so? Is Killen a homeopath? Anthon01 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: Your source seems RS and V, although I haven't seen it yet, since the link is not working. I am curious to see it though before making a recommendation. Keep in mind that we already have, on a quick count, 12 citation saying homeopathy is placebo or ineffective so I am not sure if we need to add another. Kinda like beating a dead horse. Finally, it seems that you are using this to prove a point. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 seems to be not understanding the point here. Take a look at intelligent design. How many references are there that it is not science or junk science or pseudoscience? Intelligent design is an FA. --Filll (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd expect a quote like this to be included -- the statements of more "authorized" commentators usually being preferable, and therefore replacing those of less-prominent sources -- it should at the least be given as a reference to any statement asserting that the efficacy of homeopathy is undemonstrated. Naturezak (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The link is in ref format, IOW you need to look in the refs section at the bottom. It is probably collapsed, so just open it and then you'll see it. I am indeed trying to make a point, but I am not making a point that involves disruption. Look at WP:POINT. POINT disruptions are an entirely different matter than attempting to use logic and follow policies. -- Fyslee / talk 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this gov't agency a "pro-alternative-medicine" agency, or an agency whose main job is to watchdog the alternative health industry (I dont' know - I'm asking) ?

... I'd say, if it's a watchdog agency, then the quote's notability in this article is low (because of course the head of a watchdog agency is going to want to say things like this).

But if the general mission of the agency is supportive or optimistic about alternative medicine, then I'd say the quote is important (and more significant than a quote from a dogmatically scientific skeptical organization), but, if this is the case, for transparency's sake, we should put it in context. My sense is that there is a significant portion of the alt. med. sector (though certainly not a majority) that's skeptical about homeopathy, and if that is the case, can we say that (we might need other references besides this quote to establish that) first, ie "Even a portion of the alternative medicine community itself is skeptical about the usefulness of homeopathy [some reference here]. {then your quote here}"....

[Please note: for the record, I myself am a bit more skeptical than optimistic that homeopathy works, but in general am alt-medicine friendly, and am opposed to what I feel is too much of a POV against homeopathy in this article. If I were coming to WP to read about Homeopathy, though, this is the kind of thing I'd want to know about -- that the head of a pro-alt-med agency (?) criticizes homeopathy -- much more meaningful than, for example, that some skeptical organization criticizes it (duh, that's their job)] Friarslantern (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good observations, Friarslantern. NCCAM is generally favorable to alternative medicine, but has a mandate to conduct real scientific research (sometimes where none has been attempted by believers before) on various alt med subjects. By "generally favorable" I mean that some of the most active leaders and players are themselves practitioners and advocates, and they hand out funding to other (sometimes unqualified to conduct research) practitioners and advocates, often without demanding accountability. While the research is supposed to be unbiased, it is too much to expect that practitioners who are essentially receiving pay to stay in business for a few more years are going be neutral, and thus the research seems to often have the character of a "we are going to prove it is true" agenda, instead of a "we just want to see what's going on and will accept the results no matter what." Even research results that are rather negative have been published with conclusions that the results were "inconclusive", where a correct conclusion would have told it like it was. Fortunately there are enough real scientists involved and keeping an eye on things that such issues have been criticized and the leaders have been forced to admit that some of their pet ideas have not been confirmed to be true. Criticisms of NCCAM's waste of funds and lack of critical thinking are numerous. In this light, the statement by Killen is remarkably forthright and courageous, considering that it lends fuel to those who have been documenting for years that funds have been wasted on research for subjects of no possible real worth. He is doing what no others have dared to do - cutting off the branch upon which NCCAM (his own agency) is sitting. -- Fyslee / talk 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled the request, as the edit appears ti have been made already. Sandstein (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The quackery question in light of anti-immunization

I remain astonished at the lack of willingness to call homeopathy quackery; please help me understand. The article currently states:

Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination,^{[126][127][128]} and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs.^{[129][130][131]}

Given that the efficacy is barely detectable in the small minority of studies which are able to discern any difference from placebo, why is a field whose practitioners regularly try to dissuade people from life-saving vaccines not considered quackery? Did any of the purveyors of snake oil, the epitome of quackery, ever try to keep people from any kind of other medical care known to be effective? MilesAgain (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is considered quackery by all reliable sources on quackery. What we have is some people with an agenda trying to invent new rules on sources, argue over the subject of an article on a talk page, bully people into quitting the page, and generally abuse the process in order to get a fringe, irrational view promoted via Wikipedia. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to make value judgments. We can list the notable people who say that homeopathy is quackery and cite a sources, such as Quackwatch, to substatiate those statements. Why is homeopathy quackery? That conclusion must be based on facts? We can present those facts in an NPOV way, citing reliable sources, and let the reader decide. This is actually more effective and more educational. Telling somebody that homeopathy is quackery is not as good as showing them why homeopathy is quackery.

On the other hand, if homeopathy is not quackery, there must also be reasons based on facts that can be cited to reliable sources. Rather than arguing "homeopathy is not quackery", we should be able to substantiate the benefits of homeopathy by citing reliable sources. Once again, it is up to the reader to decide what they want to believe. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:NPOV mentioning value judgments; to what are you referring? Peer-reviewed sources say it's quackery and none deny it, so it should be stated and cited. MilesAgain (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the same rule applies to "quackery" as "pseudoscience": A flat-out statement requires a reliable source stating that it is generally considered so in the scientific establishment. Notable critics that call it quackery can be cited by name, and information (e.g. on vaccination recommendations) that might lead the reader to conclude it is quackery can also be reported. That should be enough. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccinations comment unsupported by sources

The statement Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination as far as I can tell is not supported by the sources. One article has no abstract. The other two don't support the text. Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, they indeed do support the text: "CAM also lends support to the "anti-vaccination movement". In particular, sections of the chiropractors, the (non-medically trained) homoeopaths and naturopaths tend to advise their clients against immunisation" -- PMID 11587822. One "with no abstract" is entitled "The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine." -- PMID 9243229. The other one is entitled "Homoeopathy and immunization" (PMID 8554846) and I doubt it says anything different. The two news reports on malaria specifically state that homeopathy is risking lives. How could it be any more quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get many from that abstract? I think WP:NOR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source. It states that out of 23 homeopaths, 16 didn't believe in vaccinations.[7] I don't have access to the other two references. One has an abstract but it doesn't support the text either. Perhaps the full text might support it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does that not support the text? It's not just "many," it's "most"! MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and 9 out of 10 dentists use crest ... Anthon01 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In peer reviewed medical journal articles? MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the evidence presented doesn't justify many, because a survey of 23 can't possible speak for the probable tens of thousands of homeopaths practicing in the world. The 9 out of 10 comment is a common advertising trick used in the US, where they interview 10 individuals of whom 9 agree with X, and attempt to give the impression the 90% of all individuals believe X. Anthon01 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, there are all sorts of BBC sources about homeopaths disparaging the MMR vaccine, the malaria vaccine, and so on. This, for example. You are being willfully obtuse about this. You are a problem editor on this article, who has obviously abandoned all pretense of good faith or proper procedure, and are just throwing up nonsensical smokescreens to defend a discredited viewpoint. Go away. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Using a poll of 23 homeopaths as to their personal beliefs does not constitute evidence of ethical allegations such as the seriously POV unsupported statement: "Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination." I propose that this be removed from the article since it is obvious editorializing on the part of the person who placed it there.

Many other health professionals question the use of vaccinations, yet there is no implied questioning of their ethics on the pages dedicated to their professions. Stating that they "advise against standard medical procedures" implies that they reject modern medical procedures and are a quaint throwback to some previous era. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot constantly assert that the single poll is the only evidence for the assertion, when there is all sorts of other evidence available through reliable sources such as the BBC just by Googling, and I even presented you above with a direct link to a completely different article about a completely different investigation into the the homeopathic attitude towards vaccination. You are acting in bad faith here by ignoring all the contrary evidence to your position and wildly misrepresenting your opponents' position.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

At what point does this cross into tendentitious argumentation? Can someone answer that for me?--Filll (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it crossed that line long ago, but I'm so confused by people who are arguing for pseudoscience and not for quackery that I don't know if my opinion is relevant. MilesAgain (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is apply policy. Perhaps you are too close to this to do that objectively, but I don't know. If I presented a study that said 16 out 23 responded favorable to Homeopathic X, would you agree with my statement that many people respond well to X? I don't think so. So the rules,WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH in this case, apply both ways, for the sake of the project. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccinations comment unsupported by sources - Break

Sources that indicate vaccine/homeopathy issues of import:

• Schmidt K, Ernst E, Andrews (2002). "Aspects of MMR. Survey shows that some homoeopaths and chiropractors advise against MMR". BMJ. 325 (7364): 597. PMID 12228144.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "These data suggest that some providers of complementary medicine are advising people against government policy."
    • Response letter: Crump SC, Oxley M (2003). "Society of Homeopaths does not advise against vaccination". BMJ. 326 (7381): 164. PMID 12531857.
• Cassell JA, Leach M, Poltorak MS, Mercer CH, Iversen A, Fairhead JR (2006). "Is the cultural context of MMR rejection a key to an effective public health discourse?". Public Health. 120 (9): 783–94. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2006.03.011. PMID 16828492.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "Of the non-compliant mothers [in vaccinating children], 32.6% had consulted a homeopath, by contrast with 10.1% of compliers (P=0.001)...The data show that only use of a homeopath was independently associated with non-compliance....The relevance of a belief that immunizations harm the immune system has been noted elsewhere, and our study quantifies a striking influence of homeopathy in this respect."
• Schmidt K, Ernst E (2003). "MMR vaccination advice over the Internet". Vaccine. 21 (11–12): 1044–7. PMID 12559777.
  • "No homeopath...advised in favour of the MMR vaccination...our study has confirmed previous investigations, suggesting that some CAM providers have a negative attitude towards immunisation, specifically MMR."
• Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine. 20 Suppl 1: S90–3, discussion S89. PMID 11587822.
  • "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health."
• [8]: "two homeopathic doctors who oppose the MMR vaccine are being blamed for a measles epidemic in a small German town"
• [9]"homeopathy...has nurtured irrational anti-vaccine notions such as the idea that immunisation compromises natural immunity and may cause autoimmune disorders, which have spread from a bohemian fringe to acquire mainstream influence in society."

et., etc., etc. There's enough meat on these bones to fill in missing references for a claim like:

some homeopathic providers have negative view of vaccination,^[refs] and parents that consult with homeopaths have a lower rate of vaccination compliance for their children.^[refs] In a few high-profile examples, homeopathic providers have actively discouraged vaccination^[refs] and proper prophylactic treatment for malaria.^[refs]

— Scientizzle 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. Anthon01 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all - over a quarter of the homeopaths in a local area, and half of those who responded, are not a "few high-profile examples" (Ernst reference). It misrepresents the reality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[allow me to cut in here to respond to Adam...] I don't quite like my word choice for that last line, either...how about "studies on the practices of homeopathic providers have found that some actively discourage vaccination.^[refs] Newsnight investigations in 2006 revealed homeopths were not recommending proper prophylactic treatment for malaria^[refs], resulting in resutling in malaria infections" or something of the like. My previous wording was mushing together a general rate of anti-vaccination with the prominent stings of homeopaths that revealed gems like "[homeopathic treatments] make it so your energy doesn't have a malaria-shaped hole in it so the malarial mosquitos won't come along and fill that in."[10] — Scientizzle 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's 16 out of 23 respondents. And you expect that to be the final word on the practice style of tens of thousands of homeopaths? How about a large study or survey with several hundred participants? You want to based this on one tiny study? Small studies are notoriously inaccurate.;-) Anthon01 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there some sort of inconsistency with I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. . I am confused here. Can you clear this up?--Filll (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the confusion. Post the text that contradicts I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. Please be explicit. Anthon01 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am just dense but I do not understand. There is or is not evidence that some if not many homeopaths oppose vaccination?--Filll (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Adam said I don't think that's a fair assessment at all - over a quarter of the homeopaths in a local area, and half of those who responded, are not a "few high-profile examples" (Ernst reference). It misrepresents the reality. He was talking about the 16 out of 23 homeopaths who discourage immunizations (out 63 surveys sent out, 23 responded).[[11]] I responded with How about a large study or survey with several hundred participants? You want to based this on one tiny study? Small studies are notoriously inaccurate.;-).

My other response was to the citations Scientizzle posted and his new text. some homeopathic providers have negative view of vaccination,^[refs] and parents that consult with homeopaths have a lower rate of vaccination compliance for their children.^[refs] In a few high-profile examples, homeopathic providers have actively discouraged vaccination^[refs] and proper prophylactic treatment for malaria.^[refs] I responded I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. You see Scientizzle changed the text. In fact he used some homeopaths , where the previous text says many homeopaths. Easy to prove some homeopaths, difficult to prove many homeopaths, at least for now. Anthon01 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we need more sources and better sources. I do seem to recall someone who claimed that no homeopaths believed in using Berlin Wall as a remedy.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are various health practitioners and physicians, both homeopathic and non-homeopathic, who advise against vaccinations. Those are true facts. Yet broadly implying that homeopaths advise against vaccinations is misleading, especially when there is a statement from a homeopathic organization denying this stance: Crump SC, Oxley M (2003). "Society of Homeopaths does not advise against vaccination". BMJ. 326 (7381): 164. PMID 12531857. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I included that link above. An official stance doesn't prevent some from behaving in such a way, obviously... — Scientizzle 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for article probation and use of template

In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV pushers (and anyone who is disruptive in that connection). In short it makes it easier for admins to stop fires and keep them from spreading. Here is a list of where the template is currently being used.

Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers to insert homeopathy into all kinds of (often unrelated) articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get admin input on this statement, that the probation is designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV pushers. Although Fyslee mentions anyone who is disruptive in that connection this statement clearly implies community bias towards a particular side of a content dispute. Is it true that anti-inclusion editors are favored over pro-inclusion editors? The experience I had yesterday with being blocked, unblocked, and then threatened again has made me wonder whether this is the case.[12][13]

Although I have never advocated the widespread inclusion of (thousands of) homeopathy remedies on plant pages and am unaware of such an attempt, the inclusion of a one line statement,

Thuja is used in making homeopathic thuja.

based on RS, in the 'uses' section, on the most significant homeopathic remedies (greatest hits) seems justified, especially if we believe that WP is an inclusive encyclopedia and if RS are available to support the inclusion. Does that make me a POV-pusher and deserving of the treatment I received here yesterday? How about the editors who are fighting the inclusion of homeopathy on any plant page, in other word want homeopathy on zero plant pages? Are they consider POV-pushers also or protectors of the project? Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I took "homeopathic POV" to mean either pro or anti. Is this the right place for this discussion? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Do you know of a better place? Anthon01 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR Lawrence § t/e 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As part of the core principles on WP, we have WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Some or all of those involved in these discussions seem not to accept or understand or properly interpret these principles. Therefore, we all have to be vigilant and try to make sure we do not violate these sorts of things by our actions.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask who are the editors who are referred to in "How about the editors who are fighting the inclusion of homeopathy on any plant page, in other word want homeopathy on zero plant pages?" I know it is not me since I offered a compromise of 50 or so. I know it is not Science Apologist either since he tried to forge a compromise. Who are these mysterious unknown editors?--Filll (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the possible role of homeopathy in asthma + dementia

The following sentence in the article should change. Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma.

This is the text of the study. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were conflicting results in terms of lung function between the studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a 'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualised homeopathic practice). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. This will help to establish to what extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the homeopathic intervention alone. [14]

It seems to me that the source does not support the sentence since : There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is not equal to found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma. The sentence currently being used in the article implies that the data shows negative results for homeopathy which is inaccurate .The study is inconclusive and the sentence must change. I think everybody can see that. --Dana4 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this seems to me to be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of scientific processes and writing. A negative result, and finding of no evidence, is still that, no matter how it is worded.--Filll (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Filll.

- There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is a negative result? Please everybody feel free to comment. --Dana4 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A direct quotation could be used in order to eliminate controversy. Perhaps a better source can be found. Filll, your solution does not work. We are not here to interpret what things mean. We quote, paraphrase, or summarize. We do not synthesize. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I had not meant to violate WP:SYN. Maybe the signs and portents are correct. Go to it.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So if we agree , an administrator should change the sentence unless there is another source about asthma.--Dana4 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have found a number of these they we corrected, prior the PP. I suspect there are more. I believe WP:OR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The input of more uninvolved editors would be welcome. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to dementia [15]--Dana4 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the statement "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma." be changed to Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that the misrepresentation of homeopathic treatment for dementia needs to be changed. The study that is referenced actually states: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia." That is very different than what the homeopathy article currently asserts: "found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree and I suspect few others do as well, but we are not allowed to say so.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not allowed to have this conversation of course. Spamming the page, a common tactic, is not helpful. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, "no evidence" is also an accurate interpretation of what the article says, as well. There's an implication that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, but we are not entitled to make that implication, whether or not the source did. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy" not equal to find no evidence. --Dana4 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed text leaves no room for interpretation. The current version does. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something. Could you point me to the evidence that they found?--Filll (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is spamming? Anthon01 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dementia" abstract goes on to say "absence of evidence". As to exactly what there is "absence of evidence" of, that would be unclear, but it would certainly be inappropriate to leave that out of the article content. The "asthma" abstract states "No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales." Seems like no evidence to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the statements can be reworded in such a way as to satisfy everybody, but I also think they are accurate and clear as they stand. Did the reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration find any evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma? No. That much is clear, even if they did not find any evidence that homeopathy does not work (whatever that would mean), and in particular they did not find any evidence that the particular form of individualized homeopathy does not work. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Art that they could to be reworded. The way the text currently reads implies that there was a definitive conclusion that homeopathy was not beneficial. Precision wording can eliminate any problems with violating the neutral tone of the article that Wikipedia rules demand. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the current wording sounds like a claim that it's been disproven, when in fact no conclusion was made. Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Systematic reviews have determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of waving a chicken over your head in asthma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.207.53 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I missing here? If the study's writeup itself concedes that it was unable to make any definitive conclusion, yea or nay, due to, in a sense, not measuring what actually needed to be measured ("unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice"), then even mentioning the study at all seems pointless, except as perhaps a subtle and weaselly jab at the credibility of the Cochrane Collaboration. To make the point, one could purportedly say in complete truthfulness "A study that was doomed to fail found no evidence..." Just don't use it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reviews determination of insufficient evidence is noteworthy as it is informative about the status of the project on the issue and has the potential of directing area of further research. Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right... problem is, Wikipedia's goal isn't to tell Homeopaths what they should be researching. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Then it is informative about the status of the project on Asthma and has the potential of directing the parent of an asthmatic child ... I have no problem with leaving it out. Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Something like that. This info may be useful somewhere as you say, but my point was, not here it would seem. Since this article is on a short fuse, I would think it be better just to not use the statement at all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... how about: "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration failed to find evidence that would affirm homeopathy's effectiveness for treating asthma..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How about using the exact phrase the study used. They concluded that In view of the absence of evidence it was not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating ....and or asthma dementia.Fair?--Dana4 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

or According to the researchers There was not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia" more than fair. --Dana4 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or as I suggested above, a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia. Anthon01 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Is the Cochrane Collaboration speaking for their study, or all studies and all science? Did they find any evidence? Or are they making the statement that their study was flawed? Or are they making the statement that all studies in this area are flawed?--Filll (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this is a long list, of which I presume that the others can be presumed accurately portrayed, or someone would have objected by now. The sensible thing would seem to be a rider, "and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend..." Or we could leave them out, which may be best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor.

Besides being grammatically sub-par, the citations for these three all end the same way: there's a paucity of good trials from which to draw final conclusions.

• Asthma: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma."
• Dementia: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia."
• Induction of labour: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction"

The most balanced way to present this is simply:

The Cochrane Library found insufficient clinical evidence to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for asthma^[ref] or dementia,^[ref] or recommend the use of homeopathy in induction of labor.^[ref]

I believe this is similar to the suggestions above. The current text improperly overstates the review conclusions, and this version is directly attributable to the text of the analyses. — Scientizzle 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects to my wording or content, I'll go fix it... — Scientizzle 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Scientizzle's rewording is an improvement. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle has come up with a version - "The Cochrane Library found insufficient clinical evidence to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for asthma^[ref] or dementia,^[ref] or recommend the use of homeopathy in induction of labor."

Anthon01 agrees with it. It is closeto what the Cochrane reviews concluded - "Plain language summary Not enough evidence from trials to determine whether or not homeopathy can help improve asthma.", "There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia." and "Plain language summary There is not enough evidence to show the effect of homoeopathy for inducing labour"

Both the asthma and labor studies found no difference between results from homeopathy and placebo, but there's nowt to assess in the dementia study. That one also includes a link to the more general NHS Direct statement which states no results better than placebo. [16]

In detail, the study says "Around 200 randomised controlled trials evaluating homeopathy have been conducted, and there are also several reviews of these trials. Despite the available research, it has proven difficult to produce clear clinical evidence that homeopathy works. Many studies suggest that any effectiveness that homeopathy may have is due to the placebo effect, where the act of receiving treatment is more effective than the treatment itself."

In the context of the whole paragraph, the point's already made in the preceding sentence that "Newer randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using highly-diluted homeopathic preparations also fail to find clinical effects of the substances.[7]"--Filll (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• All statistical trials are summarized on that basis. The failure to show an effect according to the statistical test does not mean there is no effect. it means what it says: if there is an effect, the studies are not sufficient to show it. Any textbook of elementary practical statistical analysis should clear this up. DGG (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • and I just noticed--it would in fact be possible to show that homeopathic treatments are less effective than other in proper trials, within the power of the statistical test to determine. The use of homeopathy is therefore primarily in those illnesses where it is very hard to show the actual effectiveness of anything. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental confusion

I suspect that we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is impossible to ever prove that homeopathy does not work, even if no evidence is ever found. There is no proof in science, and no truth, only in mathematics and logic. In science, all you can have is evidence, or no evidence. Period. --Filll (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the comments to the section above necessarily display a misunderstanding of this principle... explain. Friarslantern (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider that fact in all my edits and comments. Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion appeared to be in agreement with this Friarslantern. However, there are other suggestions which appear to be the result of some confusion on this point.--Filll (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will note that I have not examined the study in question in detail. It could have been a poorly designed study, and therefore irrelevant.--Filll (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

possibly. we've'll have to look tat it and compare with existing crtieria for a valid, well-designed stud y before we consider referencing it in the encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite to unprotect the page. If that happens, no edit warring. Article probation is in effect. Jehochman ^Talk 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good idea. The whole talk page is in the grip of rather... questionable questioning of sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it will be an interesting experiment. I will decline to edit because it is just too dangerous.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like being under the hoop in basketball. Watch out for those elbows. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

that metaphor sems irrelvent to the current situation. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Just trying to inject some humor. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

Given the article probation is now live, I've unprotected this article. Users that act disruptively will be added to the list of users placed under the article probation and should further problems occur, they will be blocked. I don't see future protection to this page, as the probation should cover most misconduct. Please edit the page sensibly, and keep a cool hat on when you move the page forward with the art of consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

missing box and cats

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=188535780&oldid=188534851

The box and cats have vanished. The box and cats should be restored. Quack Guru 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been extensive discussions surrounding this issue on this talk page. There is no consensus in favour of adding either, and there is in fact something approximating a consensus to leave both the box off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The box and cats meet NPOV. I want this article to be a good article and not a diluted article. Quack Guru 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterization of the consensus. I would say that there is roughly consensus to leave the box off, but the category has been on this page for some time and is generally accepted. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SA (edit conflict). I see nothing resembling consensus regarding the category. A rather succinct straw poll was conducted on the infobox a few days ago. The result was somewhat inconclusive, but seemed to lean towards delete. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I probably did overstate things regarding the category. I've struck through and edited my original comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

i support the psuedoscience category since evne if you dont believe that homeopathic science is psuedoscientific the fact that a lot of scientsits think that it is is grounds for it to be mentioend in the category. Smith Jones (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As an act of good faith I would appreciate it if you add back in the cats. There seems to be a consensus for it. Thanks. Quack Guru 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion over the last 7 days over the "Pseudoscience" category and box. There was no consensus to keep either of them. In addition, QG added a "Fringescience" category today. Adding such perjorative labels onto this article do not help improve it. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. We should not be bringing science down to the level of Homeopathy by categorizing it as any type of science. The Fringe Science cat needs to go. The scientist in me won't abide by the insult. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that, unless there is a source which states that the scientific community believes it is pseudoscience, the cat doesn't really belong, I think it should be left for now. First why not improve the article, to make it neither an attack vehicle nor something which seems like praise. Then worry about stuff that the general reader never knows exists. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For QG and other category-promoters -- Under WP policy at the present time, using the category requires a source. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. It's not "obvious pseudoscience" because it's not a tiny-minority absurdity. To say it's "Generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community requires an adequate source. Per discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, there doesn't seem to be consensus that the source we have suffices. If policy matters, we shouldn't use the source. If assuaging the feelings of editors and not causing offense is more important, then I guess we should use it. I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my comments and I do not wish to be uncivil. :-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#PseudoscienceGenerally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible... Please read the references. Thanks, Quack Guru 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 28, Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 27, and Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 26, which are occupied largely with this very debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has it right. It may be true that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", but unless we can cite a reliable source for that fact, we are not allowed to characterize homeopathy as pseudoscience. Get it, QuackGuru? On the other hand, if you want to challenge the statement about scientific plausibility on the basis of this policy, you might have a good case. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with QG again labeling homeopathy with a category listing it as "Pseudoscience" or "Fringe science". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some who have called it a "pseudoscience" (with attribution and with proper citing of source), but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" or "Category:Fringe science" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon homeopathy by using such perjorative category labeling. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the pseudoscience and fringe science categories, as these widespread opinions of the majority in and out of science can be easily verified. I don't support the pseudoscience info box as it is ugly --DrEightyEight (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source stating in essence that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", please let us know. Otherwise you can support whatever you want, but I'm afraid the article will have to stick to Wikipedia policy. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject is clearly pseudoscience, but I don't see how it can be called fringe science when it isn't any kind of science at all. Jefffire (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of books that describe homeopathy as pseudoscience however very few (if any) describe it as fringe science Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since consensus doesn't exist, lets remove the category. Why rehash the last weekends discussions. There is no RS the properly supports the inclusion of either the box or the category, as per Art and Jim Butler's comments. Those who favor inclusion, can review Archive26 and look for a source that supports the inclusion. Opinions alone don't cut it. According to WP policy and the extensive discussions already had lets take both of them out until we can find an appropriate source and move on. Anthon01 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

These three two categories have to go until we have consensus. "Pseudoscience | Homeopathy | Fringe science." Anthon01 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a virtual consensus but predictably Orangemarlin has put the cat back on so soon after Art had removed it with good reason. So it's back to edit wars all over again. Thanks OM! great job. Then you talk wistfully about so-called POV pushers. They are all on your side. Peter morrell 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sarcastic comments you make or how many of your friends' accounts you can get to show up and vote, homeopathy being a pseudoscience is a FACT, and thus belongs on the article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I suggest that in future you avoid sarcastic comments of this nature. Addhoc (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal of the box. Now I am convinced by the arguments that it is NPOV for the box to be in the article. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Quack Guru 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Which item in that section are you referring to? Certain this one would suggest the opposite conclusion: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Quack Guru 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, I figured that must be the one you meant. So now the issue is clear: is homeopathy "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", or does it "have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience"? Cite sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[5][6] and its "theory is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge."[7] Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11] and it is considered to be pseudoscientific.[12][13][14][15] A lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".[17] Also read the references. Thanks, Quack Guru 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, with all the noise on the talk page I must have missed it. What is the RS that says that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"? The references that currently exist in the article, helpfully re-cited by QuackGuru, are all, as far as I can tell, individual opinions, not statements about the scientific community. Or is there some reason you believe that this policy does not apply here? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

claims that homeopathy is pseudoscience

Above someone requested evidence for the claim that scientists claim that homeopathy is pseudoscience. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/1 does just that. Please, everyone who thinks that scientists do not believe that homeopathy is pseudoscience, please read it. It is short. To the point. And yes, that is how scientists think. Really. Maybe scientists are wrong, but that is what they think. They say: "By criticizing homeopathy, we hope to illuminate the general distinctions between science and pseudoscience." They use homeopathy as an illustrative example of pseudoscience; pointing out specific features that make it a pseudoscience. Please don't wiki-lawyer this away. Wikilawyering is disruptive. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If properly referenced, neutrally constructed statement is tendentiously removed from the article, please report who is doing this at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents, with diffs, and one of the administrators watching that page will consider whether a ban is necessary to stop the disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Art Carlson's objection seems to be that reliable sources don't specifically claim that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Unfortunately, they call it much worse:

[17] Leading scientists in the UK urge NHS to stop funding homeopathy, two different sets of them.

[18] Doctor: "It's witchcraft"

[19] Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, claimed homeopathy was ‘putting people’s lives at risk’,

[20], David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, "It's completely nuts," utterly asinine, "world-class meaningless bollocks." "gobbledegook"

same link quoting Richard Dawkins, "religion and homeopathy come in the same category"

[21], the treatment caused "cultural and social damage" and was "unsupported by evidence".

[22], "They won't call themselves faith healers, of course, or shamans or juju men. They will present themselves as 'homeopaths'" "homeopathy as quackery given by and for the feeble-minded" "To endorse homeopathy on the NHS is to endorse state deception"

[23] , "The Royal College of Pathologists, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society have all spoken out against plans to allow manufacturers to make therapeutic claims about their products." David King again, "criticised the Department of Health for supporting the use of the technique."

[24] Royal College of Pathologists: "deeply alarmed" "moved away from science", Medical Research Council: without "rigorous and objective evidence", 12 national societies have raised fears over patient safety and accuracy of information more: 600 doctors and scientists have also signed a statement which says homeopathic medicines should not be allowed to make "unsubstantiated health claims" and that the policy is "damaging to patients' best interests". Lord Dick Taverne, chair of Sense About Science: "regulation of medicines has moved away from the science"

[25] various doctors: "applaude your scientific community for their outcry" "makes about as much sense as weighing witches against ducks" "categorising these changes as an abandonment of science" "Lord Warner himself agreed in the debate that it isn't, because these products are 'in a different category'"

[26] "an outcry from much of the scientific and medical world", Lord Dick Taverne again, "abandonment of science" "equivalent of witchcraft"

James Randi, "irrational" "quackery" "Our prize is available to claims of pseudo-science" "I do not expect that homeopathy will ever be established as a legitimate form of treatment"

Now, it may seem a little unfair to throw in James Randi at the end, but he specifically uses the term pseudo-science, and of course, he offers US$1,000,000 to anyone who can show the difference between homeopathic water and tap water. Since most scientists don't study pseudoscience and therefore won't be making any specific claim I'd say it's totally valid for someone who DOES study pseudoscience, and puts up reward money to establish credibility, to take their claim that homeopathy at face value - and as a general statement from the "scientists POV".

The rest of those quotes were UK based, but thats because the UK medical establishment has been abandoning gov't and trust insurance funded homeopathic treatments at an extremely rapid for the last few years - so it's been a big press item and it becomes easy to quotemine. You cannot discredit those quotes though, as they represent the major bodies of medicine and science in the UK. Since we don't seem likely to put a category of "witchcraft", "quackery", "bollocks", or "religion" onto this article, I think it would behoove the pro-homeopaths to compromise on the term "pseudoscience". It's obvious mainstream science does not accept homeopathy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)