Talk:Homeopathy

Untitled

To Do List

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

'sham' and 'quackery'

The following sentence appears to have be written by someone who is critical of homeopathy and wishes to use emotive language to disparage it.

"The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham;[14] the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery,[15][16]"

Sham suggests that it is pretending to eb something which it isn't - I don't quite see how that's the case. The author of the RS calls it a sham but their source doesn't describe it as such, it's a bout doctors in the UK proposing a motion that the NHS shouldn't fund homeopathy. The first of the sources used, and also quoted, to describe the American Medical Association's view refers to a decision made more than 150 years ago.

I don't intend to get involved in this article, I am just giving feedback as a reader. There must be better ways to characterise the attitude of the 'scientific community' Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're to say what the "scientific community" thinks, we really need a source stating that. What we have does just that (and it was after some debate and searching). Can you find something better? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See the archives. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Brunton (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No I do not have an alternative source for this. As a first time visitor to this page I am simply giving feedback on how it appears to me. I have no quarrel with homeopathy being treated as 'fringe' however I think this could be presented in a way which is more neutral tone. It's up to the editors of the page, are you trying to produce something which satisfies you or something which might carry authority with the general public? Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the sentence is a neutral representation of a non-neutral statement. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a lot more restrained than "the fraudulent bastards ought to be pubically flogged, tarred and feathered, castrated with a blowtorch and burned at the stake". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is, if you haven't got a good source to say that it is a sham then don't say it's a sham. By all means say rejected by the scientific community. If it was branded as quackery 150 years ago say this precisely. You will make the point more effectively if you appear disapassionate and neutral. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

To quote the source says: Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham. We're just as "dispassionate and neutral" on the Fan death and Flat earth articles as we are here. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that it isn't our job to pretend the position of the scientific community is more reserved in order to "make the point more effectively". If the firm language used by the scientific community has some readers walk away with the impression that bigpharma wrote the wikipedia article on homeopathy, nuts to them. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Another gross violation of the guidelines - which clearly state The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. and of course this does not exists. Furthermore the opinion of scientists varies according to the sources I cited above. --JayR1977 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat, the source has: "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not accurate--- for instance the older organization statements up to 2000 did not stated that homeopathy was regarded as sham ------they said While most homeopathic remedies are not known to have harmed anyone (probably because of the extreme dilutions involved), the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml This is from the arhcives and the link does not work but that was what they stated then. So the current statement is somehow problematic. Homeopathy has not been long regarded as sham and quacery.--JayR1977 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The non-withdrawn source says, "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham". This is the third time this has needed to be pointed out in the space of half a dozen comments in this thread. The hearing problems are beginning make productive discussion difficult. Brunton (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a thousand WP:FRINGE topics, and all of them are covered in glorious detail at Wikipedia, so this kind of discussion is frequently repeated. One aspect of homeopathy that makes it different from other mere crankery is that people make significant amounts of money by selling bottles of water, and that's what makes the word "sham" (with its source) appropriate. Per WP:REDFLAG, it is not necessary to find multiple gold-plated sources to verify mainstream science, so the current sources appear more than adequate. Topics of a FRINGE nature are often surrounded by shape-shifting hocus pocus—perhaps "quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy" justify selling bottles of water, but if that is the case it will be necessary for multiple highly reliable scientific sources to say so (per WP:REDFLAG). Meanwhile, editors should not quibble about what "long" means based on such straw-clutching jargon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You just have to report what ALL mainstream sources say and NOT edit out what it does not conform with the the skeptical point of view. (Try to respond rationally and specifically to the questions asked). --JayR1977 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Brunton AMA used to hold a very different view for homeopathy until very recently- so the "long" regarded as sham is wrong -according to the organization statement. They are not my words. Try to respond rationally to the discussion instead to try to block me from editing or (insult ) people here because they don't agree with you. I m asking a very specific question here. --JayR1977 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The only way to become familiar with Wikipedia and its procedures it to gain experience by editing articles in several different topics. It is not possible for editors to spend sufficient time explaining everything to someone whose experience is limited to three edits in this article, and 62 comments on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to answer rationally to what has been said instead of trying to discourage me to participate in the discussion. --JayR1977 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

JayR1977: the words "the "long" regarded as sham is wrong" are very clearly your own words, because the AMA made no such statement. Using the AMA's statement, which from what you have posted says nothing about whether homoeopathy was regarded as a sham, to support a claim that they thought it was not a sham would clearly violate WP:SYN. The source used says, "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham"; your source (such as it is, having been withdrawn from the AMA's website) does not contradict this. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the "AMA used to hold a very different view for homeopathy"? Brunton (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"I m asking a very specific question here." - No, you aren't. You haven't asked any questions in this thread so far. Brunton (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes , i do ; the report about Homeopathy that used to be previously in their website part of which I cited. --JayR1977 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read what it says? It isn't very positive. Brunton (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is not but it does not say they regarded homeopathy as sham. They used to have a more neutral approach. --JayR1977 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no justification to use the word "sham". As has been pointed out, its one person summarising in their own words. That hardly justifies being used here, never mind in the lead. But, given that most eds here are "skeptics" and have a mission to have such things said whether it's true or not, does serve to highlight the bias quality of this article for readers. It's certainly not justified, even according to wiki policy. Cjwilky (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. Agree. --JayR1977 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No justification apart from a source which specifically uses the word. Brunton (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Brunton you can write whatever you want- you have the votes and the majority of the editors but you cannot prevent people to show their dissatisfaction from not following the guidelines. Yes it has been long regarded as sham since ....2009 when AMA removed the report on alternative medicine..Is this a joke? . It is certainly a point of view in the AMA homeopathy = sham----- but It is quite ridiculous to state that an entire organization AMA regards homeopathy as a sham based on the opinion of one author who cites a ...newspaper to support his view. It does not look good for the article which is already a low level polemic statement. --JayR1977 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How many sources don't use the word? I think POV is obvious in that person choosing to use that word, it just happens to coincide with various editors POV. The same goes for quackery which is also an emotive term. Cjwilky (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The AMA report does not say anything about whether or not homoeopath was regarded as a sham, or quackery, so therefore doesn't contradict sources that say it is regarded as a sham or quackery. Brunton (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Loads of sources don't use the words "sham" or "quackery", but that doesn't mean that they contradict the sources that say homoeopathy is regarded as a sham or quackery. If they don't say anything about whether or not homoeopathy is regarded as a sham or quackery then they are simply not relevant to that particular question. They would only contradict it if they used a form of words that indicated that it is not regarded as a sham or quackery. Brunton (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

They have to say it ---what are talking about ? - otherwise it is in your imagination. --JayR1977 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Brunton, lets not mess about. There is ONE reference to "sham" in a letter to a jounal, which cites an article that doesn't mention the word, and indeed has NO reference whatsoever to "long term", which discredits the author further. Cjwilky (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In this journal, a "letter to the editor" is an article, as set out here: "these [letters to the editor] can take three forms: a substantial re-analysis of a previously published article, or a substantial response to such a re-analysis from the authors of the original publication, or an article that may not cover 'standard research' but that may be relevant to readers." It is highly appropriate for the use we make of it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How is possible an opinion article to support that an entire organization regards homeopathy as sham ? It is kind of a joke. Escpecially when the author cites as a source a newspaper which does not use the actual word.And when the previous position of the organization WAS really more neutral to homeopathy - let alone the "long" term thing. --JayR1977 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Alex - It being the sole example of the use of an emotive word, "sham", and you conclude that it is therefore "highly appropriate"? Indeed, in that same article he "cites" it is claimed ""Some of these patients, for whatever reason, find benefit and relief in homeopathic treatments, because of a placebo effect or not." so where does that go in the article here? In the lead perhaps? Cjwilky (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial statement about what a community (not an organization) thinks about homeopathy, and is well-supported in-line with WP policies. There is no problem here (other than Talk page disruption). Cjwilky — the word "sham" is actually quite kind and gentle compared to other characterizations of homeopathy by experts: "Nonsense on stilts" was the phrase used by some BMA folk. So if anything, this article is admirably restrained and soft in its description of homeopathy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Alex, why try and dig up worse terms to attempt to make "sham" seem reasonable? Its not, it is emotive. It is not what most doctors would say - or maybe you have evience? Likewise with quackery. Its not used except by activists and the occasional American. As an encyclopedia we are here to represent all kinds of things in a balanced way. Using emotive language is unacceptable. More so when it is in only ONE letter to an editor.

So having ignore what else I said, as well as accusing me of disruption when the passive POV skeptic army are continually mobilised on here, I take it you're fine with adding in "Some of these patients, for whatever reason, find benefit and relief in homeopathic treatments, because of a placebo effect or not." Cjwilky (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there some kind of policy I'm not aware of? It sounds a lot like WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Where are you proposing to add this sentence? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

CAn you stop using the term dirruption every time someone disagrees with you?--JayR1977 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use the word disruptive. But yeah, we're well into WP:IDONTHEARYOU territory now, which is disruptive. And now you've brought us to a meta-discussion about the use of the word disruptive, which is also disruptive. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cjwilky — No, we can't include your suggested biomedical claim from the article because biomedical claims (especially those which ae extraordinary) need strong, WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing; besides your quotation comes from a different article to the one we're discussing. However the obvious statement, that homeopathy is a sham, only needs commonplace sourcing (though this article goes the extra mile in providing strong sourcing for this information). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify before it gets jumped on: the "obvious statement" that only needs commonplace sourcing is that homoeopathy is regarded as a sham. Brunton (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we are sourcing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What obvious statement? Who says that it is obvious? You need to provide evidence besides an opinion article which cites a newspaper ( without even using the term --JayR1977 (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The source uses the term "sham" in the sentence "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham." Brunton (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Although we don't use the word "obvious" in the article, there may be a case for it. Timothy Caulfield, a Professor of the Faculty of Law and the school of Public Health, University of Alberta, has written: "Homeopathy is a 'treatment' so obviously devoid of scientific merit that it is consistently mocked on TV shows, by comedians and, of course, by skeptics." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the words "sham" and "quackery" are backed up by a plethora of sources that express the exact same ideas with out using the exact same words. They are therefore fair paraphrases, and they sound a lot moe encyclopedic and less inflammatory than "utter bullshit and drivel". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A plethora of other sources do NOT use or imply these words. The fact that homeopathy is intergrated in national health systems supported by the state is a very strong evidence that it is NOT regarded as a sham.--JayR1977 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. Laws and regulations reflect the opinion of the political community, not those of the medical and scientific communities. A huge part of the sham in recent years is to abandon trying to convince the medical community, appealing instead to the gullible pulic and governmental bodies. The fat that it has worked to some degree says nothing about it's validity. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Governments do consult medical authorities as well besides responding to public pressure. If you mean medical and scientific bodies they do NOT regard homeopathy as sham - some they do - some they don't. You can see it yourself in their statements. AMA for instance up to 2010 had a very neutral approach about homeopathy which was official and had a form of a report. NOT a letter to the editor which the article falsely presents as AMA view on homeopathy. That's really absurd by itself and not in line with the guidelines. --JayR1977 (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The AMA report doesn't express an opinion on whether or not they consider it to be quackery, so can't be used one way or the other on this point (incidentally, I'm not sure whether it can be said to be their opinion "up to 2010" - even when it was still on their website the page included a disclaimer that it "represents the medical/scientific literature on this subject as of June 1997"). See WP:STICKTOSOURCE, which cautions against using a source "to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source" (emphasis in original). By the way, I've had a look at the two sources the lede cites to support the statement about the AMA's view - neither of them is a letter to the editor. Brunton (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The report doesn't say or implies that it is sham. For sure "it is long regarded as a sham" conflicts with the reality. If there were a report of the entire body stating that I would accept that it is reasonable to say x organization regards homeopathy as ..whatever. But now it is just ONE opinion - there is no way to imply that this an entire body's stance just because it was published in the their journal -Don't you see that it is absurd?--JayR1977 (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What is absurd is that you are trying to attack a statement that the article doesn't make. It would help if you discussed what the article actually says, and the sources it uses to support what it says, rather than this strawman. The article doesn't say that it is the AMA's opinion that "it is long regarded as a sham"; as per the source it uses, it says that the scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham. The separate statement about the AMA's position is supported, in the lede, by two other sources. Brunton (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery,[15][16]" is this my imagination?--JayR1977 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't. But that isn't the statement that the item from the journal is used to support. That the article, as you claim, "impl[ies] that this an entire body's stance just because it was published in the their journal" is most certainly a figment of your imagination. Neither reference [15] or reference [16], the two sources supporting the statement, is a reference to a journal. The source you are complaining is not an adequate source for the AMA's opinion is not used to source the AMA's opinion; it is used to source the statement that the scientific community regards homoeopathy as a sham. Do you get it now? You are attacking sourcing that the article doesn't use. Brunton (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes Brunton you are correct in that - however even the source which is cited to support that AMA says homeopaty = placebo is inadeqate; this is historical refenrence not a present position -the most recent official report does NOT regard homeopathy as sham or quacery. In general the article reads as a sceptic polemic site - editing out everything from the mainstream source which reports positive on homeopathy. --JayR1977 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The report that you describe as "the most recent official report" does not say anything about whether or not they regard it as quackery; it is a report on "the medical/scientific literature on this subject as of June 1997" (that can hardly be said to come to a positive conclusion). It therefore cannot be used to to source the AMA's opinion on whether homeopathy is quackery, any more than a letter to the editor that doesn't express an opinion that homoeopathy works can be used to imply that its author has concluded that homoeopathy works. Please put down the stick. Brunton (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, This is a deadhorse argument that is going nowhere. Further discussion is pointless and a waste of time. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You repeat the same thing from the beginning of the discussion. Instead of discouraging people to discuss the issues here - try to respond with rational arguments. Brunton you keep using irrelevant arguments. The article should include the different views on Homeopathy in author words - Linde for instance STATES that Homeopathy = placebo is a significant overstatement and the article falsely states that he concurs with Shangs that homeopathy = placebo. This is false. AMA does not state that homeopathy = sham = quackery - The source can be used as an historical reference not as AMA current stance on homeopathy.--JayR1977 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Only JayR seems to be using the A = B formulation, which clearly is an inappropriate wp:STRAWMAN. There are many other placebos besides just homeopathy, hence homeopathy is a subset of the set of all placebos, which is not a mathematical identity. The proposition that "X is a placebo" is unverifiable in any finite experiment, though it is easily disprovable if X is significantly different from a placebo. The closest one can get to it is "X is statistically indistinguishable from placebo". That is what has been repeatedly shown in the highest quality sources available. Accept it unless you can bring a reliable source that says otherwise. (If that happens, I'll ride through wikimania naked on a polychromatic unicorn). LeadSongDog come howl! 16:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats false. There ARE expiriments showing real effects of homeopathy according to Linde researsh and written statements for this research in the Lancet-- not according to me. Are you suggesting that the Lancet and anns of internal medecine I cited are NOT reliable sources?--JayR1977 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear there's no consensus for your suggested edit and you have nothing new to say. Please stop wasting everyone's time. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"You repeat the same thing from the beginning of the discussion" - you are getting the same responses because you are repeating the same arguments without taking any notice of the responses they have already received.

"Linde for instance STATES that Homeopathy = placebo is a significant overstatement" - nope, the letter says that "Given these limitations on its method, Shang and colleagues’ conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement" - it is a comment on that specific paper, not on homoeopathy generally. Once again you are trying to use a source to support something that it doesn't actually say.

"There ARE expiriments showing real effects of homeopathy" - yes, the article already says that: "Although some trials produced positive results..." I suggest that before making further comments on this talk page you should read this.

"Are you suggesting that the Lancet and anns of internal medecine I cited are NOT reliable sources?" No, I'm suggesting that you are ignoring what other editors have already said about these sources. Brunton (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the example raised in the OP shows the bias inherent in this article. However, it helps people with a modicum of nouse to see the POV from the off. Cjwilky (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

unethical

First of all I edited the article to show that the reference was to unethical effects of funding homeopathy. This is reverted because there is a reference to homeopathic remedies being unethical per se. Then when I clarify exactly what the reference says Alexbrn justifies his next reversion by arguing that the quote is about funding. So we've gone in a circle my first edit ought to stand. I do not have much hope that my edit will stand but Alexbrn's arguments for reversion are of interest. I think there is a clear lack of neutral tone here and that you wouldn't this in Encyclopaedia Britannica or Citizendium. However it seems to be a feature of Wikipedia that in controversial subjects one side wins. often succeeds in having editors from the opposing side banned and then produces something which (in my view) is very far from neutral. I think the public at large has an interest in knowing this and I am glad that Alexbrn provided arguments to illustrate my point . Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article supporting this statement (that homeopathy had been criticised as unethical) consists of five arguments why homeopathy is unethical, yet your edits were trying to deny this criticism was there, or water it down. That would be to misrepresent the source blatantly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to quote the text from the source in the note, see as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford#cite_note-187 so that readers may readily judge how closely the source supports the quote. This text shows up when readers hover their mousepoint over the note number in main text. The point will have more (or possibly less) authority if you do this. I am going by the title of the article and am sure that other readers do the same. I note that various visitors to the article have commented on a lack of neutrality in the lead and I agree with the reader that this tends to weaken the authority of the article.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To include a quotation showing how the journal article was arguing homeopathy was unethical would require us to include pretty much the entire text, since that article - from start to finish - is arguing that point in various ways. The article is accurately represented here at the moment, and I don't see a need for a change in that, especially not so as to misrepresent it! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case you should judge the source article by its lead which does not support your point. But if you don't then someone reading the article may think that the word 'unethical' is not supported by the source and thus you risk undermining the authority of the article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? We read, we understand, and we relay accurately what the source means. Restricting oneself arbitrarily to a particular section risks misrepresenting the source and is pretty sure to be WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think any reasonable person reading the source article will see that Wikipedia is accurately representing it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that if a reasonable person saw the statement "homeopathic remedies have been criticized as unethical" backed by a source article entitled "Homeopathy is where the harm is: Five unethical effects of funding unscientific 'remedies'" they would not have too much confidence in the main wiki article. Why would a reasonable person want to spend reading an article to see if any part of the content justified the statement in the main text when the title doesn't appear to do so? I suggest you ask yourself what you are seeking to achieve with this article: 'self-expression' or to persuade the reader. Ever heard of the 1983 Labour Party (U.K.) Election manifesto, dubbed 'the longest suicide note in history'? Doubtless the authors of the document felt great about themselves and their ideological purity but they were trounced in the election. I respectfully suggest that you are not only undermining the confidence of the reader in the authority of the article but damaging the reputation of wikipedia by allowing this version to stand. Up to you Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

suggest you add from the article "The first and most important potential unethical effect of homeopathy is that patients seek homeopathic remedies instead of, rather than as well as, traditional medicine. Even for minor ailments, this could result in greater suffering for the patient than would be the case had they remained within mainstream medicine." I used to know how to do this but things have changed and it's late at night where I am.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This aspect is already treated in the article. See, for instance, the second-to-last sentence in the lede, or the mention of the Ernst 2012 systematic review later in the body, or the entire subsection of the "Ethics and safety" section which discusses this in depth. We don't need to pile too much information into the lede, which is quite dense as it is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the lead is much too dense because, in my view, editors give vent to their personal feelings by straining to put in emotive terms like 'sham' 'quackery' and 'unethical'. Get rid of them and the simple sober statement that most members of the orthodox medical community consider that homeopathy can be dangerous because it delays people seeking other treatment would stand out - that way you might save some lives rather than giving vent to spleen. I write as one who does use homeopathic remedies now and then but tends to resort to orthodox treatments for anything that might be serious. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on - you're criticising the sourcing on the basis of the title of the article used? We generally use the actual content. Brunton (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd moved on a bit but 1 I don't think there is a formal wiki guideline 'don't confuse the reader' but that is what you do unless you quote from the text of the article in the note. 2 Put the quote from the source article in the main text and scrub out a lot of the other stuff and you'll bre masking your point much more effectively. Using all those emotive terms is quite counter-productive. You ought to get some disinterested people to review this for neutrality of tone, you've got rid of the opposition here (largely) and there is nothing to ensure balance. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The author of the letter in question concludes, in part,:

"Patients who are prescribed homeopathic treatments are very possibly being deceived, and thus are being treated unethically."

This seems to be adequately summarized in our article. And no, the title of an article is not the important part--the "conclusions" section at the end of the article is where the important stuff is. Desoto10 (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest whatever part is important get's quoted in the note.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest this is unnecessary as reference contains link to full text. Brunton (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's good practice to make references as exct as possible to help the reader. Are you trying to satisfy some p[rocedural nicety or actually make your point clearly? Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference is exact. It has the author's name, the year of publication, the title, the specific page and issue number of the journal where it was published, and the doi and PMID for the article, with those last two as working links which will allow the reader to read the text of the article. I don't know whether it is an actual policy, but Wikpedia generally seems to use references without quoting the specific words in the reference that support the text. It could, perhaps, be argued that in some cases where text isn't readily available it might be a good idea to include a quotation, but where sources are quoted it generally seems to be as a quotation in the article rather than in the reference. It is clearly unneccessary for references that have full text freely available online, and the mere fact that the title of a reference doesn't say exactly what the article uses it to source doesn't matter - we use what the source says, rather than its title, and we summarise what the source says in the article. Very few, if any, of the sources Wikipedia uses are going to have the exact point they are used to source quoted in their title. Brunton (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the "cite" templates have a quote= parameter which can be useful when we are in fact using a source just the once. (This is particularly helpful in the case of printed references.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

biased article

The article is so biased - if is so ridiculous - the chery picking and style.--Joijoi89 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain in what ways you consider that the article contravenes Wikipedia policy? Before doing so, I suggest that you read WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS as clearly relevant to the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

you have to wait - I will --Joijoi89 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting, I suggest that in addition to the pages Andy has recommended you should also look at the archives for this talk page (and indeed the discussions currently on the talk page) to make sure that you aren't just bringing up the same points and sources that have already been discussed. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and be sure to study also the FAQ right at the top of this page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, welcome! I look forward to your contributions here Joijoi89 :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The "non-CAM" scientific community?

Do we really need this qualifier attached to the view of the scientific community in the lede? Surely "the scientific community" should be taken as being the mainstream view, with CAM being a fringe view? Brunton (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking the source, it says "non-CAM scientific community", so that it what we should follow. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we are allowed (indeed supposed) to summarise what sources say, and from the policies about fringe topics and pseudoscience it would appear that as far as Wikipedia is concerned "the scientific community" and "the non-CAM scientific community" should be synonymous. Brunton (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they were the same, but I can imagine some would disagree. However, on second thoughts there is maybe a plagiarism issue here in paraphrasing so closely. What's troubling too is an implicit implication that CAM is part of the scientific community, which would need much stronger sourcing since it's quite a claim! Perhaps we could say something along the lines of "Outside CAM, the scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham" ?? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. We don't say, "outside Southern Baptist Christian scientists, the scientific community rejects the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old. I understand that you want to be respectful to other people's believes, Alex, but facts are facts. False balance provides an inaccurate description of reality. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the source has "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham". How do we represent that with integrity? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote and attribute it, if you're taking care not to misrepresent the source? (I'd find that a statement that carries a problematic implied welcome of CAM into science myself) - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To me it is a little too close to the "critics say" that someone tried to attach to the scientific consensus view a while ago, although not quite as egregiously weaselly. Brunton (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Then find a better quote. This one is too confusing. We already use some others that are just as strong or stronger. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

One issue here is that this material is unique to the lede. Perhaps if it were moved to the body, some way can be found to summarize it in lede which solves the immediate problem. This is how it should be done too ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It should not be used in the lede before being used in the body. That's why I prefer to use full references, with reference "name" format, in the body, and then use the short <ref name=blabla/> ref in the lede. That not only makes the lede less cluttered with long references, it ensures we don't have unique content in the lede. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this material is not unique to the lede. It's in the body of the article at the start of the "Evidence" section, where the same source is used to support the statement "outside of the CAM community, scientists have long regarded homeopathy as a sham". Brunton (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Could that same wording be good for the lede then? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. That is one possible, and more logical, interpretation of the phrase. Following Occam's Razor, the simplest and most logical interpretation could be chosen. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys you are treading the line of WP:original research. What ever your POV is ,the cited reference makes a very clear statement. if you want to put another sentence come up with another reference.79.180.169.83 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

IP79, if you wish to avoid being blocked for sock puppetry, I suggest you follow the advice on your talk page, and also at User_talk:JayR1977#Sock_puppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so with the current proposal; how does User:BullRangifer's text falsify the source, would you say?

Oh, but I note 79.180.169.83 has reverted this claiming it falsified an AMA-related source. Which it doesn't - the source is quite clear about the "sham" statement as a distinct claim (funnily enough this exact same confusion about which-source-applies-to-what here, came up just a few weeks ago). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The cited source is making a crystal clear distinction between "CAM scientific community" and "non CAM scientific community". twisting the citation description according to your personal POV is WP:Original Research violation. pure and simple. if you don't like the reference definition. suggest a new reference

regarding the AMA reference - it is too original research to assume it hold this official attitude of "quackery" unless someone can find a source from the AMA. i couldn't79.180.169.83 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Now THAT is OR. It's obviously being used as an adjective, in the same sense that "non-vertebrate jellyfish" is being used. That does NOT imply that there are "vertebrate jellyfish". It just states something that is obvious - jellyfish are non vertebrates, just as the scientific community is "non-CAM". I agree that the wording is a bit unfortunate, but English (and other languages) can have ambiguous meanings at times, and the context determines which meaning to choose. Since there really is no other choice proven to exist, we are left with the choice of an adjective being used to show a contrast between two mutually exclusive concepts. This may be confusing to foreigners, or to POV pushers seeking validation for CAM where it doesn't exist. To resolve the problem it is best to paraphrase, rather than quote exactly. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But a CAM scientific community does not exist - CAM and Science are mutually exclusive. There is no intersection of curves with a shaded area. --Roxy the dog (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Once proven, an alternative medical method ceases to be "alternative" and becomes "medicine". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And the beauty of the proposed new text is that it doesn't even shut down the possibility there could be a CAM-based scientist. Everybody should be happy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You are twisting logic like a pretzel .The reference author could have easily used "The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham" . he didn't . you disagree with him = original research. publish your own review in an academic journal or find a new reference to use here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.191.247 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

IP79, if you wish to avoid being blocked for sock puppetry, I suggest you follow the advice on your talk page, and also at User_talk:JayR1977#Sock_puppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just took a look at the reference. Yes, it is crystal-clear that "non-CAM scientific community", as used in the source (and properly referenced here), is referring to scientists. The author is absolutely not implying that the scientific community can be separated between those who do and do not subscribe to CAM. That's a preposterous interpretation. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that there is a simple misreading of the source going on here? The phrase "the non-CAM scientific community" is ambiguous. It could mean "that fraction of the scientific community that does not support CAM" (that's what most of us seem to be assuming here) - but it might equally mean "the entire scientific community (which does not, in any way, support CAM)"? This would be in much the same way as you might say "the gas-guzzling Ford Explorer" without implying that there is somewhere a Ford Explorer that does not guzzle gas or "the extinct Dodo" without implying that there are non-extinct Dodo's.

If I'm right, and the second meaning is what's intended, then it would be better for us not to use the same confusing language and to state the situation more simply.

Since very few (if any) true scientists in the field of medicine are pro-CAM, this interpretation of the language makes a lot more sense than the other. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again WP:original research violation. " few (if any) true scientists" ??! that is a POV/belief statement. can i have a WP:RS for that conclusion ? 79.181.191.247 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't need an RS - I'm not suggesting that we write that in the article. I'm just pointing out that my interpretation of the phrase in question makes a lot more logical sense than the interpretation that has been placed on it throughout this thread so far. At the very least, I have clearly demonstrated that the phrase in our lede is ambiguous. SteveBaker (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we treat it with respect by passing on that ambiguity (while avoiding plagiarism) by saying "outside of the CAM community, scientists have long regarded homeopathy as a sham". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Leaving the so called ambiguity - and there is non = leaving the phrase exactly as stated in the reference. Plagarism ? LOL . stop inventing ridiculous excuses.109.65.211.80 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

IP109, if you wish to avoid being blocked for sock puppetry, I suggest you follow the advice on your talk page, and also at User_talk:JayR1977#Sock_puppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys. enough with these games already. if you can find an academy of sciences statement that states "Homeopathy is bull carp" or a list of 50 nobel laureates signing a petition saying "Homeopathy is a sham" or a link to the AMA stating "Homeopathy is quackery and the whole scientific community is against it" - by all means bring it. Until then - you are not representing the scientific mainstream view. you are forcing YOUR OWN view which is ofc WP:Undue Weight and WP:Original research what to say of WP:POV ofc. You even feel the need to twist the references YOU YOURSELF CHOSE ! it is beyond sleazy. and certainly destroying wikipedia's credibility. I urge you to come to your senses please.109.65.211.80 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This comment, that the scientific mainstream view is being misrepresented, is nonsense on stilts. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The POV of some eds here is astounding. The bilk of this discussion has been, "we don't like it, how can we say what we want to say". Look at yourselves guys.

And whilst the sockpuppet comments are important to sort out (though I note you didn't bother with that when it was someone with your beliefs, Orangemarlin/Skepticalraptor) don't use it as a way of avoiding the issues. Cjwilky (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and warning about ArbCom discretionary sanctions

I have warned this IP hopping editor about socking and the existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I suggest that all their edits be reverted on sight until this stops. We're dealing with ONE Israeli editor who needs to appear here as ONE registered editor, since a dynamic IP creates confusion and the appearance of multiple editors. It also fails to collect all their edits in one contribution history. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's ludicous. I suppose you shoot on sight anyone wearing a keffiyeh? If an edit has value it counts. Cjwilky (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Only edits made by editors who are following our rules here count. Sock puppetry is not allowed, and their edits can be deleted on sight. I have told the editor in question that I want to give them a chance, and that they need to sort this out and use only one account. Their edits and discussions will be worth discussing at that time, but not until then. You may not have noticed, but this matter only came up when obvious socking became evident, and that their POV was not the reason for my warnings and advice, so AGF. As far as your comment in the previous thread, if you believe another person is using sock puppets, deal with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware my IP was changing. must be automatic with my Internet supplier. I have not abused aka playing different roles here. you could all easily see that i am the same person. and if i would have been asked i would gladly confirm it. i do not wish to register to Wikipedia. You cannot force me too . and you cannot demonstrate i am a vandal in any way or fashion.79.180.181.168 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not a vandal, but your IP is dynamic, and that means you automatically violate our policy against sock puppetry, whether you intend to do so or not. It is not up to us to "see that you are the same person". Your contribution history should show ALL your edits in one place, and you (and other editors) should be able to trace every edit you've made, but you probably can't. You are one human being, and, with few exceptions, are not allowed to use more than one account. If you had a static IP, you could just continue using it, but you don't. Creating an anonymous account will stop these problems, give you more respect, give you more privacy, and give you many more rights and abilities here. There is nothing to lose, and a lot to gain. As it is, every single edit and comment you make is in violation of policy, and can be reverted by any editor. Right now some of your edit history is accessible here Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_79.180.48.58, but this isn't the appropriate way. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

BullRan - the editor in question - orangemarlin/Skepticalraptor was proven to be a sockpuppet, I dealt with it. He was told not to come back, and has in the main been a good boy. Many other eds here knew about this, probably yourself too, and did nothing about it. POV exists even amongst those who believe their cult doesn't have a POV. I agree wholeheartedly that sockpuppetry is harmful for wiki, and in this case it really should be sorted, however, your first line of attack has been to dismiss the arguments on the basis of sockpuppetry, not good. Meanwhile, you yourself are not following procedure on here and are bullying. Reverting edits because you feel its better... what's that about? Cjwilky (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Reverting edits because you feel its better... what's that about?" Improving the article, I suspect, "better" being a word that is more or less synonymous with "improved". Brunton (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be the same edit of his that you reverted Brunton. My point above was intended with an emphasis on the the you and feel ie "Reverting edits because you feel its better... what's that about?" Meaning there is a talk page for discussion rather than edit warring which he was doing, a talk page with that topic already there for discussion even. Cjwilky (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Bruce Hood

User:Cjwilky has been removing content attributed to Bruce Hood (psychologist); yet this seems RS for its purpose. Hood is an expert on human irrationality and the Supersense book used for the source has been well-cited in other scholarly publications. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are being defended since they improve the article. That a fringe editor makes their presence conspicuous in this manner can only result in sanctions for them. This article is under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions and any uninvolved admin can drop the hammer. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bruce Hood reference is ten fold better than the "Sham" reference which is quite a joke authoritatively (read the reference origin). i have no objection for the Hood reference. though i would add the whole paragraph from the book in the citation box and link Hood's name to his wiki article in the box as well. I would consider removing the "Sham" reference all together to keep that criticism paragraph serious looking.79.180.181.168 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ok, now really WTF. i quote word for word from the reference that has been chosen and accepted, but simply because it is not negative about Homeopathy suddenly it is not valid. ENOUGH ALREADY !79.180.181.168 (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I followed procedure here. When someone makes a change to the article and it is challenged we take it to talk, thats the way its always done.

Whats with BullRan playing big bully here? No surprise there as the edit made by AlexBurn goes with Bullrans POV. Bullran - who are you calling fringe? Who are you referring to re sanctions?

Edit reverted until its discussed one here, as per wiki procedure. The significant change is challenged, discuss my friends, or be a BULL and bully... Cjwilky (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific research has repeatedly found"

Four distinguished references are attached to this sentence in the Lead " Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible.[6][7][8][9]". i just read each and every reference and to my bitter surprise - that sentence is misrepresenting their findings. I have taken statements of all 4 references (which surly are repetitive as the original sentence describes) to represent the authentic state of things in the "Scientific research". this is it: Scientific research has repeatedly found that "there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition", that "there is weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies" or "no good evidence of efficacy" and that "no homeopathic remedy has demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo" [6][7][8][9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.181.168 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing i suddenly notice - i don't understand why the same concept is repeated twice in the Lead . First one is the "Scientific research has repeatedly found.." the second one (two paragraphs lower) is "Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials. Taken together, these trials showed at best no effect beyond placebo, at worst that homeopathy could be actively harmful..." shouldn't we synthesize the two together? why this confusion of talking about the same thing in different descriptions ? thanks79.180.181.168 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok i restructured the whole Lead. same material is there.79.180.181.168 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be quoted, we summarise them. In particular the lede summarises the important points from the body of the article. And they weren't being misrepresented. Here's what it said before you edited it: "Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible.". Here's what you substituted it with: "Scientific research has repeatedly found that "there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition", and that "there is weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies" or "no good evidence of efficacy" and that "no homeopathic remedy has demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo"". Both indicate that there is no good evidence that it works, and all you've really achieved is to increase the length of the lede and make it less readable.

the way you restructured the lede may have left the same material, but it changes the balance. Please discuss further "restructurings" here. Brunton (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to say that the lede doesn't perhaps need editing to reduce the repetition, but it needs to be done more carefully, to preserve the current balance. Brunton (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ALL the sources say "weak Efficacy" not "ineffective". the is a difference between misleading the reader and making the lead a bit longer and keeping it legit. the balance is there - 2/3 of the lead is Criticism for God's sake79.180.181.168 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had another go at restructuring the lede, editing the last three paragraphs so that they deal with (1) evidence of efficacy; (2) scientific plausibility; (3) ethics, regualtion & prevalence. There's still some tidying up to be done, for example it isn't really necessary to quote from the sources in a lede, which is supposed to summarise the article. I think we also perhaps ought to change "Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective" to something more along the lines of "scientific research has repeatedly failed to demonstrate efficacy", although this would also require rewriting the second part of the same sentence so that it doesn't imply that research has failed to find the postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Brunton (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative, I'm removing the word "repeatedly" from the sentence. Research (i.e. systematic reviews and meta-analyses) has repeatedly and consistently failed to find it effective; the conclusion that should be drawn from this, in plain English, is that the research has found it ineffective. Brunton (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

According to all 4 references conclusions, the sentence should be : "scientific research has repeatedly found that homeopathic remedies have demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are not convincingly different from placebo" this is the authentic conclusion of all four citations. anyt other statement is misrepresenting their findings.

Further more, the sentence : " Taken together, these trials show at best no effect beyond placebo, at worst that homeopathy could be actively harmful.[14]" should be according to the very reference cited " Taken together, these trials show at best no effect beyond placebo, at worst that SOME homeopathy REMEDIES could be actively harmful.[14]79.181.219.146 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We are allowed (indeed encouraged, for copyright reasons) to summarise what sources say. We do not have to use the exact wording that the sources use. There is no real difference in meaning between your suggested wording on efficacy and what the article currently says (if homoeopathic remedies have been found to "yield clinical effects that are not convincingly different from placebo" then they have been, in plain English, found not to be effective - that's what "not convincingly different from placebo" means), and the current version is more easily intelligible. The only real difference is that your version is less intelligible because it is written in less plain English.

As for your second suggestion, if "at worst SOME homeopathic REMEDIES could be actively harmful", then, at worst, homoeopathy could be actively harmful. Again, you are proposing a change of wording that achieves nothing bayond adding additional verbiage to the lede. Brunton (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Increasing popularity?

A sentence about "increasing popularity" was recently added to the lede, backed up by a source relating to the UK. It seems to be contradicted by well-sourced information in the Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy article, which states that in the UK "homeopathy has been in a state of steady decline over recent years", and cites, among other things, a drop in homoeopathic prescriptions, the closure or rebranding of three of the five NHS homeopathic hospitals, the closing of degree courses, low referral rates, and the withdrawal of junior doctors' placements at one of the remaining homoeopathic hospitals. In view of this, talking about the increasing popularity of homoeopathy wrt a UK source is almost certainly not appropriate, and I've therefore removed it. Brunton (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Either this source is WP:RS and authoritative on the subject or it's not. you cannot play it both sides. erase this then erase the "supernatural quackery" quote as well.79.180.181.168 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

[Restoring comment that was deleted by IP79] - Yes, "increasingly" may have been true in the UK in 2007, but it isn't true now as you indicate, and certainly won't do as universalized statement of the current situation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S . sorry i did not mean to erase your comment ofc, i think there was a conflict in edit. anyway my appology79.180.181.168 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't even think it's a reliable source for this statement. The source simply asserts this without giving proper context. The next sentence goes on to talk about education enrollment in the UK in 2007, is that the context? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Message to IP79

The locus of your disruption is this article, I will maintain semi-protection as long as this disruption continues. Your IP address is changing, that is the pragmatic way to control your disruptive behaviour. You have violated policies that would have resulted in your being blocked and sanctioned as a logged-in editor, but we aaccept that new users may not understand the policies in place and thus we cut a small amount of slack.

At this point, you need to register an account (or return to your account if you already have one) and start engaging in productive debate rather than merely re-stating your position endlessly. The others here know more about Wikipedia and its policies than you do.

Final point: you cannot change the article by brute force. Others hold all the cards in that particular game. The only way you can change the article is by bringing better arguments. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected

In the light of comments already made and the unambiguous ArbCom results, the edits by the IP-hopping anonymous can only really be interpreted as vandalism - deliberate attempts to enforce a POV known to be unsupported by consensus, in defiance of policy and consensus, and with an apparently conscious effort to evade individual restriction. I have semi-protected the page for one week. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)