Talk:Homeopathy

Homeopathy and COPD

This study has been mentioned before, and Dana Ullman has introduced a ref to it in the Potassium dichromate article, stating that it shows homeopathy to be effective above placebo in treating COPD. If this is true then it is relevant for here, however I'm very sceptical, so could a few of us please give this journal a good review. It is from the Chest Journal (impact, rating?) and can be found here. Sorry if this has been discussed before --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange that the standard errors on the two groups actually overlap, particularly the errors of both length of stay and extubations. Since this is a very small difference in a very small clinical trial this isn't particularly convincing evidence of anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your reaction. What errors are you talking about? Here is info on Chest.[1] Click on the 'Chest" link to get detailed info. It is one of the most reputable journals. The difference between the 2 groups is significant. Anthon01 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not standard errors, but standard deviations. The difference will become significant if the number of cases is high enough, even if the overlap is large, as long as the means do not converge. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When that happens, it may be noteworthy. Antelan ^talk 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has happened, as the article shows. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean when the number of cases becomes high enough (current study had 50 cases). Favorite line from the study: The effect may be best explained by cybernetics, which means that the information of the homeopathic drug acts consensually on the regulator. Antelan ^talk 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And 50 cases proved to be high enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say it was not due to the skewed distribution of healthier patients? Fifty is not exactly a large sample. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the assumption of a normal distribution was incorrect? It would not be decisive, I wager. Fifty is quite large for these purposes. Oftentimes, twenty is already enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying with a small number of patients there might not be a normal distribution by chance. This is always the big flaw with medical trials, Pharma or homeopath alike. David D. (Talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The normal distribution is assumed for the population, not the sample. The parameters of the distribution are estimated from the sample, which is always open to uncertainty, but that does not necessarily lead to an overestimation of significancy. There is a lot more to it than that, but with 50 patients it is all likely to be a very minor issue. The thing to watch out for is the occurrence of outliers, which should always be investigated (e.g., they can be misdiagnosed patients). Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cybernetics" and "consensual" drugs? I think we can safely files this one under nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why? Please explain. Anthon01 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think you do know. Now if you'll pardon me, I need to quantum rectify my tea with a flux capacitor. Jefffire (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gobbledygook. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the definitions of those words. The study should be judge on whether it is a RS first, then study design, and not the choice of words in the discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Only 50 in the sample has been discussed. David D. (Talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probability was 1 in 10,000. You comments above seem to be based on a 'belief' that homeopathy doesn't work. Is that right? Anthon01 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the same for any trial with so few participants. It has nothing to do with homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That probability is the liklihood of the set of data representing a "real" difference in in the mean and variation that derives from the treatment, and is dependent upon the assumptions that 1. there was no "real" difference between the groups prior to the treatment and 2. no "real" difference in the application of the treatment compared to the placebo. I challenged that first assumption (see my comments on the other talk page). — Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your reason for challenging the first assumption? Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As the study was performed in 2005 and has not achieved a place in standard practice, has had no published follow-up research, and has received no citations that I have found, I don't see how this is noteworthy. Antelan ^talk 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two studies currently in the works. Anthon01 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When they report results, we'll chat. For now, see Scientizzle's point, below. Antelan ^talk 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This has gone off the rails a bit, and really should end--it's not helping the development of this article...further discussion could be held at Talk:Potassium_dichromate#COPD, but three of us have already hashed out a lot. Shall we all just agree to disagree and wait for the future replications to better confirm or disconfirm these findings? — Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, discussion would be appropriate here if the article were used to provide scientific evidence for homeopathy. I can see a difference (an error in the control preparation which could plausibly make a difference in effectiveness). But perhapsTalk:Potassium_dichromate#COPD would be better. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the National Center for Homeopathy

I would like an admin to add an external link to the National Center for Homeopathy, the primary organization representing Homeopathy in the United States. Their website is http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org I do not believe that this warrants discussion because the organization is essential to Homeopathy, and an external link is an obvious addition. Thanks. Strubin (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not essential to homeopathy - it's an American homeopathic organization. That said, why don't you just go ahead and add the link yourself? Antelan ^talk 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected...that's why. That said, I'm not convinced the link is necessary (which is why I haven't added it). Is the organization truly a standard-bearer for American homeopathy? Per WP:EL, does it "provide a unique resource" without serving as too promotional, and is there some overwhelming reason why this organization should be the only such one listed in the external links section? — Scientizzle 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it has a store page and an advertising page it is at least a little promotional. Also a google search for "America homeopathy" brings up this, [2] as the first link. A search for "United States homeopathy" brings up this [3] as its first link, a site which lists several USA homeopathy organisations. I see no reason to place the National Center for Homeopathy above all of these other organisations. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An even better question would be, why, if this organization is as important as Strubin claims it to be, has it not been added to the article until now? I think thats a better question. But regardless, its not really a necessary link. Just my 1.84 cents (damn American dollar). Baegis (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a non-controversial edit, so I've deleted the template without editing the page. Please do not re-add it unless you have an undeniable consensus to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

tobe preferctly honest, i dont see why the foremsot site for homeoatphy is banned from beng mentioned on the article for homeoatphy. woudl you ban the CDC's website on the CDC's own page!? it is very disturbing and sems somewhat suspicious baring any actual ruels prohibitinmg its inclusion. Smith Jones (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The rule prohibiting its inclusion is the following, from WP:PROT: "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be ugly about this, but this isn't a good link, nor is it uncontroversial. I get the feeling this is being proposed because strubin's wife is on the board of directors.[4] Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What a delightful oversight on strubin's part. Hmm... Baegis (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is only one Center for Disease Control and there are how many homeopathy organisations? If there was only one homeopathy organisation the link would be in there no question, but since there are several we are forced to evaluate whether or not the website is "the foremsot[sic] site for homeoatphy[sic]". JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is this doing here? This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I placed the blpdispute tag on the article and now the original author is threatening to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.203.106 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete medical theories

I don't see how a theory that is still being practiced can be called obsolete. Is there another term that could be possibly used?Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How long has it been in that category? I agree it sounds a little weird since there are medical doctors who currently prescribe such prescriptions along with a booming industry selling the stuff. Whether it works or not is irrelevant to whether it is obsolete, isn't it? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wiktionary, first definition: "(of words, equipment, etc.) no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which replaces the subject)." This is blatantly not the case with homeopathy in general. However, it gets a bit trickier when you consider it only on the basis of being a medical theory. Certainly, it's fallen out of favor among a majority of licensed doctors, but there is a notable subsect of them which uses it (and medical schools which teach it). Looking through the other articles in this category, they all seem to easily meet the standards of being obsolete, and I don't see any theories there which might be comparable to homeopathy. In the end, I think this category is best removed (once the article is unprotected, of course). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of (American) medical schools that teach this. Medical schools teach about homeopathy as a matter of awareness. There are schools that teach homeopathy, but they are not licensed medical schools. That said, the theory of homeopathy is more in contradiction to mainstream medical science than it is obsolete. There's no category for the former, of course. Antelan ^talk 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this list, which includes 5, possibly 6, licensed, American schools which teach homeopathy uncritically (most likely; it's impossible to know for sure without experiencing their classes). It's certainly not commonplace, given the total number of universities in the country, but it is a presence. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. After reading over a few of those, I didn't see any that actually taught this at the med school, but I didn't read through all of them. Antelan ^talk 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Further down in the post, he points out 6 which specifically mention homeopathy (well, one only mentions Hahnemann). Did you get to that section? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yes leave it to me to read only the first few items on a page. Let me read those and get back to you. Antelan ^talk 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my take on that list - all of those are "clinical" pages, promoting services to patients. None of those actually deal with the med school curriculum, with the possible exception of UW (which itself doesn't teach Homeopathy, but instead teaches about it). Antelan ^talk 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you could be right there. I'm just assuming that university clinics that offer it would also teach it to interns (if not necessarily offer whole courses in it). In any case, it's not particularly relevant whether it's taught or not - that it's practiced at all by places like these is enough for us to say it isn't obsolete. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly with you there! Antelan ^talk 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It got added last July during a flurry of edits. Filll asked "I believe that this category is appropriate and accurate and will make the article easier to find. comments?"[5] So belatedly, I do have a comment, i don't think it is appropriate given it is still in use today. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category is wholly inappropriate. As such, I've removed it from the article. — Scientizzle 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on why I find the category inappropriate...while it may not have broad acceptance within modern Western medicine (which is not a philosophical monolith easily pigeonholed), it's sufficiently practiced by medical and nonmedical practitioners worldwide that it's clearly not "obsolete" in the colloquial sense. And since there is legitamite acedmic study of homeopathy (if for no other reason than attempting to determine conclusively that the practice is nothing more than an elaborate placebo effect), I cannot yet comfortably agree that it's truly obsolete in the evidence-based medical sense. Discussion here makes it sufficently clear that such a category is not supported by even those obviously skeptical of the practice, so I am comfortable with my removal of the category from the page. — Scientizzle 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this standard protocol for protected pages? I was of the understanding that it was inappropriate for administrators to make contested changes, regardless of their personal opinions. Jefffire (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the objections to the removal didn't appear until after it was done. At the time Scientizzle made the change, only comments supporting removal were present, so it didn't look controversial then. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was a triffle mislead by the rather defensive tone of the justification above. Whilst I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the category, it would appear that removal was premature if the removing admin feels forced to entering into direct debate on the topic. Jefffire (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[EC w/ Jefffire] True. The point of my recent statement was to recognize that the discussion has shifted in timbre, but I am still confident that I made the right decision as I've yet to see a convincing argument that the category is warranted above what seem to be a variety of reasonable objections to said categorization. To put it another way, the onus of any categorization is on those that with to categorize the article, as the addition of a category conveys more information than the lack of a specific category. However, if I feel there is any wider dissatisfaction with my edit, I'm perfectly willing to revert and allow another admin to make a decision. Also, I will continue monitoring (and possibly participating) in this discussion, and if the status of consensus truly shifts, I'll take that into account and re-evaluate my action. — Scientizzle 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obsolete as a medical theory, because it is considered false by medical science. The existence of a large number of non-academic racists in the world does not prevent scientific racism from being an obsolete theory in anthropology, for example. The category is wholly appropriate. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Although homeopathy is still practised, it is not part of modern medical theory and is therefore currently an "obsolete medical theory". This is both true and verifiable, and to get it changed here homeopaths would first have to get it accepted as a modern medical theory. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW homeopathy is not a medical theory, it is a practical method about preparing and using drugs. However, having said that no fact or pratice is entirely without its adherent theory; briefly, then, homeopathy is far from obsolete and it is not a theory and so it fails to conform to the term 'obsolete medical theory.' my 10 cents Peter morrell 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be a theory now, but it was once regarded as such. I disagree with you that homeopathy isn't a medical theory (it is clearly a theory of medicine), and I'm sure we can both find refs to back up our view of its current status. However, it was once considered a medical theory, and is no longer considered part of mainstream medical theory, and is hence an "obsolete" medical theory --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is principally a method, though as a body of knowledge it does contain theories. For the convenience of your argument you seem hell-bent on totally ignoring the fact that it still exists and is widely practised, is that correct? i.e. it is far from obsolete. Whether it is what you call mainstream or not is surely a side-issue. It is not an obligatory component part of it being what you call a theory or of it being what you call obsolete, so I fail to see how you can make this defintion stick. The application of this term to homeopathy is thus pure OR, and pejorative OR at that. Peter morrell 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't argued for or against inclusion, I'm just pointing out that as a medical theory it is obsolete. The methods, practices, and beliefs of homeopathy constitute the homeopthic medical theory (of which there may be more than one). I haven't ignored the fact that it "still" exists. It is the case that homeopathic medical theories were once current and widely practised, however they have no place currently in mainstream medical theories, hence they are obsolete medical theories. Homeopathy itself is not obsolete, whether this is good or bad, but currently the theories fit the definition of obsolete. If you add a pejorative onto it then that has nothing to do with me; the fact that homeopathy isn't part of accepted medical practice/theory is the problem. That can be fixed by scientific study of homeopathy, which will show it works if it does work. However, as it stands now homeopathy is an obsolete medical theory. I think this is the least of this articles problems, but is very much linked to the big problems facing homeopaths--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete means no longer in use or no longer useful. There is quite a bit of ongoing research on homeopathy. Here is a recent study published in highly regarded Chest journal.[6] and 3 listed trials are using C30 dilutions.[7][8][9]

There are currently 11 open homeopathy trials. Anthon01 (talk) Anthon01 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the "medical theory" of homeopathy is obsolete hence the phrase "obsolete medical theory". As I've said about ten times already, I'm referring to the medical theory of homeopathy, and in current medical theory there is no longer a place for homeopathy - hence it is obsolete as a medical theory. Whether it exists or should be part of medical theory is different, but it is not up to wikipedia to judge --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it ever a relevant field of medicine? I was of the understanding that it was recognised as quackery from the beginning. Jefffire (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by homeopathy 'theory.' Please state the theory. Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a currently utilized health care modality. It is not an "obsolete medical theory" by any stretch of rational logic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But the homeopathic theory of medicine is not a part of the modern theory of medicine. I believe it was one of many competing medical theories that were in competition with each other until the establishment of modern medicine, the theory of which is now evidence based. Hence homeopathy as a medical theory is currently obsolete Whether homeopathy is a "currently utilized modality" (lovely word) is irrelevant to its obsolescence as an accepted medical theory. The way some people here are misunderstanding a rather simple distinction is really quite odd. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that the "modern theory of medicine" as you call it isn't a single, easily-definable entity. In the US, there are many varied clinics/hospitals/schools which all of slightly varied takes on what all comprises medicine. And, as I pointed out earlier, a small number of these include homeopathy (along with other alternative therapies, often under the banner of "Integrative Medicine"). They're very small in number, true, but they do exist, and they do consider homeopathy part of medicine. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that there is no one "modern theory of medicine" - there are many theories. Among these many theories that are being promoted as accepted and proven "science" by many medical doctors:

• the prescribing of cholesterol reducing drugs to reduce heart attacks (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous)
• the prescribing of Fosamax and other bisphosphonates to prevent osteoporosis (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous) Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you're making generalized arguments against the validity of medical science, does that mean I no longer have to "assume good faith" on your part? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the logical connection there. I think the only time you can stop assuming good faith is when bad faith has been repeatedly demonstrated and vastly outweighs instances of good faith. I'd hardly call that the case here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that User:Aburesz is not editing this article in good faith, but is instead advancing an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda. I don't expect the shortcomings of the AGF policy to be resolved here, I'm just pointing out that it only seems to be used as a bludgeon against editors who are concerned about factual accuracy and are fed up with mystical nonsense being inserted into Wikipedia, yet the other side can openly proclaim their hostility to science and no one cares. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont se the evidence that everyone is who supporting homeopathy shoudl by treated in bad faith, Randy Blackmoor. I think you shoudl continue to assume GOOD faith even itwh people who disagree with you, becuase doing other wise will lea dto an edit war when the article gets unprotected and end up with the whole thing having be to be prodected indefinitel.y. Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God, now there are three of you, and you still make no "sesne". It's hardly in the spirit of homeopathy either :) I disagree with Randy however, I think we should treat these people kindly. It is like heaping burning hot coals upon their heads. However, I get annoyed when people move from specifics to generalities, such as Smith Jones has done here. He questioned AGF of one person, not all homeopathy supporters. However, this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about AGF. I think it has been established that this edit is slightly controversial (homeopathic theory is currently obsolete, for the one reason given about 50 times, is a verifiable view, even if some disagree or think it is pejorative). Let's not talk about AGF or the actions of rouge users here. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a balanced article

I would remind everyone, especially Randy_Blackamoor, that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Accusing other editors of having a "hostility to science" and "an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda" is not helpful in building a consensus on creating a balanced article on homeopathy.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times have we had this discussion? Editors are not required to be "neutral" between what is true/verifiable and what is false. Articles are not required to pretend that false ideas (e.g., homeopathy) are true. It is not a violation of NPOV to write articles about pseudoscience from a scientific perspective. This is well-trodden ground on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i respectfully disagree with yhte above user. it makes no sense sofr and article to take sides on whetehr or not homeopathy science is valid ro not. the main goal shoudl be to compile source information ragardless of the opinions of the peopel ont he talk page. instead of screaming at eacho ther can calling each other "anti-science zealots" or whatever we shodul instead focus on gettin g as many valid sources as we can so that we can create an well-written article that contains all the verifiable information we can find so that this article can be unrpotected and finally become stalbe enough to submit to copy-editing and Smith Jones (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TYPING. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI>There is a misinterpretation of NPOV here. First of all, we do not give undue weight to fringe therapies. Not all sources are equal. Not all theories are equal. NPOV does not require the article to say Some people think Homeopathy works, some do. No, it requires us to state what is Homeopathy, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources states that Homeopathy does not work. That is the neutral POV. This is exactly what our job is. This is a scientific article because "practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores both the physical and psychological state of the patient", which explicitly state that this is a medical science. As such, it is subject to all the rules of pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackamoor, try not doing that kind of attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate way to deal with someone who refuses to write in legible English? The idea of collaboration becomes a farce when, in addition to all the users who are coming in with an agenda, the most prolific writer on the talk page is producing large chunks of totally incomprehensible pseudo-language, and then demanding that others figure out what he means so we can "collaborate" with him. I feel like I'm trapped in a Samuel Beckett play on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i am NOT sying that pro-homeopathy points of view should be given the same weight as anit-homeopathy. the VAST MARJOITY of scientific sources of homeopathy are skeptical and this article should relfect that. the only thing i take offense to is that some user want the article to objectively stat ethe homeopathy is wrong or evil, which IS a vioaltion of NPOV and possibly other rules of this encylcopedia. calling is a psuedoscience, is fine (AS LONG AS IT IS SOURCED, PREFERABLY MOLTIPLE TIMES) but any unsourced statements positive or negaitvie should be deleted. And Randy Blackamoor please stop it with the personal attakcs they are completely unhelpful and counterproductive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to state what Homeopathy is, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work (as well as those studies that state that it doesn't work). That is the neutral POV. Apparently some that have expressed themselves on this page are unaware of the data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont knwo about that, man. while i personaly believe that homeopathy is effectiv e in some cases, the majority of studies that i have seen so far sem to indicate that it does not always or consistently work. i think it would be a good idea to post a list of htose peer-reviewed and relaible sources here so that the other peoeple on this talk page can have a hcance to see them and evaluate them tos ee if they match what wikipedias requirements are. Smith Jones Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are these elusive studies that prove that Homeopathy does work? I have had my eye on this page for a good coupla months and haven't seen anyone put forth any reliable source that says homeopathy works any better than the standard placebo. It would be best if you go back and read over OrangeMarlin's comment above. It sums up all relevant polices for this article as clearly as possible. Baegis (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.

• Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.

• Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.

• Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936

• Gibson et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis study 1980. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1980. 9. p 453 Gibson and colleagues in Glasgow performed a double blind controlled trial of homeopathic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients with careful assessment of progress. There were only 23 patients in each group, both had full homeopathic interviews but one treated group received placebo instead of remedy. 19 showed improvement in the treatment group compared to 5 in the placebo group. p=0.001.

• Day C. Stillbirth in Pigs. Veterinary Recorder. 1984. 9114. p 216 This problem was reduced using homeopathic Caulophyllum compared with placebo. Veterinary experiments carry much dramatic effect as the placebo effect is considered less operative. A QED BBC TV Documentary program showed one half of a herd of cows being protected against mastitis by the addition of a few drops of phytolacca 30c to their drinking trough while the other half of the herd using a non-treated trough continued to have the problem.

• Reilly et al. Hay-fever study 1986. Lancet. 1986. p 365 A study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow set out to determine whether they could find any evidence to support the hypothesis that placebo response fully explains the clinical response to homeopathy. They couldn't. The study was a double blind controlled trial of 30c homeopathic potencies of mixed grasses and pollens compared to placebo. The improvement was significant for the treated group who even exhibited an initial aggravation of symptoms as might be expected for a homeopathic response. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard.

• Fisher et al. Fibrositis study 1989. British Medical Journal. 1989. p 365 Fisher and colleagues found a significant improvement in fibrositis cases in a rheumatology clinic using 6c potencies of Rhus tox. when those patients had the well known modalities of being worse when cold and better with continued movement. Previous studies had failed to show any difference but hadn't taken care to use the homeopathic indications for Rhus tox.

• Reilly et al. Asthma study using house dust mite 1994. Lancet. 1994. p 1601 A follow-up study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow to the hayfever study of 1986. The study was a double blind controlled trial of a 30c homeopathic potency of house dust mite compared to placebo. Of the 28 patients used 77% showed an improvement compared to only 33% showing an improvement with placebo. p=0.08. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard. The study was supervised by a consultant respiratory physician who recruited the patients for the study.

I can provide you with many more. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Acute maxillary sinusitis

Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.[10]

BACKGROUND: There is a demand for clinical trials that demonstrate homeopathic medications to be effective and safe in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis (AMS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical trial was to demonstrate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) compared with placebo in patients with AMS confirmed by sinus radiography. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial was conducted for a treatment period of 22 days, followed by an eight-week posttreatment observational phase. SETTING: The clinical trial was conducted at six trial sites in the Ukraine. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirteen patients with radiography-confirmed AMS participated in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-seven patients received Sinfrontal and 56 patients received placebo. Additionally, patients were allowed saline inhalations, paracetamol, and over-the-counter medications, but treatment with antibiotics or other treatment for sinusitis was not permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome criterion was change of the sinusitis severity score (SSS) from day zero to day seven. Other efficacy assessments included radiographic and clinical cure, improvement in health state, ability to work or to follow usual activities, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: From day zero to day seven, Sinfrontal caused a significant reduction in the SSS total score compared with placebo (5.8 +/- 2.3 [6.0] points vs 2.3 +/- 1.8 [2.0] points; P < .0001). On day 21, 39 (68.4%) patients on active medication had a complete remission of AMS symptoms compared with five (8.9%) placebo patients. All secondary outcome criteria displayed similar trends. Eight adverse events were reported that were assessed as being mild or moderate in intensity. No recurrence of AMS symptoms occurred by the end of the eight-week posttreatment observational phase. CONCLUSION: This complex homeopathic medication is safe and appears to be an effective treatment for acute maxillary sinusitis.

Anthon01 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not reputable, not authoritative, and not important. Jefffire (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the journal. Please clarify. This is an RCT that suggest an effect from a homeopathic preparation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have to go through every homeopathy pubmed reference now? This seems to be the direction things are heading. Folks, can we try to focus on important papers (you can get a very rough sense of this based on how many citations they have received) in archive journals that some have modicum of authority (if you don't know, impact factor can be used as a surrogate)? Antelan ^talk 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to bring up individual primary sources. There are plenty of secondary sources available, and these are the ones that common sense and Wikipedia policy say we should use. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

another study

Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. [11] Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.

Münchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universität, München, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. Anthon01 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this published in? Does it have a pubmed index? Adam Cuerden^talk 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added it above. Published in the Lancet. Impact factor 99.7. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, please see my suggestion above (that we don't just go through all primary papers referencing homeopathy, but instead be much more selective about what we choose to bring up on this talk page). Antelan ^talk 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i disage e with the prolbme. the main point of the talk page is to bring up as many rlevent sources as we can. then we can look through them and decide whithch ones that are good enought o be included in the article. after all isnt wikiepdias policy to Be BOld'Bold text'? Smith Jones (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of a talk page is to be conducive to forming a good article. If this were a subject that had only a dozen relevant papers, this may be an acceptable approach. Homeopathy is a vast topic, making this approach inappropriate. Antelan ^talk 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i see your point but how we oudl we decide which ones were aprporiate enough to be brough up for the talk page? Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a metric above; essentially, look at the journal's impact factor, then look at the # of times the article in question has been cited. Even if someone knows nothing about the journal or the topic, this will help them discover if it is considered important by others in the field.Antelan ^talk 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks you a lot for yourls help. sorry for not noticing the metrric above before i asked my quesiton. Smith Jones (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above:

Regarding "It's not relevant to the Wikipedia article anyway, since it's a primary source," can you please explain the policy to me? Anthon01 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." (my emphasis) I said it already here, and JamesStewart7 did a good good of explaining it in the second paragraph of this edit. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, what is it that you don't understand about the problem with primary sources? --Art Carlson (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arions arguemtn makes perfect sense to me. if everoyne else agrees to include those articles if necesary and posibel, then i see ::now reason why we cant askfor the raticle to be unlocked form editing. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)::

This is from Lancet. Art: Not everyone agrees with you. Primary sources can be used in certain occasions. BTW, this is a secondary source. Antelan: I believe your metrics have been meet. Anthon01 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize. I shot from the hip. Of course the Lancet article is a secondary source so this criticism does not apply here.
• The criticism, to which you have not responded, still applies to your previous edit.
• On the other hand, what point are you trying to make? This paper is already in the article as reference 14.
• And concerning policy, do you not agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely [primarily] on reliable, published secondary sources."? If you propose to add a primary source to the article, then you are obligated to explain why secondary sources are not sufficient in that case, and why that particular primary source should be chosen above all the other ones available.

--Art Carlson (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it's already mentioned. But also superceded by the later study. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is already mentioned and where? Why should the later study supersede this one. Science is not composed of only the last study. Anthon01 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you only knew... Antelan ^talk 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now what does that cryptic message mean?:) Anthon01 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it means "I would love it if that were true / in a better world you would be right." Antelan ^talk 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, but I'm tired of this pubmed dredging. This isn't how science works, and it isn't how Wikipedia works. There are primary sourcing with every concievable outcome, simply because of the manner in which statistics works and how some researchers are just crap at science. That's why it's daft to pick up every tatty piece of positive research ever done. What matter is if it was well regarded by the scientific and medical community who have judged it by their own expertise. Jefffire (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To make another point, quantity does not make up for quality when it comes to science. A ton of poorly-designed studies do not add up to good evidence. Even if you throw in a meta-analysis of them, Garbage in garbage out still applies. In judging what's true, you have to pay more attention to quality studies. Of course, we aren't in the business here at Wikipedia of making that judgment ourselves. That's why we rely on reliable secondary which will have judged that for us. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many people make ill-informed reference to the above Lancet's article that says: "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." It is necessary to note that the researchers defined "efficaciousness" as having at least three high quality clinical trials each conducted by independent researchers. At the time of the above Lancet meta-analysis (1997), there were only 2 trials testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza (or influenza-like syndrome). In 1998, however, a third independent trial verified its efficacy. It can now, therefore, be asserted that Oscillococcinum is more effective than placebo in treating influenza (note: it has not been found to be effective in preventing the flu). Even the Cochrane report has asserting that these results are "promising." It should also be noted that the above meta-analysis found that when reviewing only the "high quality" clinical studies and when adjusting for publication bias, there was still a 1.78 odd ratio, suggesting a clinically relevant effect from homeopathic medicines above a placebo effect. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

List of homeopathic remedies

An excellent suggestion was just made over at Talk:potassium dichromate. We should make a list called List of homeopathic remedies. This list can be exhaustive and cited to homeopathic sources and link to the substances that homeopaths say they use in preparing the remedy. That way we don't have to have discussion of homeopathy on the dozens of mainstream plant and chemical articles (except where measured to be prominent by independent mainstream reliable sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

that seems like a briliant idea and maybe we can incoroprate all the individual homeoapthic remedies listed on wikpiedia into that one article, with links to the major ones that actualy have articles. Smith Jones (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but we'd have to say what the remedy actually is, cite everything, and choose inclusion criteria, e.g. are we using Hahnemann? Kent? Kent plus a brief list of comercially notable additional remedies? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with what's currently used and reliably sourcable. Also, I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to make this a category as well/instead. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis of the article might be User:Peter_morrell/List_of_common_homeopathic_remedies, but this will need more sources before we move it into mainspace. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very poor basis as it stands, though - it doesn't even say what things are, and is effectively a long list of easter eggs, most of them FAILED easter eggs at that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...Also, that list contains "Water" and "sugar". While that may be the main ingredients of many homeopathic remedies, one rather suspects that Peter has just saved a copy of the corrupted list that got deleted for no context a while ago. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good source if you are really looking for a source. Homeopathic Pharmacopœia. [12] Anthon01 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a separate list of homeopathic medicines would not and should not negate the possibility to inclusion of a reference to fact in an article in wikipedia on that plant, mineral, or animal substance as a homeopathic medicine, as long as there is some special notability of the substance as a homeopathic medicine. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be a huge article! I think notability should be a factor, with a listing of the most popular ones. (For example, see Chiropractic treatment techniques.) Listing all possibilities would get us into promoting the special and weird preparations by individual homeopaths, and we don't do advertising here.

Here's a skeptical description of one of the most popular ones:

• "Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."[13]

-- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Fyslee, are you next going to say that the atomic bomb was a placebo because the actual size of an atom is so so small that it couldn't possibly cause any problems. But the real problem with your silly math is that you are ignoring three large (over 300 patients) independently conducted double-blind and placebo controlled trials. Stop the theorizing about what you think are placeboes. Theorizing isn't science. Look at the results...or show me results where Oscillococcinum didn't work in the treatment of the flu. Wiki is not a place for theorizing; it is a place for results. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that comment is at all useful, Mr. Ullman. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course such a comment isn't worth a reply. Dana Ullman has just disappointed me. I would have expected something better. I guess this incivility can be added to the evidence against him. It's sure piling up! -- Fyslee / talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Theorising isn't science?? I've been doing it wrong then... but then I am a theoretician. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record:

Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. - not enough evidence to recommend its general use

van der Wouden JC, Bueving HJ, Poole P. Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews. Respir Med. 2005 Nov;99(11):1341-9. Epub 2005 Aug 19. PMID 16112852 - its popularity is not justified by the evidence. 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved in this, but DU's example not really effective: Mainly as there are all these reactors that kind of prove the theory while a Japanese city or two wishes it was a placebo. BTW Wikipedia isn't about results it's about verifiable information from reliable sources. FWIW the article should be on the subject (ie/ homoepathy) with elements from all sides - including the rather large amount of evidence saying it doesn't work and a smaller section on the evidence which says it works, just like any other WP:FRINGE subject. We may not like it, but thats why Wikipedia has it's policies :-/ Shot info (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Potassium dichromate#Category: Homeopathic remedies, we would include citations to substances, their homeopathic names, and the symptoms they purportedly cure. Yes, I realize that many remedies don't contain a single molecule of "active ingredient," but such a list would be 200C better than Category:Homeopathic remedies, as we now have. With a list we can explain upfront that many remedies have been diluted to nil. Categorizing things like sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy would be absurd, and creating an homeopathic content fork for Natrum muriaticum (like Ferrum Phosphoricum) is a sickening proposition to me.

With all but the most notable homeopathic remedies, it would be undue weight to note their homeopathic use on the main article, but this list will solve the problem. We don't have to mar coffea by writing about how coffee is diluted in homeopathic sleeping pills. We just list it on the table of homeopathic remedies, where it's not undue weight, and be done with it. We should limit listed remedies to commercially-available mass-produced preparations.

I think it has the potential to be one of the most illuminating and useful articles about homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On sources: we should be able to find some homeopathic treatises that list common remedies. For example, this book picks 60 "common" remedies out of "literally thousands," and this book names 15 remedies which the author says conventional pharmacies should stock. We can combine several such lists of "common remedies" and source them, listing each source as a reference on each substance and purported symptoms on a table. It would look like:

Natrum muriaticum[1][3][4][5] | sodium chloride | dehydration[1][4][5], headache[1][3][5], ect.

I think that would be easy for readers to parse. If we only use secondary sources listing "common" remedies we'll avoid OR, and we'll also keep the list manageable. The real challenge will be selecting the most authoritative secondary sources. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should have common dilution information too, in both homeopathic and scientific notation. Perhaps a not on dilutions beyond 12C that there is none of the substance remaining, and a link to the appropriate section of the homeopathy page. --RDOlivaw (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see such an article becoming very long, unmanageable and pointless. But then again, it's not been tried yet. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have rules for keeping it concise (so no discussion of individual remedies, just a table of info with wikilinks and refs) plus some footnotes for things like dilutions, then it shouldn't be too bad. We might have to be strict about the notability (specifically that it's in common use) though. I think it's worth trying, and will remove some heat from this and other articles. Kept in one place it's easier for all parties to keep tabs on, and rules for inclusion should be reviewed every now and then, and additions discussed on it's talk page with a justification. Maybe it won't work, but it sounds a bit more positive than some things that have been happening. It will also still be under wiki policies of undue weight and fringe too. I think it could be a disaster, or it could just tidy things up a lot --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on the proposal. I understood it to mean that there would be a link from List of homeopathic remedies to (for example) Potassium dichromate, but (normally) not a link in the other direction (or indeed any mention in the main article of the application in homeopathy). Is this correct? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links to the substance would be one way. A link from the substance to homeopathy would remain as rare as it is now (in some cases rarer, as stubs can be replaced by the list). So there would be no link from Potassium dichromate --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there is a rationale developed for this. I actually came up with it in discussing whether redshift quantization should be linked at redshift. Remember the good ol' days, Art? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that the current article omits information as to how particular substances come to be identified with a particular therapeutic property. Such explanation would need to be provided preliminary to the compilation of list under discussion, lest WP become a repository for lists of merely arbitrary character. Such an explanation can be theoretical, and need not engage that point that there is no evidence for the efficacy of any of the claimed effects. Naturezak (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the section on provings not clear enough? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a good source? Homeopathic Pharmacopœia. [14]

I think a published copy could be a good source for purported symptoms cured, but as a list it's much too long. We should confine the list to the most common remedies. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use the whole list, just highlights. Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A good reputable source is [15] though oibviously it has a few more remedies than is planned for here! It can be used as a good source for the common ones. Peter morrell 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies that are on the shelves of normal high-street pharmacies or have significant, independent press coverage should certainly be included in the list. Perhaps a another good general test would be if the remedy has been discussed in the journal Homeopathy? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources and Notable + NPOV

I think this would be helpful. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation ... Examples of primary sources include ... written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research;

Copied from Anthon01 (talk) (User talk:Danaullman15:25), 22 January 2008

--David2008 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was about to post that here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Those currently in the article are used to blatantly editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research found in hundreds of primary sources - that has been extensively performed world-wide - which is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A frequent argument for or against inclusion is notability. From my reading of WP:Notable it appears that notability is being misused.

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem with using scientific papers as primary sources: Even though you can easily report what the study says, what you can't judge is what it means. Scientific studies are done and come out by the barrelfull. By chance alone, 1 in 20 studies will show a statistically significant effect even when there is none (and another 1 in the 20 will show a significant effect in the other direction). Publication bias then leads to these significant studies being significantly more likely to appear in journals. Add on top of that that for subjects like this, the proponents are notoriously sloppy with design, and in the end you end up with a number of studies that show positive effects rivaling those that show no effect (the exact ratio depends on many factors, including what quality of journal you look at).

What this means is that you can't look at a single study to judge whether something like Homeopathy works. Even if the study seems to have been designed perfectly, shows a large effect, and has a large sample size, you still can't judge from one alone. You have to allow other, independant scientists to attempt to replicate the results. Remember cold fusion? Seemed awesome at first, but failed replicability.

Over the history of homeopathy, there have been hundreds of studies performed. It would be idiotic for us to discuss all of them. What makes sense is for us to go one level up, to look at reliable summaries of these studies. So instead of relying on individual studies, we look at meta-analyses and reviews. That is, rather than discussing what every single primary source says, we go to the secondary sources and discuss what they say. When the discussion leads us to want to zoom into specifics, we cite primary sources that argue a particular point, granted, but this does not mean that every primary source is automatically deserving of a mention. There is nothing in particular about the study you're putting forward that merits it particular mention - save perhaps as a notable failure of the peer-review process (though we can't put that in until it's notable and some secondary source has reported on it). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned". I agree with this. Second option : We could also exclude all primary sources, positive and negative, and use only metanalyses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David2008 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the essay. You said, "notable failure of the peer-review process" What are you talking about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that in regards to how that potassium dichromate/COPD study made it through into Chest. There are numerous problems with the study that should have been caught by peer-review and yet weren't. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is simply personal opinion until some reliable secondary source covers this topic. If you wish for me to go into details, I could do so, but I warn you that it gets rather technical (I'm not doing it already as my analysis of the study doesn't have much place on Wikipedia). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The history of publication (preponderance of high quality evidence) part I understand, although even meta-analyses need to be reviewed also since they can include original research, poor design, etc ... I think I'll be ok since I have a extensive science background. Please understand that I am trying to nail down inclusion criteria for WP. Happy to here your opinion and would like to know how your opinion applies to the WP inclusion criteria. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability is about articles, not sources and citations "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable". It has no relevance to the discussion about sources, which are covered by WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE etc --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. However the term notable is used sometimes by editors on WP to exclude a citation, a misuse of notable. That is the point of my quote from WP:NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Every instance of the word "notable" on Wikipedia talk pages does not mean "notable" in the hyperlinked, inclusion guideline sense. WP:N quote for you: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. Even if one discovers a particular study that confirms one's preconceived bias on the topic at hand, its inclusion in the article is still subject to community consensus (which can include determining whether the citation is relevant and/or appropriate) and must fit all relevant policies and guidelines in its presentation (i.e., NOR, NPOV, V, FRINGE, COATRACK, and many other all-caps shortcuts). Many have also clearly argued that the inclusion of any single study as evidence that a homeopathic remedy works is fallacious: definitive statements about the efficacy of any treatment cannot be determined from any single study (indeed, I stated as such: "Only through careful weighing of the entire scientific literature on a subject can the development of a scientific consensus occur...[a single] study, ultimately weighted by the soundness of its methodology and the ability to reproduce these results, will become a part of that literature. From it, future work can be designed, methodologies tightened, and hypotheses tested that will better determine if this is a true effect...whether this particular remedy, at this particular dilution, given at this particular dose, aiming to treat this particular ailment, in these type of people, is in fact an effective treatment").

I've already stated on this talk page, "Primary sources...I think are useful in sections that present the various treatments that have been scientifically explored, and noting methods for those explorations, but shouldn't (generally) be used for any definitive claim concerning the overall efficacy (positive or negative) of a specific treatment for a specific illness." I then provided a list above of every major literature review and metanalysis (these are secondary sources), in a section above, available on PubMed, published since ca. 2003. These have seemingly been lost in fog of this talk page. So, where does that leave us? I don't see many examples of primary sources being misused, and would welcome anyone to point out such an instance. — Scientizzle 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Some editors say a citation can't be used because it's a primary source, others say you can't use a citation because its not notable. It both cases their justifications are wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your summary, though short, is incorrect. He said a lot more things, that are more relevant --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Anthon01, your summary is completely devoid of nuance, making it an incorrect paraphrase of my response. There are certainly times in which a primary source cannot be properly used, and the argument that a particular publication is not notable (not notable, just "notable" in the colloquial sense) with respect to the article's subject is a perfectly valid argument to make. — Scientizzle 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The limitations of a text only media. I agree with almost everything you have said above. My summary was not an attempt to recap or paraphrase your comments. I was recaping the points that I was making with the above quotes. The beginning of your your essay reflects my understanding of WP:Notable. My reason for raising it here was the use of lack of notability to exclude citations here. Sure notable in the colloquial sense is premissable. Perhaps I have mistaken the colloquial use of notable by some or all editors for the 'misuse of WP:Notable.' The only exception or caveat that I would offer regards meta-analyses; they are not necessarily the best way to determine effect. I will review the ones you have listed above. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

okay so are primary sources bads or not? i visited all the ALL-CAPS shortucts that Scietnizzle linked to and it didnt seem to me that NOR or COATRACK were relevant at all. no-one is sguesting including their OWN research in the article and this article is not obviously a cove r for a bunch of biased trash relating to something unrelated (its still up in the air whether or nto the COVERAGE of homeopathy itself is biased but id ont think that anyone in either camp has acused us of being biased one way or another against something that is unrelated to homeopathty to be certain). so all i wanted clarificd was whether or not primary sources would be dismissed automatically or not. Smith Jones (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ???

Then you should reread them and this discussion until you understand. They are not automatically worthy of inclusion, nor unworthy. This is decided by concensus, guided by the wikipedia policies noted above --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thats just it. ive read and reread ths debate like 6 times and it still looks like a debate or an argument wrather than a statement of the consensus on this talk page relating to the poliycy. at first it looked like we werent supposed to use primary sources, then it looked like we were supposed to use priamry sources if they were approved by consensus, and then it switched back for a bit, then it looked like several users misinterpeted what the other users were talking about, and now User:Anthon just declared that "we are in agreement" but about what i have no clue at all. I think we should clearly state the consensus somethwere else to avoid wasting any editors times, sicne i know that im not the only one here who doesnt understnad what everyone is talking about. Smith Jones (talk) ???

I'm sorry if I've confused you. I agree for the most part with Scientizzle's inclusion criteria. All primary or secondary sources require consensus, especially on this page. Primary sources can be used, to describe aspect of that primary source, like topics of research, research methodolgies, even the results of a particular study, etc ... But a primary source can not be used to prove or disprove homeopathy. I know you've suggested in the past that one positive study proves it, but it takes a preponderance of evidence over time to come close to proving anything. I haven't looked at references from the text Arion 3x3 posted below. Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of primary sources being misused in this homeopathy article to create the wrong impression that the only research that has been done on homeopathy has led to the conclusion that it is worthless (except for placebo effects):

Since homeopathic remedies at dilutions higher than about D23 (10^-23) contain no ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no chemical basis for them to have any medicinal action. While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes including the growth of grain, histamine release by leukocytes, and enzyme reactions, such evidence is disputed since attempts to replicate them have failed. Newer randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using highly-diluted homeopathic preparations also fail to find clinical effects of the substances.

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor. Other researchers found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis, migraines or delayed-onset muscle soreness.

This is an obvious attempt to editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research, found in hundreds of primary sources and which is is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which parts specifically do you disagree with? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusrezc|Arion 3x3 i agree iwth your position but i think that we should wait until consensus has approved all of your soruces before we use them in the actual article, since it was mentioned about that someone of those sources are not valid scientificaly or notable. Smith Jones (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006." I think sentence needs to be changed. Anthon01 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence should read to the effect.

One study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in Cancer was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006."

--Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's accurate the way it was, if inadequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean It's accurate the way it was, if adequately sourced, is that what you mean? Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean it's clearly accurate. Additional sources should should be added to support "Studies show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo[1][2][3][4][5][6]...". (I'm not saying there aren't some studies showing effectiveness, and the vast majority of published studies are so badly designed that they show nothing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So have to show numerous if you are going to use that language. For now the sentence is not properly sourced. The sentence I provided is supported by the citation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence is biased, as it implies there is only one source. Perhaps we could settle on "A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in Ccancer (treatment) was published in the European :Journal of Cancer in 2006,", for the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not bias. It is reflective of the citation that was placed at the end of the sentence. I submit that as it stands the sentence is editorializing. "One study" is stated without prejudice. Does "A study" suggests there's more? If not, I'm ok with "A study." Anthon01 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

←Let's zoom out to the original paragraph:

One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

Why not this:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

— Scientizzle 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to turn one study into six. It is the result of one study, and not six trials that we are commenting on. Anthon01 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a secondary source analyzing six trials: it is the results of six trials. (In fact, there were "55 potentially relevant studies, of which six met [their] inclusion criteria") — Scientizzle 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the source quotes that "five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study". This should be fixed, for sure. — Scientizzle 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, the statement was accurate given the info in Tables 2 & 3. — Scientizzle 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is published as one study. The results are not the result of six individual trials but a compilation of extracted data from six trails. Anthon01 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's published as a meta-analysis of six studies. Do you know what a meta-analysis is? (honest question, some don't) There are six citable trials that were analyzed. — Scientizzle 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. The data is extracted and manipulated and a conclusion is reached; the data is not a summary. Anthon01 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Scientizzle's version is improved, although the concluding sentence isn't obviously related to either version of the rest of the paragraph. I'll have to assume that it really is their conclusion. As for Anthon01, "one study" clearly implies (the false statement that) there are no more, while "a study" seems neutral to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Let the reader form their own impression. Remember we are trying to be NPOV.

A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in cancer was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

or something to that effect. Anthon01 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what was POV about my version, and I honestly think mine read better. — Scientizzle 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is one meta analysis not six trails. Six is bigger than one. Anthon01 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this.

A study published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006, which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in cancer, was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic, radio and chemotherapy treatments, from 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Anthon01 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a meta-analysis of six trials. What's wrong with the wording there? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just needed to walk away from it for awhile. It seems fine to me too. Let me see if I can improve on the text. Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six cancer trials comprised of homeopathy, radio and chemotherapy treatments, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six cancer trials comprised of homeopathy, radio and chemotherapy treatments, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo. The study included three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Anthon01 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

These misunderstand that the homeopathic treatments were for ameliorating the negative effects of chemo & radiation. — Scientizzle 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the study. Do you? THe abstract certainly isn't clear in that regard. Are you saying that the study was to treat the side-effects of cancer therapy? if that's true then the next sentence is wrong. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't right now...and upon re-reading the abstract, I'm inclined to agree that something isn't clear. I'll check it out tomorrow when I have full access and report back, okay? — Scientizzle 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E (2006). "Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment". Eur. J. Cancer 42 (3): 282–289. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2005.09.025. PMID 16376071.

"The main outcome measures we considered were efficacy of homeopathic remedies for treating symptoms in cancer patients and cancer survivors. Secondary outcome measures included tumour response and quality of life."

Conditions investigated: Radiation reaction, Chemotherapy-Induced stomatitis x2, Radiodermatitis, Menopausal symptoms, Estrogen withdrawl symptoms. It doesn't seem like they are treating the cancer itself.

Anyway they basically go on to say that the results are positive but many of the studies were poorly done (there are many more criticisms not quoted).

"Five out of six trials included in this systematic review yielded positive results, which suggest the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for cancer care. Cancer patients appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions specifically for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, radiodermatitis and general adverse events from radiotherapy. Breast cancer survivors, suffering from menopausal symptoms, experienced a general improvement on their quality of life." ... "The main limitation of our systematic review is the lack and sometimes poor quality of the primary data. The studies we evaluated were highly heterogeneous in virtually every respect. In some studies, individualized remedies were applied. Although individualization of therapy allows homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing outcomes. In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy."

I'll take a shot at fixing the quote to more accurately reflect the reviews. I think it should be mentioned that there were positive results but the results are perhaps questionable. By the way this is particularly suspicious, "Statistical analysis for significance was performed in all the studies, but only four provided statistical features in their result sections." as is this "This study also lacked complete information regarding patients and remedies, as well as essential methodological details, such as randomisation method." I think I'll summarise these problems with something like "the authors stated that several of the studies contained incomplete methodological details or statistical results." JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok as my edit was reverted can someone please enlighten me as to how I may "Report the conclusion of the entire thing, rather than its parts". I felt a change was necessary as the last sentence is demonstratably inaccurate but I don't really see what was wrong with my revision. I could cut it down to
"In a 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found that the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy in this area was "encouraging but not convincing"
This wording is very close to the current content with the inaccurate statment removed (see my quotes above) and the quotation is from the second last sentence of the article. Hopefully this qualifies as "the conclusion of the entire thing". JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Actually I'm going to make an edit which just corrects the inaccurate statement and we can discuss any other changes here. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because I thought the version gave undue weight to the component parts of the study with positive results. They were the weaker parts, and entirely contradicted and overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. To avoid confusion to reader without the relevant statistical experience (and the lead is not the right place to start explaining statistics), it is far more appropriate to simply report the overall conclusion of the study. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the positive results are overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. However, it should be noted that the stronger negative parts are not larger studies that found negative results. There was a positive trend found in the meta-analysis. This trend was disregraded (and rightly so) in light of the rather poor quality and poor reporting of some of the positive studies. However, it seems most of this adjustment was done post-hoc (above quotes were from the discussion) instead of just excluding the studies before any analysis (like Shang did for example). Now, I can see why they did this (only 6 studies) but from your response you would think their decision was purely based on the statistical analysis but that is not my (albeit brief) reading of the study. Don't get me wrong, I probably would have done the same thing if I was the researcher but it was not a statistical judgement so I don't see why the reader would require statistical knowledge. It was a judgement based on the rated quality of the studies.

Perhaps we can elect not to include "five out of six trials" but I believe it is inaccurate to ay the researchers found "no evidence" for homeopathy. This is not what they said at all. They said there was evidence but it was not convincing, "In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing." This makes this statement, "The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy for cancer care" a poor representation of the author's actual conclusions. I can see your point about the changes being confusing to someone without statistical knowledge but I think we need to amend that statement somehow. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your correction on the post-hoc analysis, and agree that more accurate wordings are possible. It's tricky not to write something that could be misinterpreted though. Jefffire (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will do at least temporarily.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found insufficient evidence of homeopathy being effective in cancer care. The authors concluded that the evidence was encouraging but not convincing.

Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Paper quotes

Alright...direct from the paper itself, the authors descibed the presented findings of the six studies as

Five out of six trials included in this systematic review yielded positive results, which suggest the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for cancer care. Cancer patients appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions specifically for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, radiodermatitis and general adverse events from radiotherapy. Breast cancer survivors, suffering from menopausal symptoms, experienced a general improvement on their quality of life.

The conditions studied are listed as:

• "Radiation reaction"
• "Chemotherapy Induced-Stomatitis"
• "Radiodermati-tis"
• "Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis"
• "Menopausal symptoms" (post-breast cancer treatment)
• "Estrogen withdrawal" symptoms (post-breast cancer treatment)

The authors concluded:

The main limitation of our systematic review is the lack and sometimes poor quality of the primary data. The studies we evaluated were highly heterogeneous in virtually every respect. In some studies, individualized remedies were applied. Although individualization of therapy allows homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing outcomes. In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy.

This was summarized thusly in the abstract:

Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.

Given the above information, I think this is an accurate and fair synopsis:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce side effects from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found "encouraging but not convincing" evidence in support of homeopathic treatment; the meta-analysis authors concluded that variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided "insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care."

Any objections to adding this? — Scientizzle 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we shorted that? Jefffire (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I think the clause of "including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials" can be readily removed (it may be slightly misleading, too, as the studies had variable blinding, randomization & controls), plus a couple of other tweaks, producing this:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce cancer therapy side effects following radiotherapy and chemotherapy found "encouraging but not convincing" evidence in support of homeopathic treatment, however variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided "insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care."

— Scientizzle 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good wording, but too long for the intro (it has become something of a bloated cow). Might it be a better idea to move it into the main text? Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I never intended this for the lead, if that's what you're saying...this is merely to replace the slightly erronious main text explanation. — Scientizzle 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My error, just with everyone talking about the lead...:) Jefffire (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this was well done. My only objection isn't content but readability. I think it needs to be two sentences. It may be easy for you or I to read it, but tedious for others with less education. Anthon01 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotected and How to write a lead

The page is now unprotected; protection is only temporary and it has been more than a month in a protected state. I would hope that during the protection editors have engaged in constructive discussions on how to resolve their disputes. Any further disruption to this page may not result in further protection, but may result in editors losing temporarily their editing privileges. Let's hope that neither would be necessary. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The WP:LEAD needs to be a summary of the main article. As it stands it is not. The lead would benefit from compliance with the guideline, that advises us (my highlights):

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain which parts of the lead are causing you problems, or what you think is missing? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the lead is causing me problems... But the lead is non-compliant: (a) It is too long; (b) It does not provide a concise summary of the article; (c) it is giving undue weight to the critical viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on length. The lead used to be shorter (and better than the present one, in my view). But I don't see how it's giving undue weight to criticism, given that the majority view (per WP:WEIGHT) is critical of homeopathy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix the length first, and then we can address the weight issue. This is an article about Homeopathy, not about the critical view of homeopathy. As an extreme analogy, take an article on God. The scientific view is that existence of God cannot be proved, yet, the article about God and its lead does not use 1/2 of its space to deny its existence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't strike me as particularly apt. Many (most?) of the proponents of homeopathy insist that the practice is scientifically valid. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we say so in the article's text. NPOV writing is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE mis-interpretation, maybe?: The "majority" vs. "minority" needs to be assessed in context. A significant majority of the scientific studies on Homeopathy, assert that it is just a placebo effect and quackery. We should say that in the article. The significant majority of Homeopathic organizations claim the contrary. We should also say that in the article. We need a balanced view of the subject so that our readers get the full picture of the dispute: as per NPOV None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some say the earth is flat, others say it is round," eh? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no... A good summary of the excellent section "Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis" would do the trick. I look forward to see a reduced version of the lead that summarizes the article's content in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where I think many editors get it wrong. Policy says briefly mention notable controversies. The problem is we run the risk of turning off a potential reader if the lead is too heavily weighed towards criticism. Science is not the only view presented in WP. There are historical and cultural POV, that are at least as important as the scientific view. The majority of the scientific view is that there is insufficient evidence to support it and that no plausible mode of action has been found. In spite of that, homeopathy is still being studied by science as there exist 1) limited data on an effect and 2) researched methods are being perfected to determine whether any sufficient evidence will be uncovered. Anthon01 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-stated. Friarslantern (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's misstated the majority scientific view. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, that's not the majority scientific view, which is that not only is there no evidence, but it is nearly certain that there will never be evidence and that the atomic theory of matter makes it impossible for homeopatic remedies to do anything, ever. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read scientific articles on the subject instead of just the abstracts you might see it a little differently. Nearly certain doesn't equal never. Do you think we already know everything? Assuming I mistated the SPOV, it still doesn't deserve to take the largest part of the lead. Homeopathy isn't only about 'science' phenomenon. Anthon01 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the policy document WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." To follow Jossi's suggestion would fail at explaining how scientists have received homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't only about science. Look at the body of the article. Lots of sections need to be represented in the lead. There is more to life and Homeopathy then just Psuedoscience. Jossi's talking about the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the lead has to summarise all major views - to remove the mainstream scientific view would make it unbalanced. Haven't we had this argument several dozen times?° Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think were in agreement. I never suggested we remove the sci view from the lead. Only that it doesn't take more space than it is due. There is too much in the lead as it stands now or at least as it was before Jossi put up this section. Anthon01 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Science is a fairly major view point, per the weighting guidelines, it should get a hefty amount of space. Jefffire (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember there is no proof. How many times and ways do you need to say that.;-) Seriously though, look at WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue. The scientific view is extremely important, and so it has a prominent weighting. Jefffire (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, we are saying the same thing. My less and your more may end up being about the same. Lets look at the new version and then we'll talk Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is scientific when it's advantageous for its practitioners to pose it as science, but it's a "social phenomenon" when it's advantageous not to be science. Hmmm, I wonder if Mitt Romney is a homeopath? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got our wires crossed. What are you talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And where do you consider homeopathy to be according to WP description? Anthon01 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy is a science. just becfause some people deny its efficacy doesnt mean that it isnt true. after all they are still some people who deny evolution and that doesnt make ita 'social phenomenon' Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been trimmed from ~434 to ~291 words in these edits. I think all the major points are there and proper weight is given. Some collapsing of sources could help improve readability (i.e., moving them to the rest of the article), and word choice is always up for review, but it's in fair shape now... — Scientizzle 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is possible, after all. :) well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organon

The words 'in wide use today' have been removed. Anyone who has visited homeopathic training colleges and studied the curriculum of such places, as I have, will know that the Organon is a core aspect of study. What that means in practical terms is that the Organon is regarded today as an invaluable resource for learning the core philosophy and methods of homeopathy and how it should be practised. It is still in wide use today as a respected text period. Removal of those few words therefore seems unjustified in the light of this hands-on knowledge. thanks Peter morrell 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can probably find a citations that supports that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

he doesnt realy need citations this is comon knowledge among people who study homeopathic medicine. Smith Jones (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not good enough for this project. Please review WP:V. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

and you can review this source. Organon is a wellrespected homeopathic canon and there is no reason why is should not be mentioned in the article Homeopathy since it is essentialyl the book that created homeopathy as a medical discipline. Smith Jones (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

VERY good. Organon is easily in the toop 5 most important medical works ever written, spawning a discpline that has pushed the frontiers of medical science even further than any other text except for Hippocrates has ever done.

You're being sarcastic, right? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in lead

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a pseudoscience often referred to as a complementary and alternative medicine created in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann and laid out in his textbook, The Organon of the Healing Art.

Pseudoscience does not belong in the lead as per Pseudoscience and WP:UNDUE.

The policy states, "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."

It could be mentioned in the body as "some consider it ... " Please do not replace it before discussion and consensus has been reached. Anthon01 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well quackery is substantially different. Why did you remove the three peer-reviewed medical journal citations...

• Wahlberg, A. (2007) "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine 65(11) pp. 2307-2316: PMID 17719708
• Atwood, K.C. (2003) "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative," Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 129(12) pp. 1356-1357: PMID 14676179
• Ndububa, V.I. (2007) "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?" Nigerian Journal of Medicine 16(4) pp. 312-317: PMID 18080586

...that show homeopathy is quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is a very contentious page. We are trying to rewrite the lead via consensus. Your non-consensus edits, if left uncheck, will undoubtedly lead to an edit war, probable reblocking of the page, and other admin actions. I implore you to use the talk page to discuss and reach consensus on whether your proposed edits should be implemented. Anthon01 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are there any peer-reviewed academic journal publications which state that homeopathy is not quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All your references are opinion pieces in RS. Good for inclusion in the body but not in the lead as per WP:UNDUE. If you look at peer-review research articles you will be hard pressed to find homeopathy defined as quackery. Anthon01 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Miles above and the current wording given by Poupontoast. With regards to pseudo-science, that is the view of mainstream science, as is verified by the citations and deserves to be in the lead. I'm not sure about the word quackery appearing there though, but if that's what the articles say then that's ok, but maybe just pseudo-science would work just as well. Quackery should be mentioned in the body though. Don't be hasty in deciding your opinion is correct if you're making new changes I'd like to apologise for the revert I made a moment ago, I misunderstood the situation. I think we can keep PScience, but remove quackery from the lead --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Words like "pseudoscience" and (especially) "quackery" are a bit strong and may tend to turn people off if they're used up front despite their being suitable descriptions. They are more appropriate toward the end of the lead, once readers are drawn into the article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Pscience bit could go to the end of the third para (after quackery quote) --RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or more appropriate in the body after they have been drawn in. Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No I think the end of the 3rd para is better. It is a notable criticism, and follows the quote well --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal is to get the reader to enter the body of the article. Piling it on in the lead could drive readers away. Anthon01 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the goal of the lead is to accurately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Homeopathy's status as pseudoscience is a fundamental point and as such must be mentioned in the lead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree here with Raymond with one caveat. We need to attribute the opinions properly. Rather than asserting that as fact, we need to attribute the opinion to those that hold it. For example, there is a statement that reads as a fact "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge", could be rewritten for NPOV as: "Modern pharmaceutical knowledge diametrical opposes that of Homeopathy, and its premises have been found to be implausible in scientific tests", or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your example. This phrase has already been debated and the current form is NPOV, it expresses the facts, and is verifiable. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good wording, though I don't care for the passive voice in the second half. On the other hand we don't say that "according to NASA" astronauts landed on the moon. This despite the fact that a nontrivial percentage of the public is unconvinced; note this is a greater percentage than those who practice homeopathy. (Just a passing remark on the general principle.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. SPOV and NPOV on the issue of plausibility should read something like this. "No plausible mode of operation has been identified." The current writing says it will never be. My suggestion leaves it open to future discoveries. Anthon01 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that's not quite true. My understanding is that to the extent homeopathy works, the "mode of operation" is an enhanced placebo effect through the bond between the practitioner and patient. Of course physically and chemically there is no more possibility of support for homeopathy than that we'll find the core of the earth is made of bubblegum, but the psychological aspects can't be overlooked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As if we know everything already. You think there are no revolutions left in physics? Also homeopathy even among physicians is growing astronomically. [16] I'll try to find a better link. Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that any source that uses "4" to mean "for" is best considered unreliable until proven otherwise. (That goes double in the case of "4u.") Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"New York Times reported that visits of Homeopathic physicians are increasing in UK at a rate of 39% per year. Nearly half of the British physicians refer to Homeopathic doctors." Anthon01 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: In Lead it says, Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, because the lead should make the reader want to read the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Given the editing behavior of some editors here, which prefer edit warring and reverts rather than finding common ground, I propose that all involved editors agree voluntarily to 1RR, that is one revert per day per editor. Please sign your name below if you agree. If there is no such agreement and editwarring continues, the article may go back to protected state, or editors that exhibit disruptive behavior may lose temporarily their editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I agree to abide by 1RR in this article

• --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• PouponOnToast (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Have been.
• Art Carlson (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Friarslantern (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) With the understanding that it takes two to tango.
• User:area69 With the understanding that it takes two to tango- correct.! If there are unjustified reverts I will not comply though. --Area69 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• With many reservations (e.g. the response by User:area69), but I will try it. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Too many POV-pushing edits are being made which violate this and nothing has been done by the administrator organizing it. Therefore I withdrawl my pledge. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting something, I assume that we can delete a specific addition we disagree with, editing the same time a different paragraph.That does not count. Correct?--Area69 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you're proposing (combining a revert with an edit), it would qualify as gaming the system. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the correct term - I m not proposing it though. Do you want me to give you examples ( from editors who signed the 1RR? --Area69 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct, Jossi is the one to go to. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look and you will decide. --Area69 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MAybe I m wrong though. So if gaming the system will not be allowed. I agree.

LOL. So two of you agree, as long as you don't find a dancing partner! Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to join the 1RR group

I cordially invite Orangemarlin, Aburesz, and Anthon01 to join other editors in their 1RR pledge. It will make for an excellent show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, a final invitation to join the 1RR pledge. Without such commitment by involved editors there is no chance to make this work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So far I see this being applied unevenly, as Fyslee(2) OrangeMarlin(3), TableManners(3) have reverted 2-3 times in a short time span and none of them are getting warning from you on their talk pages. I am hoping to see even-handedness. I also am not sure what 1RR really means since different admins apply this rule differently. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jefffire's edits ("...beyond placebo")

Jefffire made this edit] which was reverted by User:Orangemarlin on the grounds that there wasn't always even a placebo effect, which is no doubt true. However, I don't think Jefffire's wording suggested that there was always a placebo effect; rather, I think it just said that there was sometimes a benefit, and that when there was a benefit, it could be ascribed to placebo. As I understand it, this is entirely true, and I think Jefffire's edits should be restored. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying that there is no effect "beyond placebo" only admits the possibility of a placebo effect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And it is the existence of effects beyond placebo that is controversial. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, two individuals whom I trust disagreed with my edit. I'll flog myself at dawn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths contend....

Homeopaths contend that many studies and metalyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo even though the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not the best research tool to test homeopathy A spokeswoman from the Society of Homoeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

Cherry picking from one article is not a preferred sourcing technique. Please find additional sources that are more reliable than a few sentences from a BBC article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 2) I don't think it's in doubt that homeopaths contend this. The question is where in the article it should be incorporated (if anywhere) and how - I don't see the need for new sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which homeopaths contend...? I believe that some homeopaths would be perfectly willing to accept a "reblinded" study. (The homeopath chooses a treatment, and a randomizer decided whether to use that treatment or the same substance rediluted without an "active" ingredient.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair question: in this case, it's a spokesperson for the Society of Homeopaths. But if there's doubt that this is a widespread contention among homeopaths, then by all means let's dig up some more sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats easy. I will take a look and let you know.--Area69 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers are good sources. No?--Area69 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The wiki rules dont say it depends. By the way I would like an administrator to review my talkpage and comment on the users. This is a personal attack. --Area69 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Please advice,--Area69 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously doubt that this is a contention widely made by homeopaths? I think there's plenty of evidence to that effect. Where it should go in the article and how it should be presented (based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.) seems to me to be the real issue; not whether or not this is what homeopaths contend. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone writes an article about an X minority (homeopathy) must include its important views and then add scientific critisism. In the lead these views should be summurized. --Area69 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Materials science approach

May be interesting to see if anything further comes from this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678814?dopt=Abstract -- Jayen466 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethics

This text from the lead of the article appears to be original research.

Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment,

The references don't support the statement. It should removed. I did and OM reverted. Anthon01 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. I'm very curious as to your logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Find me the references that says "ethics." Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased language about "ethics" concerns over the use of homeopathy has no place in the lead section. There is question as to whether such blatant editorializing belongs anywhere in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ethics in homeopathy and alt med has been a very big story recently, with the SoH in the UK being involved, AIDs "cures", poor anti malarial advice, bad anthrax remedies during the fallout from the WTC attacks, and the homeopathic regulators being either. What are your specific arguments against each of these refs? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been selective choosing of refs by an editor to attempt to advance a position. In other words, WP:OR. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)`

Could you expand on your claims? Why is just WP:OR an answer? Pease give a detailed account of your problem. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Here are the links for the 6 refs cited above & my commentary on their relationship to a claim of "ethical concerns":

• [17] This is a commentary on the association of anti-vaccinationism with CAM practitioners and their clients: "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health. Vaccinologists should know about this opposition and aim effective information at both these therapists and their clients." The article talks about homeopathy specifically, too, including specific examples of "homeopathic immunization" that ended badly. I think the ethical concern is obvious, but is never clearly stated in a way that I would be comfortable attributing anything beyond a "homeopaths (and other CAM proponents) often sport negative view of vaccination and advise their clients accordingly" kind of statement.
• [18] This is basically an earlier version of the publication above.
• [19] An earlier letter by the above author, but I read with interest this quote: "editorials in the British Homoeopathic Journal call the abandonment of mass immunization 'criminally irresponsible' and 'most unfortunate, in that it will be seen by most people as irresponsible and poorly based'." It may be worth locating these editorials--'criminally irresponsible' is quite a statement:

  3. English P. The issue of immunisation [editorial]. Br Homoeopathic J 1992; 81:161-163.
  4. Fisher P. Enough nonsense on immunisation [editorial]. Br Homoeopathic J 1990; 79:198-200.

• [20] More on the malraia issue: "Scientists said the homeopaths' advice was reprehensible and likely to endanger lives."
• [21] A letter in BMJ about malaria...
• [22] BBC Nes on the homeopathic treatments from malaria...even quote was the director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital who stated, ""I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice." Again, the ethical concern is implict.

The actual problem here was this edit of mine in which I condensed

This lack of convincing evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its contradiction of modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst", in the words of a recent medical review. Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs.

into

Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment, a lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

in an effort to reduce the cumbersome lead. Upon further investigation of the references I moved around, I think the refs presented weren't appropriate for a general statement regarding ethical concerns. I also think that the anti-vaccination story is appropriate only for the body of the article and not relevant enough for the lead. All this is a looong way of saying that I've no real problem with the removal of this clause--further limited research by me on PubMed didn't turn up much useful stuff to re-establish it, either--but there is an inkling of something there that might be worth a proper treatment. — Scientizzle 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album

Hi. Over on the Arsenicum album page there is almost an entire essay on how effective this remedy is, and how it's backed up by scientific evidence. There is also a call on the talk page for more editors to get involved. Maybe the information there might be useful here, and maybe we can make some good edits there. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More Neutral

I think that the following is (more) neutral.

Mainstream scientists regard homeopathy as scientifically implausible[5] and "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[6][7] They say that claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11].

Comments? --Area69 (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been urging for the last 6 weeks this correction to the wording so that the attribution of this view ("scientifically implausible") is clearly noted, and it does not come across as a pronouncement of Wikipedia. When I made the change yesterday, it was immediately reverted. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody should reconsider. It is fair and it does not change the meaning of the sentence -and most important NPOV. --Area69 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above something to the effect that "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" is IMO, NPOV. No plausible mode of operation has been identified for homeopathy and it's underlying principles are "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. Anthon01 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both the first comments: "Scientifically implausible" implies (by) "mainstream scientists" unless other scientist are specifically identified. "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" may be OR (unless sourced), but it's not NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between being neutral, and just removing factual criticism. YOu are both suggesting removing factual information that is critical of homeopathy. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Who suggested that we remove critisism?--Area69 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'They say' that claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11].

Why this is not Neutral and critical. ?--Area69 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing my comment in regard Anthon01's edit above. Although the original "scientifically implausible" statement is clearly NPOV, "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" seems to cover the ground fairly well. I would propose "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible, as no plausible mode of operation has been identified." There are scientific concepts which are accepted as possible, even though no specific mode of operation has been identified. And they say' is clearly WP:WEASEL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe less is better as WP:LEAD says concise. I think I get what you are trying to say but the sentence you proposing doesn't say that. Please give me an example of "scientific concepts which are accepted as possible, even though no specific mode of operation has been identified". Anthon01 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They say suggests it is merely opinion, while it clearly is fact. Unless somebody can provide evidence to the contrary there is no explanation available that meets the requirements of the scientific method. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest: "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible by mainstream scientists, since no mode of operation has yet been identified." There have been possibilites proposed, [23] even though no specific mode of operation has been identified. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible, since no mode of operation has yet been identified" is incorrect. Implausible means "Unbelievable; difficult to believe or imagine." Some scientific concepts are believable even though no mode of operation has yet been identified, like aspirin before 1983. No one knew how it worked before that. 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article

The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Voice-of-All 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the definition of pseudoscience perfectly fits, I'd like to hear or read any logic that disputes that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a pseudoscience. It is a theory and practice that has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance. That is far from being a "pseudoscience" - especially considering the large numbers of research trials that have indicated biological effects (even on mice) that can not be merely ascribed to "placebo" effects.

We have been over this issue endlessly. Since homeopathy is controversial, there are differing viewpoints. However, one viewpoint (POV) should not be stamped on the article over another viewpoint. This article should be presented without perjorative labels and without bias. It should not be pro-homeopathy - nor anti-homeopathy. We should be working together to reach a consensus on how to improve this article to NPOV standards.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "Homeopathy...has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance" is excessive in its understatement. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a comment on the "mice" studies - Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):171-86. Epub 2006 May 2. "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example why homeopathy should not be termed a "pseudoscience": a study showing biological effects from homeopathic arsenic on test animals (ruling out placebo effects):

A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat

Authors: Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C.

Journal: Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320

Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

Conclusion: The results lend further support to our earlier views that microdoses of potentized Arsenicum Album are capable of combating arsenic intoxication in mice, and thus are strong candidates for possible use in human subjects in arsenic contaminated areas under medical supervision.

You can read the details here. [24]

As you can see, there has been encouraging scientific research confirming biological effects from homeopathic remedies, where placebo is not a possible explanation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem Arion. Not a single article has been published in peer-reviewed journals confirming their study, and even in the less than reliable CAM journals, it's never been used in humans. You can't pick up a 20 year old study, and not search all the articles that refer to that article. Nice try however. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This defines Pseudoscience:

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4. Lack of progress
5. Personalization of issues
6. Use of misleading language

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you describe the results as "encouraging," it would stand to reason that there are numerous followups to this two-decades old study. How many other articles on this topic have been published in the refereed literature? According to the relevant citation index, has it become one of the landmark papers in its discipline? To what extent is this specific procedure used in practice? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Raymond Arritt, here is a more recent trial of homeopathic arsenic:

• Belon P, et al. "Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity?: Evidence-based findings from a randomized placebo-controlled double blind human trial." Sci Total Environ 2007 Oct 1;384(1-3):141-50. Epub 2007 Jul 12 [25]

In addition, in standard homeopathic practice world-wide, homeopathic arsenic is one of the more commonly used remedies, especially for neurological burning sensations (Homeopathic Materia Medica by William Boericke). Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A subjective study of 39 people published in a CAM journal. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was not a "subjective study" - - -

In a double blind placebo-controlled study, a potentized remedy of homeopathic Arsenicum Album-30 and its placebo (Succussed Alcohol-30) were given randomly to volunteers. Arsenic contents in urine and blood and several widely accepted toxicity biomarkers and pathological parameters in blood were analyzed before and after 2 months of administration of either verum or placebo. Elevated levels of ESR, creatinine and eosinophils and increased activities of AST, ALT, LPO and GGT were recorded in arsenic exposed subjects. Decreased levels of hemoglobin, PCV, neutrophil percentages, and GSH content and low G-6-PD activity were also observed in the arsenic exposed people. The administration of "verum" appeared to make positive modulations of these parameters, suggestive of its ameliorative potentials.

Objective markers were analyzed. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for use of such a label on Wikipedia is outlined here: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Proponents of keeping this label need to show that homeopathy is an obvious pseudoscience or is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Right now, I don't think we've met the threshold for obvious. There seems to be far more (though still not much) supporting scientific research for homeopathy than that of a clear and obvious pseudoscience such as Time Cube. Remember, this goes beyond our own personal opinions. This is not about it being obvious to me or you, this is about it being obvious to all. Therefore, the onus is to show that Homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Thus, we need to find a reliable source which verifies that the scientific community on the whole generally considers this topic to be pseudoscience. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need several different types of labels for science, such as conventional science, pseudoscience, controversial science, uncomfirmed science, established science, disputed science, mainstream science, nonmainstream science, unreproducible science, or whatever. Maybe 3 or 4 levels of science, or grades of science. Homeopathy might not be quite as "pseudo" as the Time Cube, but it is pretty damn close.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. A dichotomy like science←→pseudoscience is about as useful a descriptor as straight←→gay or conservative←→liberal. There's clearly a sliding scale on which any sort of "scientific" idea can fall. Time cube exists at the most extremesuperwhackonutjob end, and there are certainly CAMs that are more or less pseudoscientific than homeopathy, but I think homeopathy falls far enough away from "accepted modern science" to justify this tag...the lead and the body of the article pretty well establish that this subject fits a reasonable defintion of pseudoscience. And folks, don't misunderstand that pseudoscience=no real scientific inquiry. There are many, many labs out there that investigate ideas that fall outside the realm of accepted scientific theory; that one can point to research on magnet bracelets, bigfoot, UFOs, etc. doesn't mean they fall outside of "psedoscience" as an imprecise general category. — Scientizzle 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point regarding the "spectrum" idea applying here. Thank you! (I do agree with and recommend abiding by the sci-consensus threshold for categorization given in WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, FWIW.) --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely a pseudoscience, it's the archetypal example of a pseudoscience. If has it's own idiosyncratic jargon, a theoretical basis at utter odds with the material world, and it literally packages itself as science in drug store aisles. If homeopathy does not deserve this template, than no article does. If you really feel that way, please nominate it for deletion. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

have you read the Organon ? have you studied the homeoapthic provings conducted over the 200 year history of homeopathic sicence? Have you studied these works in as much detail and read all of the studies and conclusions that Arion 3x3 and I are have been referencing here for the past several months? if you have, you must understand homeopathy and if you understand the science then you must understand why it can hardly be cosnidered 'psuedoscience'? Homeopathy as devised by Dr. Hanhnemann and studied by DR. Benveniste has enjoyed wide popoular success throughout the entire world. event his article describes the large proportion of people who support homoeopathy. in the face of all that, how can you still want homoeopathy to be labelled a psuedoscience!?!?? Smith Jones (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Neither "homoeopathy" nor "homeoapthic provings" were "cosnidered" integral parts of my chemistry curriculum!?!?? I did, however, learn some nifty things about math and Avogadro's number.

Homeopathy flies in the face of science, although it likes to pretend its jargon. It's simply the best example of a pseudoscience extant. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How many professors of homeopathy are there are Harvard and Johns Hopkins? How many practioners of Homeopathy working for the Mayo Clinic? How much work does the NIH do on Homeopathy vs. Allopathy? Homeopathy satisfies almost every criteria imaginable for pseudoscience.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "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." The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy has a much smaller following that pscyhoanalysis, and there is less research that demonstrates its efficacy.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simple. So rather than waxing on about your own personal opinions on homeopathy, might I suggest finding a definitive source which verifies that homeopathy is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. We don't need to see research which supports it as a science or correlates it to be pseudoscience. What we need is an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. If it is the archetypal example of a pseudoscience, then I don't imagine that a source such as this would be too difficult to find. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Found an interesting article here on attitudes of med students.[26] Two salient results: (1) "Five percent of respondents said that homeopathy is 'very scientific.'" (2) "Thirteen percent (16/124) of respondents said that astrology is 'very scientific.'" In other words, homeopathy is regarded as less of a science than astrology. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A scary fact about our future doctors. However, this is not an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience. The end. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately for you, unilteral declarations of fact are not considered prof according to WP:NOTABILITY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK. and since you dont have any sources that proof that homeopathy is an 'obvious psuedoscience' i am forced to wait for you to iether submit some of those provings. i really still recomend that you examine th e rich body of work that encompasses homeopathic and other medical theories. you will find that the scientific veracitty of them rival or even exceed that of main stream allopathic cures. therefore, homeopathy is not psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Black is white! Up is down! The sun rises in the west! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please calm down and continue to assume good faith. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we as editors are expected to follow the rules. Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "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." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't a controversial theory. It's an obvious pseudoscience. Read the other bits of demarcation. Or better yet, see the list! Note that homeopathy is categorized as pseudoscience and nobody is complaining about that. Giving it a little information box to explain the major features of this pseudoscience is perfectly fine. As I said before, "The end." Thanks for playing folks! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

are you really going to use somethign that you yourself wrote on tyour own user page as proof of anything? please reread WP:VERIFIABILITY. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. As an expert in pseudoscience (and particular, as an expert in pseudoscience on Wikipedia) I am qualified to write about what is and is not pseudoscience. You'll note that I'm not placing any citations to this in the article per WP:SELF so WP:V does not apply. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

as per goo d faith i believe that you are an expert in psuedoscience, but i strongly disagree with your position regaridng homeopathic science. however, the homeopathic vs. allopathic medicine debate is ultimately irelevent on wikipedia. we are focused on what is verifiable, not what it is true. one thing i want to remidn you is tha tany controversial changes to this article in either content or structure -- and judging by the fierce debate here the psuedoscience box is clearly controversial -- must be subject ot to the rule of consensus. and it is also clear that consensus indicates that the majority of people do not agree with your assumption that homoepathy is psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the vocal minority you're talking about. I wonder how many folks read their horroscopes? Does that mean astrology isn't a pseudoscience? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

its not our place to judge astrology. if you want to judgastroloy, it has its own article here ==> (ASTROLOGY). we are talking about homeopath

Consensus does not trump NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

but it does trump the opinions of one editor, no matter hwo often he or she repeats himself. Smith Jones (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite what you may believe, ScienceApologist, you are an authoritative source who can verify (for our purposes at Wikipedia) that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. Please simply provide us with a source and we can then refer to homeopathy as such. I too am looking for one and am surprised at the difficulty I am having in finding such a source. Like you, I personally consider homeopathy pseudoscientific, but the truth is I am getting less sure of it being a true pseudoscience. Like the real scientific skeptic that I am, I require satisfactory scientific evidence of any claim. If I didn't and I went on my own gut or relied on my own opinion as fact, I would be guilty of being a pseudoskeptic. Right now, I have been unable to find satisfactory scientific evidence that homeopathy should be categorized as a pseudoscience. I am still looking though and I trust that you are doing the same. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Edits such as this are unhelpful. Clearly this issue is not resolved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education Science & Education Volume 3, Number 4 / October, 1994 - p359 "Pseudoscientific beliefs are also widespread. Consider the wide acceptance by the general public of astrology - a paradigm case of a pseudoscience s - as well as of pseudoscientific medical theories and techniques such as iridology, chiropractic, homeopathy 9 and also of Erich von Dgniken's ancient astronaut theory. 1°"

• The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine Ann Ital Med Int. 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84. "Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline."

• Complementary and Alternative Cancer Medicine J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11 Suppl):44-52. "Vigorous opposition to parts of CAM as ‘‘pseudo science’’ based on ‘‘absurd beliefs’’ has been voiced. The deviation from basic scientific principles, which is implicit in homeopathy and therapeutic touch, for example, is decried."

There are probably more, but this is enough to show that the term has been applied in the academic literature. Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience?

Of course there are:

All the metanalyses (besides the 2005) one and the studies which are already in use in the article write about promising studies and results in homeopathy, more or less, theurapeutic effect over placebo. None of the metanalyses have used this term even the 2005 one.

It is very easy to provide quotes. Should I do it?

I challenge everyone to name a topic which scientists keep studying and call for more research even thought they believe it is pseudoscience.Name one.Please. --Area69 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those show the individual researchers' opinion. We have that saying just the opposite. What we need is an authoritative source which represents the opinion of the scientific community. Think Academy of Science, for instance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Academy of Sciences does not concern itself with things such as Time Cube, crystal healing, psychic surgery or homeopathy. Do you have any reliable sources that state that homeopathy is not pseudoscience? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TIM VICKERS, would you trust a creationsit to give an informed opinion about evolution? would you trust a crystal healer to give an informaed opinion about medical science? if not, then why would you turst an allopathic 'doctor' to give an informed opinion about homoeo pathic science? Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So you put homeopathy in a similar category as creationism and crystal healing? I think that argues for a pseudo-scientific classification quite strongly. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NO TI DON'T. i consider allopathy to be on the same level of creationism and crystal healing, a delusional moneygrubbing fraud. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a science, but claims to be. That is why it is a pseudoscience. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

and MY point is that only allopaths claims that homeopathic science is a psuedoscience. it makes as uch sense to trust them to give a fair and impratial viewpoint as it is to trust a creationist about evolution or basic biogloy or a scientologist about psychiatry. When you ahe a group that has dedicated so much of itself to seething, petulant hatred of another medical sdiscipline there is a tendency to trefuse to give them the bneefit of the doubt. Now, there are many honest allopaths out there who honestly believe that they are practicing is good for their patients, and if they're sources are verifiable then i have no problem ith using them on this article. my problem is when they are used for authoritariantive proof about something that they couldnt possibly have approached neutrally in thef first place. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you would be well advised to steer clear of this article if you cannot edit without flinging insults at other editors. Baegis (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's only the scientists who consider homeopathy a pseudoscience. Interesting. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) please assume good faith Baegis. Who did I insult and where? Smith Jones (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with saying that allopathy, and with that all practitioners of it, are part of a "delusional moneygrubbing fraud". Then lets go with the "seething petulant hatred" part as a follow up. There is at least one M.D that edits this article, and probably more that I don't know for sure. I am quite sure they do not appreciate such insults. After those attacks, AGF gets tossed out the window. I am moving my warning to your talk page, if you wish to discuss them further. Baegis (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones may have a problem with typos, but he did not insult any other editors here. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Only their intelligence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that some of the participants here are doctors, his investing them with "seething, petulant hatred" and similar sweet words definitely qualifies as an insult. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that some of the participants are homeopaths, calling them "quacks" or "kooks" or such definitely qualifies as an insult as well then. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere on this talk page were any homeopaths attacked like Smith Jones attacked allopaths. All discussion about quackery was related to sources. And no actual homeopaths were called quacks by any other editors. Baegis (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, homeopaths were very directly attacked, with accusations that they were engaging in "fraud" as pertains to their patients. (read the Archives for December 2007) Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i apologize of my words were misinterpreted by User:Baegis but i argue that refering to creationism and crystal therapy as a 'fraud' is not the same as refering to all doctors in the world as frauds and that my refernece to seething heatred was illadvised and that i was only reacting to the constant barrage of hate speech directed towards homeopaths here on this talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about ScienceApologist unwillingness to discuss this further. I removed this again: [27]. Please note his edit summary. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is disruptive editing and condescending to decide for all other editors that this matter is resolved. Anthon01 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone place a warning on his talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem

We have an extreme problem on this article and its talk page. I am sure the article will soon be destroyed and delisted, thanks to our "busy beavers" here.

The main problem is that the homeopathic promoters here are just here to push their profession, not write an NPOV encyclopedia article, and they perceive NPOV as unfair (if they understand NPOV at all; and no NPOV does not mean "neutral" with no criticism of homeopathy) and they do not understand that according to the rules of Wikipedia, this article and all others must be written mostly from the perspective of the mainstream. The Homeopathy people here are hostile to allopathy and to mainstream science and biostatistics etc. Homeopathy is not anywhere close to the mainstream.

Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE area. Now I would humbly suggest that for those homeopathic promoters here, to please consider editing a wiki which is not subject to the same restrictions as Wikipedia is. Many wikis do not have NPOV as their editing criteria, and are not aimed at presenting the mainstream, scientific perspective like Wikipedia is. I would direct you to Para Wiki which is new and begging for contributions. You can probably get the name changed since it is very early days, to Alternative Wiki or Alter Wiki or NewAge Wiki or something. You will be more productive there than here, and you will get far more of your edits into an article on the internet and will not be bothered by scientists picking at you, or NPOV, or allopaths attacking you or any other such troubles. How about it?--Filll (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If Para Wiki is your own project, I'd ask you to stop promoting it everywhere. I don't know if it qualifies as spam but it's really not helpful. There are other established wikis for sympathetic point of view, if you are interested. You would also be welcome to present your POV in such places as Wikinfo. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Para Wiki is Jimbo's project. You want to criticize Jimbo and his project? Be my guest. --Filll (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also note that I and the allopathy supporters and the science supporters are not the editors with the problems with NPOV. And we are the editors who wrote this article, not the homeopathy supporters for the most part except Peter Morrell. So the mainstream editors have no problem with Wikipedia and its rules. So there is no reason for the mainstream science and medicine editors to leave Wikipedia.

Only the homeopathy supporters, or at least most of them, have a problem with the Wikipedia rules including NPOV. So it stands to reason that if anyone should leave, it is the homeopathy supporters who are unable or unwilling to abide by NPOV.--Filll (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a search on "Para Wiki and Jimbo" but could find no mention of any connection. Are you saying because it is being hosted on Wikia it is therefore Jimbo's project? Anyhow, nobody seems interested and you've suggested it repeatedly across multiple forums. —Whig (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to reject it Whig. Do not say I did not give you multiple chances. It will be your funeral. Too bad you could not work cooperatively, but the evidence is now clear.--Filll (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Filll, I neither am a supporter of homeopathy, nor am I unwilling to abide by NPOV. WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is in fact what I keep referencing. Give me an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudosciene and I will have no issue with this Wikipedia article referring to it as such. Until then, to refer to it as such in this article would be in violation of this NPOV guideline. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112, since you (1) keep repeating you are not a homeopathy supporter, this is clearly a sign that you are one and (2) behave exactly like a homeopathy supporter and promoter, this starts to get old and looks foolish frankly. And I do not give a hoot about the pseudoscience box or category. I am talking about the overall tone and direction, as is determined by the principles of Wikipedia and the fighting against this I have seen in the edit wars and here on the talk page. Last I checked, the article was about 40% antihomeopathy, and 60% pro homeopathy. This has been reduced and the article is probably about 30% antihomeopathy now, and 70% pro homeopathy. But still on the talk page and on the mainpage homeopathy supporters are fighting and complaining. This is because they do not understand NPOV. This must stop and it will stop, one way or another. By NPOV, this article COULD be written to be 95% or 99% antihomeopathy, so just stick a cork in it and stop complaining. I am trying to find an option where you can edit unimpeded by rules and guidelines that you disagree with and do not understand. So take me up on it, or we will see what happens next.--Filll (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You need proof of the claim to put up the Psci box in accordance to wikipedia policy. Once the proof is obtained I will consider supporting the inclusion of the box, even against consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is the Psci box?--Filll (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Psci = Pseudoscience. I'm getting tired of typing it. Sorry. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia requires some authoritative source to verify that the scientific community generally considers homeopathy to be pseudoscientific. Note to Fill: I don't think it is productive to effectively tell editors with whom you disagree to leave Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is an inherent part of the Wikipedia editing process. I suggest that all editors who sincerely desire to improve the article on homeopathy read "Reasonable consensus-building" at the Wikipedia policy page on consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:kettle. Tim gave good solid refs for the inclusion of the box, yet people kept deleting it. Then Anthon ran to the admin that put the PP on and asked for it to be extended (to the length of the previous protection) and one could guess it is also because his version is the one that stuck. Baegis (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case Baegis, I warrant that Anthon could use a good week or two week block to contemplate the situation and his obstreperousness.--Filll (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good guess but not the case. I think the last recess (ring-ring) worked fine. The edit is way against consensus. It shouldn't be added until we work this out. We need way more that 24 hours to resolve this dispute. If editors are expecting to get a second chance on the page within 24 hours, they will not be working towards consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Page full-protected for 24 hrs

Due to an ongoing active edit war on the page, with two sides having many times added, removed, re-added, re-removed, etc. the infobox I have full protected the article page.

Please discuss on the talk page.

Thank you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience 2?

Of course there are:

All the metanalyses (besides the 2005) one and the studies which are already in use in the article write about promising studies and results in homeopathy, more or less, theurapeutic effect over placebo. None of the metanalyses have used this term even the 2005 one.

It is very easy to provide quotes. Should I do it?

I challenge everyone to name a topic which scientists keep studying and call for more research even thought they believe it is pseudoscience.Name one.Please. --Area69 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See below. Baegis (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see any evidence that the scientific community, broadly speaking, does call for more research. As far as I'm able to ascertain, the scientific community considers the question closed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

read the sources in the article: and you will see them. I will help you if you want.--Area69 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which article? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this? If none is found the the Psci box is justified? THat would be contrary to WP policy. Instead find the citations that say it is. Anthon01 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly tendentitious and tortuous argumentation, in a WP:POINTy fashion.--Filll (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. In order to add text you need a reference in accordance with WP:RS. Anthon01 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been given several sources here. There are many more in the history of this page. I can get dozens more. And you still repetively ask for the same material over and over you have already seen. And I think this gets close to something that requires a block so you can contemplate your behavior. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Those sources don't prove that the consensus of science believe homeopathy = Psci. You need an Science Academy stating it. Anthon01 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you are so demanding that there are only 11 groups in the entire world that can officially declare homeopathy a pseudoscience? Are you freakin' kidding me? Baegis (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care what you think particularly about that issue, since I know you have a bias. And we both know I can bury you in references of all kinds on this issue.

But right now, why do you not answer my question below about what NPOV is. Tell me what you think NPOV is and what sort of view the articles on Wikipedia are required to have. Give me your interpretation in your own words.--Filll (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref's so far for inclusion

I have listed six ref's for inclusion of the box. I invite everyone to look at them. The case is now firmly on the shoulders of those against the box.

1. National Science Board Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators (2000). "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding Science Fiction and Pseudoscience". National Science Foundation. Retrieved 2008-01-25.

   Words to note: According to one group studying such phenomena - one group does not represent the scientific community in general. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2. "NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy". National Council Against Health Fraud. 1994. Retrieved 2008-01-25.

   Terrible example. NCAHF is a biased organization whose members pay themselves from their own donations to act as their own expert witnesses. Sorry, these guys hardly represent skeptics, let alone the scientific community in general. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Beyerstein, BL (1997). "Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-25.

   Again, one guy's opinion doth not the scientific community make. His analysis isn't all that scientific either. More like mudslinging. Sorry, it's hard to take this one seriously. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education Science & Education Volume 3, Number 4 / October, 1994 - p359 "Pseudoscientific beliefs are also widespread. Consider the wide acceptance by the general public of astrology - a paradigm case of a pseudoscience s - as well as of pseudoscientific medical theories and techniques such as iridology, chiropractic, homeopathy 9 and also of Erich von Dgniken's ancient astronaut theory. 1°"

   One guy's opinion again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

5. The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine Ann Ital Med Int. 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84. "Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline."

   Two guys' opinions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Complementary and Alternative Cancer Medicine J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11 Suppl):44-52. "Vigorous opposition to parts of CAM as ‘‘pseudo science’’ based on ‘‘absurd beliefs’’ has been voiced. The deviation from basic scientific principles, which is implicit in homeopathy and therapeutic touch, for example, is decried."

   One guy's opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So, review at your leisure. These refs will be thrown in, if they aren't already in the article, and the box re-added, unless compelling evidence is brought forth. Baegis (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine, I warn you that you are striving very hard to make a WP:Pointy case. What do you want for inclusion? A giant billboard from "the scientific community" that states: "Homeopathy is pseudoscience!"? Because it appears that is the only thing you are willing to accept. And stop breaking up the list, comments go below. You should know that. Baegis (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I want a source which verifies that the scientific community as a whole generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. The examples listed above are opinions from one or two people (or from a group of pseudoskeptics), none of which constitute the scientific community - even collectively. Given that we have similar sources stating the opposite - scientific research and doctrines supporting the scientific basis of homeopathy, it seems clearer to say that Homeopathy is a disputed or questionable science. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We need a scientific body like National Academy of Science declaring homeopathy is Psci. Anthon01 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you see that scientists have different opinions about it now? --Area69 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also found a list of about 30 more. However, it gets tiresome fighting these same battles over and over and over against people who refuse to cooperate and who are involved in disruptive editing and tendentious tortuous argumentation. We need some consequences here to make people a bit more cooperative.--Filll (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if an article appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it is not "one guy's opinion" if it has one author. It is a minimum of five guys; the editor, the author, and at least 3 reviewers. It might have up to 6 or more reviewers, and several editors. It could be 10 or more guys opinions. The fact that you claimed it was "one guy's opinion" either indicates you are supremely ignorant of the scientific process and therefore should recuse yourself from this dicussion because you have nothing whatsoever to contribute of any positive value, or you are being willfully disruptive and tendentitious and need to be called on your outrageous statements and behaviors.--Filll (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "consequences" should be that everyone read Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the Wikipedia editing process. I suggest that all editors who sincerely desire to improve the article on homeopathy read "Reasonable consensus-building" at the Wikipedia policy page on consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In my personal experience of watching and editing this page and the talk page for 9 months or so, I have only seen one homeopathy supporter who actually was interested in consensus and was knowledgable of NPOV and willing to work within the constraints of NPOV. I have seen dozens of others who were not interested in consensus and unwilling to work within NPOV.--Filll (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Special interest groups opposed to various targets are not unusual, and usually not representative of the majority they claim to represent. NCAHF is about as "authoritative" in speaking for science as "Quackwatch" is. What we have been presented with are links to a series of biased opinion pieces. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see some peer-reviewed journal articles in real scientific and medical journals. And these are not "opinion pieces". And that is what Wikipedia is based on; peer-reviewed mainstream science and medicine. If you do not like it, you do not agree with NPOV and should go somewhere where you do not have to deal with NPOV.--Filll (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to get editors to leave with whom you disagree.

The "peer-review" process needs to be exposed for what it really is. It tends to become peer pressure to not go too far afield of subjects that might receive potential funding allocated to the institution that the particular author is associated with. If he wants to think "outside of the box" and tackle subjects are are not mainstream (like homeopathy), he will be endangering the financial flow to his institution. So there is that money angle that we can not be blind to and ignore. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here and stop resorting to conspiracy theories. It only further reinforces the case for disruptive editing. Baegis (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop labeling simple facts "conspiracy theories". Those of us who have had to deal with just such real life situations, and have been warned not to bring up or write about subjects "outside of the mainstream" - or we lose our position at the university, know exactly what we are talking about. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not have any business editing an NPOV article with that attitude. Go to a wiki that is amenable to your conspiracy theories.--Filll (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, stop trying to get editors to leave with whom you disagree. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You show you can abide by the rules or you leave. Seems pretty clear to me. --Filll (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 6 of the above original topic is from the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a highly significant journal with an acceptance rate of just 23%. It is unclear if this article was peer reviewed, however all articles are carefully selected (as is clear from the acceptance rate). The article itself however does not discuss homeopathy otherwise, merely mentioning it in passing regarding herbal pills. Regarding the box itself, a cursory scan of current pseudoscience articles revealed it to not currently be in common usage. I would assume also that the MOS would prefer that any content be in the prose of the article lead. LinaMishima (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you know NPOV?

For those of you who object so strenuously to scientific and allopathic medicine views, what do you actually think NPOV is? Can you explain your position to me? --Filll (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER

NPOV is not the issue here. WP:CONSENSUS is. The problem here is that both of us, pro- and anti-, are making controversial edits to the article when there is clearly a large debate going on here on the talk page. That is the reason why the article was locked; and that is the reason why it is probably a good idea to extend the lock for as long as it takes for all of us to reach a decision. I am sure it is fun to hurl links about rules at each other and quote allopathic screeds; however, it makes more sense for us to collude together and try to the reach an acceptable consensus. After all, if we end up with a permanent block on the article then its going to make us look like we are not very good at editing Wikipedia.

I did some research and its seems that there already a number of forums available that can help us resolve this unfortunate dilemma. I will list them here so see if anyone else is interested in using them to resolve our dispute.

• WP:RFC
• WP:MEDCAB
• WP:FTN
• WP:MEDCOM
• WP:ARBCOM

those are my possibly suggestions on how to move forward form an atmosphere of anger and hostility to one of at least cordial respect and cooperation. Anyone interested in trying one (or more) of them? Smith Jones (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV trumps everything else. It is preeminent. You cannot have consensus to edit against NPOV. And you have no consensus for your POV edits.--Filll (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have translated your Appalachian scrawl to be readable.

I can guarantee you that none of the dispute resolution methods are going to be helpful to the true believers. The article is never going to satisfy them because our policies are not going to put a positive spin on homeopathy. Our reliable sources show it for what it is: a strange old 19th century folk theory with no evidence of any utility. You, particularly, have not contributed anything to the talk page that has been constructive in coming to a solution, other than to hurl accusations and sermonizing about "the truth of homeopathy." The article is not likely to be protected again. It is more likely that editors who cannot edit collaboratively will be blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

considering that almost noone here has been able to edit collaboritively thus far, that probably means that everyone who has ever editted on this talk page would be blocked. the problem here is that everyone refuses to compromise. right now you just finished accusing me of not trying to come to a solution even though i just listed 5 possible solutions, any one of whom (except for ArbCom, obviously) can be tried tiright now. I am trying to assume good fiath with all of you but for some reason you have decided that i am not to be accorded that same courtesy. if that's the way you feel, fine. i will continue to try to work with you, and when the article gets unprotected we can go through this same ritual all ov er again. It is not productive and it is not conducive, and the attitude here will never lead to a collaborative success wil enver be useful, but if that is the way it has to be then fine. See you late. Smith Jones (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If one group of editors were to say the Earth is flat and another group were to say it is round, it would not benefit Wikipedia for the groups to compromise and say the Earth is shaped like a calzone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But what a delicious compromise it would be! Baegis (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

With a soft red wine (the pro-homeopathy editors get their wine diluted 30X). Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, I contend that any light beer brewed in the United States, is actually homeopathic beer, because it's been diluted so much, that anyone drinking it, only imagines that it's really beer. But it makes one urinate like it was beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the water it contains has retained the memory of the urine it once was. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. Well, that pretty much sums up both Light Beer and Homeopathy. Neither of them are very good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Should homeopathy be described as quackery in the intro?

Should homeopathy be described as quackery unequivocally (not just by means of a quote as it stands now -- "...at worst quackery") in the introduction?

• Yes - The peer-reviewed articles at PMID 17719708, PMID 14676179, PMID 18080586 leave no question that homeopathy is pseudoscience "par excellence" which causes the death of untold multitudes who might otherwise seek legitimate treatment for their conditions. Although I requested them days ago, there have been no peer-reviewed publications brought forward which claim that it is not quackery. MilesAgain (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Two of these abstracts are written by a single Nigerian scientist, and the link in the middle didn't provide me with any information other than a title. As you've presented it, this does not show scientific consensus and thus does not show that homeopathy is unequivocally a pseudoscience (though I personally think it might very well be). DJLayton4 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ref 1 and ref 3 are the same. I striked it out to avoid confusing other editors. And the journal Nigerian Journal of Medicine is a no impact journal. The middle reference is pseudoskeptic Atwood at it again. Anthon01 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I accidentally omitted one of the numbers. I have replaced it: PMID 17719708. MilesAgain (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• no and *Yes because this is one POV. There is another point of view as you can see above in the cited sources. Both views should be included. --Area69 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources respond to the charge of quackery directly? Your sources below talk only of the results of trials, and say nothing about the fact that people from the U.K. to Nigeria are being denied proven medical care because they get caught up in homeopathic treatment. In order to present "both sides" per NPOV, there need to be reliable sources on both sides. MilesAgain (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak yes I believe other people have done most of the explaining for the 'yes' side, however I would like to suggest that we follow a similar line to that of a number of sceptic commentators - that whilst the mechanisms for remedies are clearly quackery, increased time with a health professional and the placebo effect are powerful tools and have their place. We should also detail how it is currently considered quackery, but because of public interest studies are taking place (which they do seem to be). I would also recommend a different term, personally. I reserve the right to find that what I have just written makes no sense, as I am writing it at 5am o.O LinaMishima (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unnecessary and counterproductive. a neutral description without labeling is sufficient to make it appear as the nonsense it truly is. a fight to attach a negative label is apt to make the observer thing that the logical arguments are not sufficient. Those who believe in scientific evidence should let it speak for itself. DGG (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But will falling short of describing it as quackery relate to the reader a neutral or biased summary of the damage homeopathy has done? For example, polywater may have scared some people, but it hasn't kept anyone from proper medical care. The same can not be said of homeopathy. Is summarizing the fact that practicing doctors from the U.K. to Nigeria see it as a real threat from quackery really unnecessary and counterproductive? It is certainly in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LEAD. MilesAgain (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional No - Despite my personal opinion that homeopathy is with all likelihood a pseudoscience, we need to show a majority of scientific studies demonstrating this. Based on the articles cited below, there seems to simply be no strong evidence either way. If someone can provide enough current and reliable references showing that homeopathy is unequivocally a pseudoscience (i.e. it has only a placebo effect for certain), I would change my opinion. If reliable references largely conflict (which seems to be the case), I think the best course of action would be to write something like, "A number of scientists consider homeopathy to be a psuedoscience, while others feel that the evidence is insufficient to either support or debunk the practise", or more or less as it is now. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand, at all, how you think the existing references don't claim it as pseudoscience. In fact, that most research simply ignores homeopathy speaks to itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm referring to the ones listed in the section immediately below this one. If you would care to point out some others that unequivocally brand homeopathy a pseudoscience, I would be happy to see them. Research that "ignores" homeopathy is not sufficient evidence to call it a pseudoscience. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It states as fact that it is pseudoscience. That should stay. It then quotes someone that it "is quackery at worst." That is an opinion, though derogatory. It should stay as well, because it is a mainstream opinion. Using it as a quotation is fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That most research ignores it speaks to many other things, like politics. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• No: these labels aren't helpful. Talk about substantive issues and let readers decide. At most, say "so and so says homeo is quackery", if the source's weight is really strong. But saying it is quackery, full stop? Come on. Sounds like we need a new guideline: "Wikipedia is not a bumper (so don't slap stickers on articles)." --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? yes

Many scientists regard homeopathy as pseudoscience. True. Some others disagree. For instance almost all the studies and metanalyses which are already cited in the article they write about promising studies and positive results. No one writes that homeopathy is just pseudoscience but they call for more research.

This is controversial topic therefore the category pseudoscience should be removed because it is a violation of NPOV. It could be included in the article though as one point of view. --Area69 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Studies already in the article ( most of them ) which DONT regard homeopathy as pseudoscience

that at the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy [28]

Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43. Another metanalysis concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition [29]

“The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.

Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospitals of Lyon and University Claude Bernard, France.

CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

[30] When only high-quality studies have been selected for analysis (such as those with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size, and other methodologic criteria that limit bias), a surprising number show positive results

Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it.

Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted. [31] --Area69 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This selective quotation is preposterous. The first two of the four sources (the same source) above was reviewed 14 years later in PMID 16125589 which states:

• "Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

Here are quotes from the other three sources:

• "There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy"[32]
• "The authors conclude that the small number of randomised clinical trials conducted to date, although favouring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies"[33]

If we cite any of those sources, we need to represent them fairly by at least summarizing the excerpts above. MilesAgain (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There are already cited. --Area69 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1.Not true. Was not reviewed. This is a different and only one study which as I swrote before that it writes that homepathy = placebo.

2. You dont read the whole study. You just took one sentence. I wrote the whole paragraph.

3. do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies" is not equal that homeopathy = pseudoscience especially if you decide to read the whole study. --Area69 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that PMID 16125589 did not include PMID 1825800 in the literature review which is explicitly described in the abstract? If so, for what reason? MilesAgain (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said this is one study only which as you can see has been characterized as biased. All the other studies speak positively about homeopathy in their conclusions. You can see it above. --Area69 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? [34] clearly states about the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis:

"In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo. However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo."

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to pass judgment on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{edit protected}} Could somebody add {{Merge from|Arsenicum album|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album}} to the Dilution and succssion section?

That is totally inappropriate! Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is totally appropriate. TableManners^C·U·T 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Page is now unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC program, Horizon, video source

This BBC Horizon (BBC TV series) video goes into detail on "dilution and succussion" and concludes "Science is confident: Homeopathy is impossible." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WnEo46h4A TableManners^C·U·T 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It could also be included. I agree. Its critism from reliable sources as well. Very easy to be found --Area69 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Video's make bad sources. It's not peer-reviewed. It's not even reliable. But I like what it says of course. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that BBC was reliable according to Wiki Policy.--Area69 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh no. Read WP:SOURCES. Peer reviewed and published is the highest level. A BBC video, though better than say a video from the International Homeopathy Association and Online Store, isn't really reliable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.--Area69 (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, not a video. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It has a transcript. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml. And a program summary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml. And other information. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathyqa.shtml. This is more than just a video. TableManners^C·U·T 07:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you remove james randi's video then?--Area69 (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I only care about the lead. Don't really care about much else on the article. This article, if it stabilizes enough for a real GA or FA, will be cleaned up significantly. The sources are often bad, except in the lead.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see.--Area69 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for edit warring in the Homeopathy#Evaluation_of_homeopathic_dillution. However, the video program has a slew of pages on the program, including transcript. Also, my reading of Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Science_article_in_the_popular_press says the 20/20 program and the BBC program are reliable sources, especially if quoted with attribution (e.g., "BBC reported", "ABC reported"). Lastly, the BBC and ABC are secondary sources that will better establish a WP foundation for citing primary sources. However, if you still protest, let me know why on the talk page, and I will revert myself, if Area69 does not. TableManners^C·U·T 07:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the video should be included with its critisism. --Area69 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that the program should be used as a source. A compromise (per OM's suggestion): the williams/horizon reference stays in. The BBC web page describing the program is the main reference link. A link to the program transcript at the BBC website is also provided in the reference. Removed the quote from the reference as it is annoying, but kept it in the article. I also removed the video link from the external links because: 1. The Youtube title is not the program title. 2. The youtube video is probably a copyright violation and 3. it is probably a violation of WP:EL if we are using the transcript as a reference. If we can find a BBC video we could add it back into the external links if others disagree with this compromise. The wording of actual quotation could use some improvement, I admit. But I think the ABC and BBC sources are good per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press TableManners^C·U·T 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed here it is. One source is already cited in the article

"The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology." http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Area69 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rot --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a direct quote, but taken out of context it distorts Vithoulkas' position. In the last paragraph of his article he also says, "There is a need for at least one standardized protocol for clinical trials that will respect both: the double blind parameters but also some of the homeopathic principles." Obviously he thinks that double blind studies per se can be used to establish the efficacy of homeopathy, they just need to be carried out differently than most such studies have been done with conventional medicines. Also remember the discussion we had here on RCTs of individualized homeopathy. Unfortunately, the proposal to add a section on this topic, including reference to a meta-analysis, got shoved to the archives before any action was taken. I wish we would have less general discussion (noise) here and more consideration of concrete proposals. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont really mind I just used Vythoulkas because they asked for a specific source. You could change it to be more accurate. The important thing here is to accept that citing homepaths views on metanalyses in a article (and in the lead) about them it is basic task of this article. It is natural and within the wikirules to include the views of a minority in an article about this minority. --Area69 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war again?

fyslee : Why you revert without discussion? Please justify. And please stop calling other editors disruptive because you dont like their edits. This is a personal attack.--Area69 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to get tendentious. Your edit is not supported by anyone but yourself. And it is kind of disruptive too, not as a personal attack, but just as a description of what it appears you are doing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleae justify what do you mean. It is supported by the above sources.--Area69 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

I removed the reference to http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9 because it was poorly formatted, it is self published, George Vithoulkas is probably not a WP:RS. Please correct me here if I am wrong, and I can format the source. TableManners^C·U·T 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How can you add a liknk if it is a person website? I dont know. I assumed that since vythoulkas is included in the article as a reliable source its website could be used. Any other way?--Area69 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

do you see what I mean ? he is at the end of the page as a reputable homeopath. --Area69 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First, read WP:SPS, and then, based on that and what you know about the wikipedia article and the article you want to cite, let me know if you still think the source should go in. Then you could see Wikipedia:Citation templates for intstructions on formating the source. TableManners^C·U·T 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do. thanks. I think though that the inclusion of his views about the issue is justified since it exists in the article. But I will look again.thanks --Area69 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas has been known internationally for decades as the leading educator in the field of "Classical Homeopathy" and should not be excluded from the homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert without discussion

I dont that the 1rr works if there is no sincere effort or even discussion to agree to obvious things : for instance that the views of the minority being examined (homepaths) do qualify for inclusion in the lead using already cited sources. Therefore unless someone does revert the last edit I will not comply with the 1RR anymore. Thanks --76.226.106.40 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please sign in (IOW change your sig above). What "last edit" are you referring to? Please supply the diff. -- Fyslee / talk 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

the vast allopath conspiracy

Something repeatedly alluded to on this talk page, and something missing from the article, is: the vast conspiracy by allopathic medicine to ignore homeopathy. Bias by the FDA, no research money is granted to study homeopathy, big pharma makes sure homeopathic remedies can't be mainstream to protect their profits, doctors want to keep people sick to keep them returning, etc, etc.

There is a mindset here that isn't explained by the article, and it seems to be important to understanding the true believers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

At the risk of sounding like I am making a joke, what conspiracy?. Indeed, big pharma would love effective homeopathy, since huge chemical plants would no longer be needed to make their products. Certainly in the UK and other sensible countries with state-funded healthcare, doctors have a greater vested interest in keeping people well (and where payments are from insurance, the insurance companies also want steady regular payments and no payout). The lack of funding and FDA's 'bias' is simply the exact same bias they apply to regular pharmacology - results must be proven under stringent test regimes. The fact that funding bodies want to spend their money on things that have been widely shown to be the most effective solutions is not a conspiracy at all, it's good money management. However, of course, a section on the claims of a conspiracy and rebuttals of these would work well. LinaMishima (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a discussion fo the allopath conspiracy belongs on the allopathy page, or the pages of any of hte organizations alleged to be involved of with this conpsiracy. placing it here gives undue weight so something that only some homoeopaths believe and in to something that is not part of mainstream homeopathic technology. Smith Jones (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths invented the idea that there was anything called "allopathy"; any discussion belongs in the homeopathy article. - Nunh-huh 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you yourself have made claims about this.

please read my edits carefully. i neve rsaid that the allopathy conspiracy was false; i only said that this was something propogated mainly as a conspiracy theory and not asa part of homoeopathic doctrine itself. referring to it in the homoeopathy article would be akin to referring to homophobia in the creationism article just because somet creationists are homophobes. Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If homeopathic practictioners and true believers in homeopathy believe there is a persecution of their homeopathic faith, it is an important consideration to document. It is not something separate from homeopathy itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And yes, LinaMishima, what conspiracy? indeed, but the persecution complex is something that comes out in the comments here. I'm sure it's in the homeopathic literature. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

if there are no reference,s then it does not belong on wikiepdia. period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Oh, it will be easy to reference.

I am not sure it requires a huge discussion here. Maybe a sentence at most with good references. You might consider placing it on the conspiracy pages in one of the lists of conspiracy theories.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, anyone seen the Grassy knoll? Area 51? Et cetera. It's so sad when the intellectually blind mistake their blindness for inner knowledge. Of course, the resultant paranoia is a separate issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal from Category:Pseudoscience

The edit summary for removal from the category Category:Pseudoscience said to see the discussion on the talk page. As there is no discussion specifically pertaining to the inclusion in this category, I will start one. Please see the criteria for inclusion in Category:Pseudoscience, specifically:

“ ...subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another ”

I think it is rather obvious from the references provided in the article, and the opinions of quite a significant number of editors here, that Homeopathy, if not actually being a pseudoscience, at the very least fits squarely within these parameters. I suggest that the category be restored. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely agree but too afraid that some admin will force me to pledge 1RR so I will let someone else do it. MilesAgain (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "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." This article should not be labeled "Pseudoscience". Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2% is not a substantial following. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Homeopathy fits the description of pseudoscience, hence should be in the category. The box is ugly though --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Millions world-wide qualifies as "a substantial following" by anyone's definition. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Millions of people use lead as a folk medicine curative. On a planet with 7 billion people a few million is chump change. 2% in the West (this is an American-European medical theory after all) are followers. That is not substantial. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How the term pseudoscience qualifies since almost all studies ( besides one ) and metanalyses write about promising studies and positive results? That means there is a controversy here - hence a POV problem in the article in case the category is restored.--Area69 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [35]

English please. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is this an answer ? --Area69 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant criterion for inclusion is the following:

“ fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects ”

A significant criticism by reliable sources is all that is needed for inclusion in the category. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Wrong. Many scientists have a different opinion as you see above; that means there is a controversy.--Area69 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A controversy is all that is needed. Please go and read Category:Pseudoscience. Then tell me how this article does not meet those criteria. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Labeling homeopathy "pseudoscience" is a perjorative biased POV that has no place in a NPOV article in an encyclopedia. There needs to be a consensus to add such a derisive label. That means reaching a consensus with other editors. All editors who sincerely desire to improve the article on homeopathy read "Reasonable consensus-building" at the Wikipedia policy page on consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

not only that, by your own admission homeopathy is practiced widely in India, up to 15% of the population, which for a coutnry as populous as India is enormous. ignoring all those people just because homeopathy is invented in europe/the US is something that wikipedia should not be a part of. Smith Jones (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what consensus has to do with it. The fact is that there are a significant number of reliable sources attesting that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. A prerequisite for inclusion in the category is not that the subject be a pseudoscience, merely that it has been called a pseudoscience. Is there a lack of consensus about whether homeopathy has ever been called pseudoscientific? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This BBC horizon television programme [36], cited in the main article, reported on tests coordinated by the vice-president of the Royal Society, involving other mainstream UK scientific institutions. The tests examined the claims of dilution and the memory of water: there was no statistically significant evidence of such a phenomenon. It seems that, with a lack of a scientific explanation and no other positive documented controlled tests, the phenomenon, like telepathy, must be labelled "pseudo-scientific" and "fringe". Likewise, the CNRS in France does not recognize homeopathy at present as having any scientific foundation [37]; it should be added that a large proportion of phamarcies in France – far more than in the UK – advertise themselves as being homeopathic. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience + NPOV issue

A prerequisite for inclusion in the category is not that the subject be a pseudoscience, merely that it has been called a pseudoscience. That is incorrect. Categorizing cannot be used to assert a specific viewpoint, in particular when there are disputes. If we do, we are asserting one viewpoint as true, which violates WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. Please see WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and comments below. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe George W. Bush in many pejorative ways, but we do not categories Bush under any of these categories in Wikipedia. If the viewpoints are significant, we describe these in the article, but that's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Guidelines

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think we should be looking it less like, say, Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Alberta, in which an article needs to be about a Member of the Canadian House of Commons from Alberta, and more like, for example, Category:World War II. In that category, an article needs only to be related to the Second World War, and of interest to somebody seeking to learn more about it. Similarly, I don't think including Category:Pseudoscience on this page necessarily affirms that homeopathy is pseudoscience, just that it's relevant to the study of pseudoscience and that it's an article that would almost certainly be of interest to somebody browsing the category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. ArbCom states, when category issues come to them, that categories are a navigation aid, not part of the content itself. Being in the category isn't a statement - the statement exists in the text. Being in the category is an aid to readers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree. LinaMishima (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category is something more definitive I think. Jossi gave a good example. If there is a dispute is better to be avoided as the WK policy states above.--Area69 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP makes that example more complex, of course. LinaMishima (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the general population thinks is irrelevant when judging something to be pseudoscience or not. What matters is what scientists think. Even the courts recognize this.--Filll (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

if so many scientists agree with ytou, then why don't you link to one of them here? Smith Jones (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Physically or virtually? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

a web link would be helpful for veirification peruposes. please just link to one of them ehre so that we can endthis pointless shoutingfest. Smith Jones (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You need the declaration by a major scientific body, like the National Academy of Sciences. I read the research on homeopathy, and not just the abstracts. I have never seen homeopathy called pseudoscience by any of those researchers. Anthon01 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: has the National Academy of Sciences ever labled Phrenology or Astrology or the Time cube pseudoscience? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look here for your answer.[38] Anthon01 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically, here (search for the h-word) .[39] Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hello... look at this quote! "pseudoscience topics include ... homeopathy," under "what is pseudoscience" - The National Science Foundation has spoken! LinaMishima (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Now go read the references listed after homeopathy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit tendentiously much? Come on be reasonable or this will turn into a battleground. And you cannot win, believe me. This page will never be a promotional vehicle for the homeopathic profession. Never. I will see it deleted first and the page protected so it is never created again. So cooperate or deal with the consequences.--Filll (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I do have qualms about that NSF citation[40]. It's clear they're talking about pseudoscience, but not clear that they're endorsing, as opposed to citing, CSICOP. Scientific groups are a little bit conservative that way. Please take to heart that homeopathy is not ID. ID has approximately one peer-reviewed article, and that possibly by deceit. Homeopathy has hundreds. Minority view it is, but scientists are still looking at it. Different ballgame. Not in Kansas anymore. ;-) --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE assume good faith. this is not a battlefground, it is an article, and there is no reaosn for anyone here to treat their fellow editors like criminals just because they have a different veiwpoint than they do. no one here wants this article to be a promotional vehicle for homeopathy; that is not wikipedias purpose and no-one has ever claimed that it is. all any of us are interested in is maintianing WP:NPOV.Smith Jones (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir, tell me what NPOV means to you?--Filll (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're idea of maintaining NPOV is for homeopathy to be given "equal" treatment. That isn't how NPOV works. Equal is balanced by the prominence of the views. The pro-homeopathy view is a tiny minority. Being vocal on this talk page doesn't change that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Which references are you referring to? If you mean the origin of that quote used by the NSF, then it really matters not. The NSF, by their style of usage within a section on how to define pseudoscience, make it clear that they broadly agree with that form. In formal writing, one makes it explicitly clear when one intended to disagree. There is no following mention of "however some dispute this list". If you mean references elsewhere, they do not counteract this source. LinaMishima (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LinaMishima: The NSF article states

According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Gellar, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranorma)

You have been here a lot longer that I have. You know that this is not the NSF making a proclamation. Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The group used, it must be noted, is a significant group in this field. The clarification of "one group" is to specify that this list is the result of that group, not a collection of several group's lists. Again, in formal writing, this style of usage is perfectly acceptable. The NSF's intended meaning is quite clear, that they view this list as broadly representative, and agreeing with their previous definition of pseudoscience. The purpose of that section was to define what they would consider pseudoscience. One certainly does not include references on a whim, and one is clear when writing such a formal document when you intend for something to be taken as simply an opinion that is not widely held. When writing such a definition of 'scope', one either uses literally what is written, or then defines how they will combine the various definitions. No new definition is provided, indicating that they believe the references to be consistent and appropriate. The bar we are looking for here is not "is", but "widely believed to be". This clearly meets that bar. LinaMishima (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but you statement here is a good example of original research WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your objections are a good example of a tendentious misinterpretation of a source. The NSF page clearly gives homeopathy as an example of a pseudoscience; it is unreasonable to read the text any other way. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says According to one group. You could call it a copout on their part. They should have said, According to us. Anthon01 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I call it attribution. It's a well understood convention of expository writing. I suppose I should modify my earlier statement: either you are tendentiously misinterpreting this source, or you are ignorant of how to attribute views to sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean "For the purposes of this document, pseudoscience will be defined as..." (third person tense, remember, must be used), there is absolutely no reason to state this. Unless they state otherwise, the use of a definition within a scope section indicates the use of that definition for the scope. Plain and simple. To try and argue that they 'might' mean something else is not only weasely, but is clearly far more OR (assuming a meaning other than the written english). LinaMishima (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go read any number of reputable journals. Scope sections follow this exact pattern. When something is stated and not rebutted, and no summarised definition of scope is drawn, then the statement is intended to be considered to be used in the definition of scope. This is how one is supposed to read formal documents. One is not supposed to read that something is stated, see it featured later in the literature review, and wonder "why is this here?" - that is frankly an absurd suggestion. LinaMishima (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although homeopathy is without doubt pseudoscience ("a system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not") it may be best for us not to say so. I've heard from people whose opinion I respect that the term arouses suspicion in the mind of the reader. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even thought I concur with Raymond that the term arouses suspicion, I have to respectfully disagree with his position on the placement of the tag. This is such a clear cut example of pseudoscience, that it defies logic why so many people keep asking for ref's that will never quite meet their criteria. By not saying that it is pseudoscience (remember, it is not us making the judgement call, but quite reliable sources), we are violating our own policies. Baegis (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT SOURCES?!?!?! i have been sitting here liestening to all of this and i havent seen anyone link to a single reliable source that says that homoeopathy is a psuedoscience. No Academy of the Sciences, no major homoeopathic repetories or publications, not a single one! Smith Jones (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was 'reference 6' from a previous discussion here, the NSF publication just featured, and two more sources below here. Homeopathic publications themselves are obviously never going to call themselves a psuedoscience, since the very definition of a psuedoscience is to appear to be scientific LinaMishima (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked briefly and found a couple of scientists talking about how unscientific homeopathy is:

References showing homeopathy is pseudoscience:

• Houston Chronicle columnist Eric Berger discussing Rory Coker's characterization of homeopathy as pseudoscience [41]
• Lancet author Ben Goldacre, writing in the Guardian: [42]

I can find many more of course, depending on how much time I want to spend. But we all know that this won't work. In the history of this talk page there are literally hundreds of references showing homeopathy is complete bollocks, and let's face it, there is an endless supply of trolls and POV warriors, several of which are close to illiterate, who are FURIOUS about the article and the situation, no matter what. They believe in magic and that is that, and are so angry they would shoot any of us if they met us face to face, probably (or at least they appear to be like this). They and only they possess "The TRUTH". I expect them to start claiming they are God any moment.

I think that what we have to do on this page, to settle it down, is start employing the methods we used on evolution and intelligent design talk pages. That is, when pro-homeopathy trolling starts appearing, we just summarily delete it. Period. No second chances. No whining. No repeating the same arguments 10,000 times over and over and over which no one reads or pays attention to because they possess "THE TRUTH". Just attack them brutally and with no mercy. And block them at each and every opportunity. That is what we had to do on evolution, and eventually it worked. And that is what we might have to do here. Sorry if this offends anyone, but this just gets ridiculous. --Filll (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Filll re-read the Wikipedia policy on "Ownership of articles". Insisting that your biased POV will prevail are against Wikipedia policy and against "Reasonable consensus-building". Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a core policy. Concensus cannot override it. NPOV insists that viewpoints be given weight in prominence to their adherence. The pro-homeopathy is a miniscule minority. "2% of US or UK residents use homeopathic treatments in a year?" 2% two. percent. How much of this article do you think is a fair representation of 2%? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In fairness, that's not really a great measure; what percentage of U.S. and U.K. residents use chemotherapy in a year? Do we know that the other 98% don't use homeopathy because they think it's bunk, because they don't have the need, because their insurance doesn't cover it, etc.? I'm still in favour of adding the category, but let's confine our arguments to the non-strawmen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society states that "The basic premises of homeopathy, developed over 200 years ago, are not in agreement with modern scientific principles." Sounds to me like a pretty clear indictment of calling it science. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:CONSENSUS, you will find that it states "you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves". At one time, consensus was clarified as meaning 'informed consensus'. In terms of the arguments, we now have a number of good quality sources referring to homeopathy as a pseudoscience. Given the acknowledged differences between homeopathy and regular science, there is not a substantial claim that homeopathy is a science , and yet homeopathy regularly uses the trappings of science. This prevents a counterposition being taken against the assertion that homeopathy is strongly enough associated with pseudoscience to be included within the catagory. Within the article itself, this viewpoint can of course be clarified. LinaMishima (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[43], [44], [45] The first of these is the most watertight, and cannot be argued with without a failure to understand formal writing. The second of these is from a highly respected medical doctor and journalist. The last reference is not perfect, but it is another appearance of the statement within published literature. These between them form a strong case for the inclusion within the catagory. [46] is evidence that prevents claims of following scientific method, and I hopefully will not have to document the various scientific trappings that homeopathy surrounds itself with. As such, we have built up a claim that homeopathy is considered by a significant group to be a pseudoscience. For this statement, the sources used cannot be denied reliable status (As the bar for category inclusion is "considered by a significant group", and has been well met, with a national body's publication, a major journalist and journal contributor, and a general journal publication which cites sources). This claim can only be countered by either proof that they are blatantly wrong, that homeopathy is a science (which the failure to follow scientific method prevents), or proof that it does not claim to be science or use the trappings of science (which it clearly does). As this claim must be upheld, merit only exists for the category to be present. Consensus as defined on wikipedia requires the strength and quality of arguments to be considered, and as such a conclusion has been reached. I advise people to abide by this. LinaMishima (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Consensus has not been reached to place the insulting label of "pseudoscience" on homeopathy within this article. Categorizing cannot be used to assert a specific viewpoint, in particular when there are disagreements. If we do, we are proclaiming that one viewpoint is true and another is false. This clearly violates editing an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia according to the WP:NPOV policy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all - it's been awhile since I edited here (guess why I stopped). Just wanted to share a bit of NPOV that is directly relevant to the [[category:pseudoscience]] issue, and has proven helpful elsewhere:

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

Very helpful stuff there, from one of ArbCom's better decisions.

In essence, any topic that has been criticized as pseudoscience by a V RS can have that information in the article... but only those that are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" should be so categorized. It's good to remember WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus, which says:

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Examples of such sources can be found at Scientific opinion on climate change. Or List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. The point is: despite being well-known, and having no paucity of (citeable) critics, homeopathy is not in the same ballpark as Intelligent Design in terms of being widely regarded as pseudoscientific. The evidence, in the form of commentary from scientific societies, is not there. True, we have the NSF report, which (while hardly a slam-dunk) may suffice for categorization. But isn't it telling that we don't have more?

Sidebar: I was a graduate student at Harvard (chem) when the Benveniste paper came out. Most of my colleagues expressed amused skepticism: "well, maybe there's something there, who knows, probably not." Not exactly the causticity with which creationists are greeted among the scientific community. (/anecdote)

So, absent evidence of widespread condemnation from the sci community, may I suggest that a scorched-earth, ID-troll-flushing approach is not indicated here? Treat it as the sugar pills: at worst, it's nothing. Chill pill! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blowback

You know, I and probably a few others are not really committed to putting a pseudoscience label on homeopathy or putting quackery in the first few sentences. However, you know that when you fight us at every turn, and you challenge everything we say, and you edit tendentitiously and disruptively, you know what that does? It makes us more likely to take a hard line, including:

• Pushing for pseudoscience labelling
• using techniques like immediate deletion of any of your comments from the talk page, on sight, no exceptions.
• pushing to get as many homeopathy supporters are possible blocked by any means necessary

So cooperate and do not fight. You will get further.--Filll (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in violation of at least a couple of policies here. Perhaps you might want to refactor some of your comments, and maybe take a break. Anthon01 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll has just made the false accusation that I "edit tendentitiously and disruptively". Amazingly, right after that he himself threatens to "edit tendentitiously and disruptively"!. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article. Cooperate or we will have trouble. This article will never be turned into a POV vehicle for promoting homeopathy. Go to another wiki if that is your goal. I have several to suggest to you if you want help.--Filll (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

you fight us at every turn, and you challenge everything we say. Who us "us" and who is "we"? Are not we all editors of this encyclopedia? Don;t we have a common goal? When we do not, then this is what happens (check the article history, if you don;t get it). I think it is enough polarization to last everybody a good month. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference for Homeopathy = Pseudoscience

• Medscape article on pseudoscience including homeopathy [47] Of course, we know I can generate hundreds of these. --Filll (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy promoter challenge

I want one homeopathy supporter, to tell me what NPOV is. Come on. Tell me what it means.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones? Arion? Anthon? Come on, tell me. Let's get this straight. --Filll (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is WP:Pointy. If I'm right you and most of us are losing our edge. I think we all need to take a break. We can come back to this tomorrow and take time to outline our differences, and figure out where we could meet. May be this issue should be dropped for now. There is more work this article needs besides this. Anthon01 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a WP:Point case. Filll is expressing a concern that the good lot of you pro-homeopath people do not understand what NPOV actually means. It would probably help the article as a whole and help to clean up the talk page if you can answer him. Baegis (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again : There are sources which state that and sources already cited in the article which do not. [48]

An editor gave a good example before.[49] --Area69 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry those links prove nothing. You have to know the operating principles and goals of Wikipedia if you expect to be successful editing here. Just show me you know what you are doing and what our goal is.--Filll (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to read them they state homeopathy = positive and promising results(even inconclusive), calling for more research - they state no where pseudoscience that it is pseudoscience. These are citations in the article. --Area69 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A lesson in NPOV for homeopathy promoters

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each'. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. from [50].

So how much more prominent and popular is allopathy than homeopathy? In terms of money? Number of practitioners? Research dollars? Successful results in research journals? Respect in science community? Number of patients?

Clearly allopathy outweighs homeopathy by a HUGE factor (we can argue how much, but clearly by a factor of 10 or 20 or more). So the allopathic and scientific view gets to dominate by NPOV. Period.

So this article is more than half pro-homeopathy. More than fair. So quit whining. Because by NPOV it could be 95% or more anti-homeopathy.

This is Wikipedia. These are our rules. Deal with them or leave.

Alternate wikis which do not have NPOV:

Wikinfo, Conservapedia, Para Wiki and many others.

So cooperate or there will be trouble. I have watched this fighting for a good 8 months or more now on this page now. It must stop. It is a waste of everyone's time. --Filll (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is condescending. Anthon01 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Using biased terms like "homeopathy promoters" does not show the greatest of repect for your fellow editors.
• (2) The best way to have fighting stop is to stop fighting.
• (3) Threatening your fellow editors is a violation of Wikipedia polices.
• (4) Stop twisting the meaning of NPOV to something that it is not. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses the substance of Filll's argument. Being condescending does not mean he doesn't have a valid point, and accusing him of being condescending gets you logically nowhere. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)\

So quit whining. Uh? Is this a schoolyard conversation, or intelligent people have an civil debate? Or is it that some people consider others to be stupid? You may not say that in words, but that is the perception. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So cooperate or there will be trouble : Indeed, Fill, I hope you take your statement as seriously as I do. We sometimes advise others on what we most need ourselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will address the substance of Filll's argument (and leave the tone aside, since Filll is a reasonable guy, and we all get exasperated sometimes). Filll left out this part of WP:WEIGHT, which refutes his comparison of homeopathy with allopathy:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

That passage leavens things a bit. Maybe the reader wants to know about it, perhaps only for historical interest. The place to cover that in detail is right here, in the homeopathy article. Not in medicine. Right here.

Games, popular music, works of fiction and even astrology get better treatment on WP than homeopathy does. We grok already that infinitesimal dilution is chemically implausible (especially when we are chemists, and find the whole debate amusing). We grok that the weight of controlled studies suggests it's likely placebo.

Still, for whatever reason, some scientists and doctors are still looking at homeopathy, so we should cover that as well, along with all that's gone before (again, history of medicine = interesting), and quit attempting prematurely to stick a fork in it, imo. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim, nice to see you back from your break. But could you clarify what you meant by your statement? I am afraid I am confused by it. 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baegis (talk • contribs)

Hi and thanks for the welcome back... Mainly I wanted to highlight the blockquoted section from WP:WEIGHT, since this article comes more under "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" than "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" ... my comments above may be clearer. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. I knew Filll would bring this up again sooner or later. (The discussion is now archived here). --Art Carlson (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more clear

Peter Morrell is a homeopathy supporter. He is a world expert in homeopathy and has written widely on the subject and has a position at a University doing research and lecturing and writing about homeopathy.

And yet, he is productive here. He works with us. He is cooperative. He understands NPOV. I want to work with him. Many of us do. I have defended him before on a number of occasions even though he can be a bit uncivil sometimes. That is irrelevant since he is productive. I want to write more articles about homeopathy with him. We have one in the sandbox we are working on.

See the difference? He understands the goals and function of Wikipedia and its operating principles and cooperates. And we are much more productive that way. See? So if you want to emulate someone, watch Peter Morrell and how he behaves.--Filll (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You can also help by not adding oil to the fire, by not polarizing debates, and by showing respect for fellow editors even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be even more clear. I am a supporter of homeopathy (not a "homeopathy promoter") and a supporter of Wikipedia NPOV policy. You were the first one to engage in a personal attack against me when I came to this article on 9 December 2007. It appears that you have not stopped. Your threats against me and other editors are not appropriate and do not lead to reasonable consensus building. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see things, circumstances are just frustrating Filll to the point of dropping civility here. To be honest, having seen everything that's going on here, I don't blame him. And whether they're stately rudely or not, I think he does raise some good points, which, rather than being addressed, have been parried with the sword of civility (no, there's no coincidence that in my metaphor, civility is a sword). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that things can be frustrating, and the frustration, from what I see in this page and the article's page, manifests on both sides of the dispute. The article was protected for 30 days, and what happened during that time? not much. That time should have been used to look for common ground so that editors can move forward. In any case, the article is now unprotected and most involved editors have pledged 1RR. That is a good start, and rather than discuss each other, editors should discuss the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Infophile is right. I've just arrived at this page, and I can already see why Filll would be extremely frustrated: many editors seem to be disregarding or misunderstanding WP:WEIGHT, and there's a lot of misrepresentation of sources going on. None of this justifies being uncivil, I suppose, but I think that factual accuracy should be valued more highly than civility. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Could you protect the article after you revert the last edit without discussion? An anonymus user just revert someones edit.--Area69 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit is by a editor that has been warned in the past few days for disruptive behavior. I have reverted what I see it is a disruptive edit, deleting material without any comments. Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the lead

I'm new to this page, having just noticed it after Jossi blocked the guy who had been causing trouble on another page I was on. It's sad to see the degree to which a controversial topic gets wikipedia editors all in a tizzie. I just corrected a so-called quote attributed to two sources, after I saw from the history that that the quote had been mangled and attributed to the wrong source, due to careless edit warring. But what really seems peculiar is that the lead has a substantial paragraph to push the POV of the medical and scientific establishment on homeopathy, even supporting broad conclusions by lists of refs. Clearly, it's a field that's not going to look good in medical and scientific methods, and their evaluation of it deserves a place in the article; but in the lead? This is the place to say what the topic is, not to say who criticizes it. Other articles on topics of great controversy, such as George W. Bush, tend to keep to a more neutral lead (that one mentions that he has some of the highest and lowest approval ratings, but doesn't go into a litany of who disapproves for what). I'd suggest the paragraph full of citations be replaced by a brief sourced statement that homeopathy is very controverial especially in the medical and scientific communities, and demote the rest to a section on evaluations and criticisms. I'll make such an edit if I get some support for the idea here. Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests including "notable controversies" in the lead. The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus strikes me as being a pretty notable controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus" -- wow. See WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. Source? --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. But note that WP:LEAD also says "briefly", which is my point; this is not the place to amass the evidence on one side or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think two sentences is fairly brief. Ideally, it would be a little less cluttered by footnotes, but that's really not an option given the level of dispute on this page. What would you rather replace it with? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you're new to the page, you might want to read this section, which contains some context as to how the lead came to be the way it is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NSF source posted at WP:RSN

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"? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox paranoia

People arguing against the inclusion of the infobox fail to realize that the infobox simply provides one particular framework for looking at the subject. It is not the be-all-and-end-all of article descriptions. That most knowledgeable people consider homeopathy to be pseudoscience has not been disputed (similar to astrology). That people who believe in homeopathy do not consider it to be pseudoscience is a no-brainer -- but this is not a justification for removing a simple tool for quick and concise explanation of the pseudoscientific claims of the subject. It is simply not "POV" to include an infobox about the pseudoscientific aspects of this idea. Please do not keep removing it while claiming some protection under NPOV. As has been pointed out many times above, this kind of advocacy is itself basic special pleading. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)