Talk:Homeopathy

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made by newly arriving editors is that this article presents homeopathy from a non-neutral point of view, and that the extensive criticism of homeopathy violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". &WP:OR The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Homeopathy FAQ. Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of homeopathy. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at google groups or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

The Lead

sorry to have 'hit and run' a bit with my editing above - but I still feel that the suggestions at Talk:Homeopathy/Lead are better than the lead we currently have... will try and work some of the suggestions above into the sandbox - and also try and merge the two suggested versions, with a view to replacing the lead before too long - I'm afraid I consider the current version rather weak. Privatemusings (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I am looking forward to getting a new, more concise lede here. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The book Snake Oil and the debate about Fundamental principles

In the book snake Oil [1] there is a foreword written by Richard Dawkins. In the foreword Dawkins says that homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles. I don’t have access to book so if anyone has the book it would be very helpful if you could take a look in the foreword and quote the few lines from Dawkins where he mentions homeopathy. (I know that the book is POV-pushing. However the quote is from the foreword and I think that the claims by Dawkins could be accepted as a reasonably RS.) MaxPont (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be found here. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to include such a statement if it is attributed to Dawkins and we don't give the impression that we embrace it. But the sweeping statement that "homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles" is over the top. Similarly to the incorrect claim in the current arbitration that "homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus" this is not based on fact, and the strong belief in such claims is probably a result of confirmation bias. There are fringe and pseudoscience topics that are so bizarre and unimportant that nobody bothers to debunk them, but homeopathy too notable to be considered one of them.

"Homeopathy" does not "defy fundamental scientific principles". For instance it is plausible that due in part to homeopathy's scientifically unplausible claims and structural similarities to religion and magic, homeopathic placebos are much more effective than conventional placebos. As far as I know there were some old (probably biased, because this kind of thing is awfully hard to get right) studies proving exactly that, and while some recent studies suggest that the placebo effect in general is much less than scientists believed until recently, I can see no reason 1) why these new studies should apply to homeopathy as well (where it's nearly impossible to test if we assume that most homeopathic remedies are placebos for all intents and purposes), or 2) why they should apply to the placebo effect of physicians in the 1950s as well as the modern physicians who were tested. Modern physicians generally have less time for their patients and presumably less interpersonal skills than their predecessors, who often had only the placebo effect to rely on and healed a lot of people anyway. And, of course, their patients really trusted them because they had phantastic new tools, like antibiotics!

I got an edit conflict with a link to the foreword. After a quick glance at it I would say that Dawkins completely ignores the points I mentioned. One could say that he shares with the author of the book a strong belief that the only thing that counts in medicine is the purely mechanic aspects of healing. In this mindset spontaneous remission is a big nuisance that must be prevented rather than encouraged. Our article about Richard Dawkins says: "According to Dawkins, faith—belief that is not based on evidence—is one of the world's great evils." I agree with that statement, but where applicable I apply it to scientists as well as to theologians. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for the assertion that there are people who consider that spontaneous remission is something that should be prevented, rather than something that needs to be taken into account when assessing whether a therapy works?

As for the suggestion that the magical and religious overtones of homoeopathy might mean that homoeopathy produces a greater placebo effect than conventional treatment, I can think of at least one proponent of homoeopathy who asserts that orthodox treatments have a greater placebo effect than homoeopathy: "But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns."[2] Brunton (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean my statement about spontaneous remissions literally. Here is a more moderate way of expressing the same idea: "Until recently, the placebo effect has been regarded as a nuisance effect in medical research. Indeed, its study in the context of double placebo-controlled trials has given the mistaken impression that it is a fixed quantity in the clinical situation. However, in the surgery, the placebo effect becomes the healing effect of the doctor, which will vary according to his skills and which may extend beyond simple good common sense and oldfashioned bedside manners." That's from a 1999 discussion paper (so not really scientific) in the British Journal of General Practice. [3] Modern medicine doesn't want to withhold the placebo effect from patients any more than patriarchal societies want to withhold self-determination from women or modern societies want to withhold a sheltered childhood from their children. It's collateral damage.

Of course most homeopaths won't agree with what I said, although I guess most wouldn't go as far as the one you quoted. I wouldn't go to a homeopath who thinks he is administering placebos. But if I ever get seriously ill I will at least consider going to a homeopath who believes in what he is doing. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We're drifting a bit off-topic here, but "modern medicine" doesn't withhold the placebo effect from patients. The only way for it to do this would be to convince the patients that "modern medicine" doesn't work, and I don't think it even tries to do this. The question of "collateral damage" doesn't arise. The source you've cited merely describes it as something that needs to be taken into account in medical research, not something that needs to be eradicated from medical practice. Brunton (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, we are drifting off-topic, so perhaps we should stop (in which case you are wolcome to the last word) or continue elsewhere. But I think the fact that we are in a discussion on the merits now, where both sides can see that the other's position is at least plausible (or are you just being polite?), shows that MaxPont's blanket statement about "homeopathy", which is easily read as referring to the therapy form, rather than to homeopathist's beliefs is problematic. However, the entire question seems moot anyway; at least I couldn't find any succinct statement about homeopathy in the foreword. Just a lengthy discussion explaining double blind placebo studies to the layman and a claim that homeopaths are not trying to prove the water memory effect because they don't believe in it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brunton, the quote is: "After all, if the double-blind trials of patient treatments came out reliably and repeatably positive, he would win a Nobel Prize not only in Medicine but in Physics as well. He would have discovered a brand-new principle of physics, perhaps a new fundamental force in the universe." I don't know if it was that good. MaxPont (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of sources for that:

• [John Maddox] (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature 333 (6176): 787. doi:10.1038/333787a0 - points out several ways in which claims that dilutions beyond the Avorgado limit violate fundamental principles of Chemistry.

We've been through this one before, too. (Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 35#Basic understanding) The only "fundamental scientific principle" that he mentions is the law of mass action, and that was in a rhetorical question. Not all the editors found that statement to be such a good source, either. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X Says Homeopathy is "absurd" and "wishful thinking", and specifically says that its claims about dilutions above the Avogadro number are one of the major reasons for belief in it being delusional.
• And, of course, that old standby position paper by the Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67149-8, which says Homeopathy is thoroughly debunked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This editorial says homeopathy has been shown not to work ("150 years of unfavourable findings"), which is not the same as saying it "defies fundamental scientific principles". There are lots of things that don't defy fundamental scientific principles, but still don't work. But anyway, what's your point? We don't have that language in the article anymore. Are you suggesting we should put it back? Or are you just talking? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you are still trying to cram even more wholly negative stuff into this article, then? These points have already been covered very adequately in the article as it stands. Why go even further? Don't you think this article is sufficiently negative about homeopathy already? That book by John Diamond, Snake Oil, is only reputable to the most way out anti alt med types, skeptics and folks like that. You should read his insane ramblings from the 90s in The Daily Mail; even weirder and more histrionic. It is hardly a reputable source. IMO. God knows what Nigella Lawson saw in him. Peter morrell 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was more about sourcing material already there. That "diametrically opposed to modern phramecutical practice" was always pretty weakly sourced, and we could do a lot better with something else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, they were talking of the Richard Dawkin's foreword and not of the book itself --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agreee with Peter Morell that there is too much negative stuff in the article and would gladly see some of it be reomoved. The way to satisfy both sides would be to insert something about "defy fundamental principles" from a reputable RS and then leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions. MaxPont (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have been following the discussions on this Page for sometime now. I wonder why this article on Homeopathy is so critical while all the other articles on Alternative Medicines are not.
• The 'introduction', more importantly, seems to be a bit too long--Homoeopath (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, there's a lot of bad, not-NPOV articles on other alternative medicines, and it's going to take a long time for Wikipedia to fix this. That doesn't mean we should rush to break this article. And, MaxPont, I'm afraid I didn't see Peter morrell saying negative things should be removed, only that no new negative material should be added. I might be able to agree with the latter (presuming we don't add new sections or something similar), but not the former. At this point, what we need to do is get things better sourced, and begin moving towards FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

11 May reverts

I have reverted a pile of undiscussed edits until they are discussed here first as per established policy on this article. thanks Peter morrell 09:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For people to see what reverts were done and discuss if necessary: combined diff of reverts --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All you and your shoemaking friend have to do is propose the changes and say why they are needed...or is consensus a dirty word with you two? Edit wars have repeatedly resulted from exactly that type of behaviour: undiscussed unnegotiated edits with non-explanatory edit summaries. Peter morrell 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, Peter :P I regularly do this sort of stuff to encourage discussion of edits on talk pages, often with edits done by anonymous editors on IPs. I had nothing to do at all with the edits themselves or with its discussion --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that what provoked Peter is that you linked to the "combined diff of reverts", when it would have been more natural to link to the [diff of Shoemaker's undiscussed changes] – the exact opposite. Linking (only) to the reverts makes it look as if the reverts were the problem, when the real problem was Shoemaker's use of the BRD method for a controversial change to an article where this is likely to cause disruption. I am also guessing that you didn't pay attention to this very fine point and that you consequently don't understand why Peter is "counterattacking" you. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered on Peter's talk page. P.D. Well, doh, he just deleted my post without replying [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the same paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the quote from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal). This all basically boils down to WP:UNDUE - the reaction to the shang pasper was being made to look wholly critical, but the only sources were the head of the societ of homeopaths and a piece in a very obscure journal. That's just not on.

Anyway, I'd have thought you'd have liked the changes to the lead. They specifically set out the scope as the higher dilutions, instead of treating all homeopathy as such. Frankly, I'd find studies of, say, a 6X dilution having a pharmacological effect as believable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You and your sidekick have still not explained this change you made to the article yesterday: Claims that these could still have a pharmacological effect greater than placebo violate, among other things, the Law of Mass Action, a fundamental principle of chemistry. what other things are you on about o, tag team of two? Peter morrell 05:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of the Nature editorial being referenced. It says there are many things that high dilution causes problems with, then gives the Law of Mass Action as a detailed example. Speculating what other things that the Nature editorialists might have written would be OR, but they were very clear that the example given was one of many possible ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Place the answer here then, or revert the unwarranted edit. Peter morrell 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if the RS says the example is one of many possible, waht's wrong with saying that it's one example of many possible? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it then that you do not know and the edit will be reverted as it is clearly unwarranted. Peter morrell 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want a concrete example, how about Atomic theory? Methodological naturalism, perhaps? But this is completely and totally OR. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, Peter. If the source says "among other things", why can't we? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple really: because we don't know what these alleged 'other things' actually are. They are just empty allegations or imputed 'things;' that is not sufficient. Until we do know, that should be fact tagged. Peter morrell 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. One editorial opinion is not enough for us to write that the claims of homeopathy really do violate any fundamental principles of chemistry, or even that the scientific establishment thinks they do. I think that even the claim of Maddox that homeopathy would violate the principle of mass action is internally too inconsistent to be included in the article. If we want to quote Maddox' opinion, that's another thing. And as a point of order, the wording here has been hashed out before and something like a consensus has been reached. Proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page first. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shang

The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the comment from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well OK but you should discuss things first before making savage edits without prior notice. This has been the establishe dprocedure for a long time now. It is designed to win consensus and so head off edit wars. Pity you can't be so positive about changes to include positive studies...every change made to this article adds yet more criticism. Why can't you add some positive stuff just for a change? Then your claim of NPOV might be a bit more believable. Peter morrell 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory and snide comments about other editors

Peter, your comments above are getting a bit over the top. Try to limit your comments to the issues and subjects rather than including snide and derogatory comments about other editors. It would sure help the editing environment. Your comments are uncollaborative and are violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You should be above this kind of behavior. Please do what you can to make editing here more enjoyable. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See also

I have added a few 'see alsos' to the article the last one being a bit suspect, but I didn't know how to format it...it is a bunch of studies that Tim dumped on my talkpage because they were gonna be deleted: User_talk:Peter_morrell/Selection_of_studies If anyone can reformat that to make it look better then please do so. It is in such a list that folks should look to find some positive studies of homeopathy which ought to be incorporated into the article at some point. Many such studies are listed and discussed in Bill Gray's fine little book Homeopathy: Science or Myth thanks Peter morrell 08:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could better explain why homeopaths think they have a scientific case. At the very least, this is interesting sociology, and helps present the homeopathic views. But I'm not sure this list is the right place to work from - It's a list created by a now-banned [and I believe non-notable?] editor, and I'd rather look at statements by homeopathic organisations and take our cue from what they say and cite. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter who put the studies together: they exist. Nor does it matter where they came from. The point is that positive studies exist and have been consistently excluded from this article by you and by others. If you are going to make any credible claim to NPOV, then some of such studies should go into the article. That is a very simple matter. But yes, you can also use those sources you mention as well; no problem with that. Whether they are RS or not is another question! But the overriding point is that the article currently probably needs a few positive studies adding in somewhere. Where they come from is not the main issue; putting them in, is. IMO Peter morrell 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'.

I read on somebody's Talk Page that the sceptics here have never tried Homoeopathy and that they are just theorising it doesn't work.

Peter, I read somewhere here that 398 studies which prove Homoeopathy works have been mentioned on this Talk:Homoeopathy Page (but I couldn't find those studies), so shouldn't you and the others consider those studies and change the introduction? — Homoeopath (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. I can see no connection between the word "quackery" and the present discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the 398 studies. Why 398? I have a quote somewhere which I will dig out about such studies and why 300 or even 3000 will never be enough; the anti- folks (who BTW control this article) will just pull them to pieces anyway as they have 'sheer disbelief' and 'ridicule' as their chief weapons, not to mention 'intimidation' and the semi-mythical 'power of numbers' on their side. But on a more positive note, it is a lively talk page. Peter morrell 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the word 'quack' or 'quackery' is used in a properly-cited, reliable source, and if we are responsibly and neutrally presenting a mainstream view on the topic, then there shouldn't be any problem with using the word. Homeopathic therapy and its practitioners are widely criticized by mainstream science and medicine, frequently with exactly that sort of pejorative language.

Whether or not any particular editor is skeptical of homeopathy, or whether or not any particular editor has tried homeopathic remedies, is entirely moot. We're not supposed to be presenting anecdotal reports or personal testimonials on Wikipedia—policy here demands that we supply proper, reliable, external sources. I, personally, have never been involved in a hysterectomy, trepanation, or the impeachment of a President, but that does not bar me from editing those articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the logic in your first two sentences is correct, then I recommend replacing "homeopathic therapy" with "homosexuality", and "'quack' or 'quackery'" with suitable pejorative words, and to try amending homosexuality accordingly.

And the word is not just offensive, it's also technically incorrect; we have no obligation to report accusations when we it's evident that they are over the top. A considerable percentage of qualified European medical doctors learned homeopathy as part of their training, and are applying it occasionally. Are they all quacks? Is the UK National Health system paying for quackery? Is the German public health system paying quacks? Perhaps if very notable sources in at least one country (presumably a country like the US, where this medical tradition was virtually non-existent for half a century) consistently said homeopathy was quackery, then we should report it. But look at our sources for this claim: A paper by a biomedical researcher, a letter to the editor in very specialised journal (written by a geneticist), and a paper in a Nigerian journal which deals exclusively with the situation in Nigeria. If these are the best sources, then this word has no business in the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you see, Homosexuality#Etymology_and_usage has a list of peyoratives and it doesn't feel the need to use any reference to source it, and Homosexuality#Prejudice_against_homosexuals makes a list of all the bad things that homosexuals are called, and some are sourced and others are not. If we were to use the standard from that article, then we should add way more adjectives than just "Quackery" and we wouldn't be so picky with sources. To clarify, it's obvious that homeopathy is being called quackery by many people, so stop asking for unnecessary sources, and take example from Homosexuality, where the guys from WP:LGBT don't feel the need to contest every single negative thing said against homosexuality and don't feel the need to raise the bar on sources. Indeed, it uses a ohio crime service site and a anti-gay and anti-lesbian site to source negative claims against lesbians, while here we are avoiding sourcing quackery claims from scicop.org and similar sources, which is exactly the place where we would more evidence for the usage of "quackery" on relation to homeopathy.

Not only homeopathy is listed at quackwatch.org (how non-quackery medicinal practices get listed there?), but homeowatch.org even has a 1854 report about dissolving the connection of Homoeopathists(sic) with the Massachusetts Medical Society[5], which shows how the use of quackery to describe homeopathy is not a recent usage and was used on the US. There have also been debates on the accucacy of the termpaper on the debate streaming video versionpage at National Center for Homeopathypubmed link(this might actually be a reliable source to source the quackery thing), Randi being interviwed by BBC's Horizon on quackery[6](another reliable source?). This is not a problem of not reliable sources, it's a problem of editors rejecting any negative claim unless it has impecable sources by the most stringent standards. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Webster Comprehensive dictionary (hard copy version) there are two definitions of Quack. 1...A pretender to medical knowledge or skill; or 2...A charlatan. As an adjective it can mean; 1...pertaining to quacks; or 2... ignorantly or falsely pretending to cure. Quackery is defined as; Ignorant or fraudulent practice. A trained and qualified medical practitioner who practices homeopathy can not be said to be a pretender to medical knowledge but in their practice of homeopathy they are not practicing medicine and they are in fact either pretending that homeopathy is medicine or, (out of an involuntary ignorance) believe that it is. It is debatable whether someone who believes in homeopathy is falsely pretending but certainly they are acting ignorantly. In the UK and in Australia, anyone can set themselves up as a homeopath; no training required. There are private registration boards but there is no compulsory legal requirement for registration. BUPA, a British private health insurance company says on its web site...There is no set organisation for registration of homeopaths, so this limits the control of homeopathy and your legal rights if you do have any adverse effects; they also say.... The best evidence fails to prove that homeopathy cures illnesses. Research shows that no homeopathic remedy has a clinical effect greater than that of a placebo for any medical condition.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Enric, Kenneth, I repeat, the word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'. The allegations made by people who haven't conducted trials according to Homoeopathic principles (i.e. using the individualisation process) should not be acceptable. I am an employee of the World's largest chain of Homoeopathic Clinics' and I can provide testimonials of thousands of people who've been cured (I believe web-sites aren't allowed a mention here, but if it was, I could have given you the web-site url to see for yourself). There are also lots of 'studies' which prove that Homoeopathy works (398 have been mentioned here already - vide archive 35)! --Homoeopath (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut sentence

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that most of these studies suffer from serious shortcomings in their methods.

This is all well and good, but I don't think it goes anywhere useful. Think it used to be followed by a description of Shang, if we're leaving that out, may as well leave this out of the lead as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you people remove Para 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction (it can certainly be put somewhere lower down)? Para 2 is only 'Criticism' anyway (which is against Wikipedia principles - it is not NPOV) and it shouldn't be part of the introduction! —Homoeopath (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, actually,t hat suggestion is the one contrary to Wikipedia policies. The lead is supposed to be self-contained and present all views, removing the scientific view would violate WP:FRINGE (and WP:LEAD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, according to that rule, the sceptics 'Fringe Theories' should not be acceptable and the whole of Para 2 should be removed! —Homoeopath (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...Um... No... I'm afraid homeopathy is the fringe theory. That's why mainstream medicine is not another term for homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page.

At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction.—Homoeopath (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jhingaadey, nice to have you back. So you have read about those 398 "studies", and you also want to remove paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction. You are not very smart, are you? 190.20.201.100 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a compliment or sarcasm?Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put a label on his page about suspecting him a sockpuppet, and several diffs to check it [7] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A 'sock puppet' is an alternative account used deceptively. I have never used any 'account' here before nor am I the said person you are accusing me of being. I did copy something from other pages, but this is ridiculous! Why don't you people answer my Question instead? Moreover, if "Arsenic Toxicity from Homeopathic Treatment" is possible, vide reference 22, how can Homeopathy be called 'placebo therapy' in the previous sentence?--Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thankyou