Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Homeopathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Concerning references on this talkpage

I went ahead and archived this talk page. Most of the bulk of the discussions have gone dead for a while and those who were leaving messages were doing it at the top of the page because of the "reference" list at the bottom. The reference list is very inconvenient for talk pages for several reasons. It's very difficult to keep at the bottom when people leave messages in the normal way by hitting the "+" sign which automatically puts the messages at the bottom. Ideally we should be citing sources this way [[1]] or this way source. Either work much better than the inlined references on talk pages and I'm not aware of any wikipedia talk pages that use that sort of thing. I don't know if there is any policy saying how talk pages should or shouldn't be formated however for the sake of convenience I believe we need to stick with the classical way of citing sources on talk pages, the way I noted above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite, Draft finished

I have finished my draft of this article for the homeopathy rewrite project. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for anyone who wants to contribute to the draft to read it over and point out what they think should be changed on the drafts talk page. Anyone willing to help should go to the articles talk page and discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft: Link to rough draft.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I heartily suggest that all and sundry visit the talk page of the draft, as Wikidudeman suggests above, and leave comments about the draft. If we get enough input from enough different people, we can forget some sort of reasonable consensus and have an article to be proud of. This draft needs you!!--Filll 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the above draft is excellent. While I believe homeopathy is an expensive placebo effect, the current article seems to me to essentially be "criticism of homeopathy". The draft seems to both be educational and far far closer to NPOV. Excellent work Wikidudeman. Bilz0r 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those of you who want to read the draft or propose some changes to it, please visit the link. I hope to implement the draft soon and I want to make sure that everyone supports it so as to avoid edit wars. Please check over the draft and propose some changes on the talk page. Thanks. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I think that an encyclopedia should provide firstly the facts and the history of homeopathy. If the writer of the article considers homeopathy as a sort of quackery he could use sentences homeopaths claim, believe …etc.. Criticism should be in a separate chapter in this form. Criticism from scientists - and answer to this criticism from homeopaths. There someone could include balanced info from different sources. That way the article would reflect the reality about Homeopathy and inform the reader about its controversies.

2) I realized that some members did not want to add a BBC report commenting on the Lancet reaction against a WHO draft which supports Homeopathy. I suggested that this BBC comment should be added (even if I am not convinced that using newspapers or web news as references in a encyclopedia is appropriate) because I noticed several BBC references in the article.

3) I saw that Pr. Vithoulkas name and statements were used twice. He is a well-known homeopath who holds an alternative Nobel Prize. I tried to add a link on his name. (http://www.vithoulkas.com) The link was also removed from some members. Could someone explain why? --Sm565 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to ghettoize criticism and objections to homeopathy. There is also no need to use weasel words like "claim".
The problem with your addition had nothing to do with BBC being a reliable source or not; the problem was that what you added was misleading about what the BBC said, because it was taken out of context of the actual article, from a place where the BBC was just expounding what the study said and was actually critical of it, and it was also from 2 years ago, and might not be up to date, and what you added was also bad English, and it was added to an inappropriate place, beginning with "however" as in implying that it had more weight than the previous criticisms, and it was added before a reference that was about something else.
Wikipedia is not a link farm, and we don't add external links to the articles like you did. This is not an article about Vithoulkas, and we don't add external links to the body of the article for no reason, especially not in their bare form. Reinis^talk 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw it, but Adam has answered you too.[2] Reinis^talk 07:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Providing the facts then criticism and answer to this criticism is a common practice and common sense for any article in any encyclopedia. Every serious reader comprehends it. It does not need to be further explained. The editors seem too anxious to state their concerns and criticisms from the very beginning. Their ability to maintain a neutral point of view might be questioned.

2)It is obvious you did not read the BBC report, I tried to add, which is two years old - I agree (as old as the Lancet studies and references in the Homeopathy article are). If you are interested, read at the end of this page the whole discussion we had. I wrote to Adam that the WHO draft (the one supporting homeopathy) triggered a Lancet criticism and a BBC reference; both should be quoted without changing anything. The Lancet reaction and BBC report provide useful information about the controversy on Homeopathy in the WHO. Hiding all these is quite inappropriate.

3) About the Vithoulkas link: If you are using someone’s name and statements twice in the article you should not refuse to add a link - an internal link - on his name. I think again it isa common sense.--Sm565 18:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You really shouldn't lecture about what is common sense or not. "However" is in WP:WTA for reasons outlined there, so you might want to familiarize yourself with what it says. You also weren't adding an internal link, but crudely inserting an URL to an external site without any formatting. You are right that the WHO draft and Lancet's response should be mentioned, though, and I haven't argued against it, but the way you tried to do that was completely unbalanced. Reinis^talk 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have the right to write my opinion about the article. I do believe that what I said about the way an article should be written is common sense. Someone else could disagree. I would like to hear the arguments.

I did not use "However" - BBC did. The BBC was referring to the Lancet studies against Homeopathy and comments from researchers. And then it continues.....

"However, the Lancet also reports that a draft report on homoeopathy by the World Health Organization says the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials."

I tried to add an internal link for Vithoulkas many times but it was not working. Then everything was removed. I think that the editors could have add the link (the internal one) after this.

I agree that technically speaking my additions needed a lot of improvements but that was not the point of the removal. Of course, I should have proposed the changes in the discussion page. My mistake but I meant well. --Sm565 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Implementation of Rewrite

I plan to implement the rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace this article with it. Those of you who see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Remember, Silence equals consensus. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Implementation complete

The implementation has been completed. I have replaced the rough draft with this article and I have also redirected other separate articles to this article due to the fact this article contains the exact same information. This draft has incorporated a few other articles in it including Law of similars, Homeopathic proving, Exciting causes, and History of homeopathy as well as a few others. All articles redirected here contain the exact same information as this one and are thus redundant. I have also changed the Homeopathy template to reflect the relevant changes, improving it.

This article is currently fairly large and in the future will likely lose size when wording is improved and redundancy is removed by various copy-editors and the general public.

Now this is Very important. I want to ask that all editors planning to contribute please propose all changes on this talk page if you believe they may be controversial or may be reverted. Please allow a few days for editors to discuss the changes before you add them so that we do not engage in edit wars. This is very important. If you believe that an edit you are planning may be controversial, Please take the time to first explain why you want the edit to be made and give a few days for a consensus to be reached prior to making the change. Also please remember to be very clear with edit summaries explaining in detail the edits being made to the article. This is also very important.

I want to thank all of the editors involved in improving the draft and I want to encourage all interested editors to contribute to the new article to help improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting all the diverse articles 'under one roof', so to speak, was an excellent step; it will make this content easier to access and easier to maintain. I do have a bit of a concern about the lede, however. It's gigantic—a shade over eight hundred words. (Compare with Genetics, which has a 300-word lede, or Medicine, which fits lede plus Overview into about 350 words.) A lot of the problem is duplication with material in the body and overspecificity; things like the full explanation of Hahnemann's reasoning, detailed statistics about use around the world, and the full explanation of why homeopathy is placebo-driven can all probably be placed in the body.

If I get the chance, I'll try to shuffle some of the lead material into the body, but I certainly won't object if somebody else gets to it first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember though, The lead isn't really a "Lead" but a summary of the entire article. The lead should represent the entire article and be able to stand alone if the article was gone. Someone should be able to read the lead and understand the topic totally without reading the article. This is one reason why it is so long, it is very comprehensive. So please keep that in mind if you decide to make some dramatic changes to it. Anything deserving it's own section or subsection in the article should have at least 3-6 sentences dedicated to it in the lead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Formating

Currently I am unable to format the reflist to 2 columns. If anyone is able to do this then please feel free to do it. Also, Please if anyone is able, format the Navbox to allow it to "hide" and "show" it's contents. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was a stray </td>. Reinis^talk 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I couldn't figure out what the problem was. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The diversity of homeopathy

(The first several lines of this discussion were copied from User_talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft/archive#What else is left? because the issue was raised but not entirely settled.)

I would like to see more discussion of the various schools of homeopathy (classical, complex, OTC, whatever).--Art Carlson 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the earlier version you linked, As far as I can see, it has no references or sources in it that would direct me to a reputable website explaining it. I have a feeling that the reason it was removed was because it was probably original research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. That version lacked the necessary references. I don't have many resources, but I'll check what I have. Maybe Peter can do a better job of providing a verifiable description of the homeopathic landscape? --Art Carlson 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean? be specific and I will find what I can, thanks Peter morrell 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We need sources on the variations of homeopathic philosophy. Different schools within homeopathy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Diversity section in the earlier version. I think it is important to discuss the differences between the way Richard Hughes thought about homeopathy and the way James Tyler Kent did, and the wars waged between those advocating "classical" homeopathy and those following different tenets (such as "complex" homeopathy). Surely you [Peter] are familiar with these concepts? Please enlighten me if I have misunderstood them. --Art Carlson 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar. From all of the various sources i've read, I've never seen mentions of such a schism or dispute within homeopathy. I would like to add such a section, but I don't want to add anything unless it's sourced. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, just rob that stuff from the old copy...it's a bit late to request this now. I don't have time it will need careful thinking to get it right. Might have something by morning, might not. Will see. thanks Peter morrell 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't copy anything from the old copy as none of it is sourced. If I had a few sources for it then I could add it in about 30 minutes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In Homeopathy: How it really works (Jay W. Shelton, Prometheus Books, 2004), Chapter 2 is devoted to "Types of Homeopathy: Commonalities and Contradictions". It lists the major types as being classical, clinical, combination (or complex), and isopathy. It covers a lot, but not all of the info in the old section. --Art Carlson 21:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you've read it, you can type something up and I'll add it through the article, though I don't believe we need to dedicate an entire section to the types of homeopathy. I don't have time to find and read that book anytime soon so I'll let someone else take care of that whenever. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go...I will try to find some refs for it. Most of the early homeopaths were doctors who converted to homeopathy after graduation. Most of these tended to use the lower potencies like 3x and 6x rarely if ever going beyond 12x. A good example of this approach is Dr Hughes, who dismissed the high potencies as unnecessary. This was the dominant pattern in Europe throughout the period 1820-1930, but in America many practitioners developed and preferred the higher centesimal potencies such as 10M, 50M, etc. This trend is thought to have originated with Hering but became especially exemplified by James Tyler Kent and dominated US homeopathy from the 1850s until its demise in the 1940s. The split between 'lows' and 'highs' also followed ideological lines with the former stressing pathology and a strong link to allopathic medicine, while the latter emphasised vital force, miasms and a spiritual take on sickness. what do you think? Peter morrell 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some refs for the above: Hughes limited his homeopathy further. He disliked potencies above 30 [following Hahnemann in this] and usually used lower ones, and his followers tended to stick to tinctures and decimal potencies....Skinner was against him and scorned his use of low potencies saying it was ideal for those who didn't like to stray far from their allopathic training. Kent referred to him as "that skunk who I will fight for the rest of my days." [Charles Edwin Wheeler, Dr. Hughes: Recollections of Some Masters of Homeopathy, Health Through Homeopathy, UK, 1943, Vol. 1 p.4 And Dr. Clarke accused Hughes of pandering to allopaths [Frank Bodman, The Richard Hughes Memorial Lecture, BHJ 59, 1970, pp.179-93, p.188] I have not yet found an online sources but will check later. Peter morrell 07:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also an entire chapter in Coulter's Divided Legacy, volume 3 called 'the highs vs the lows' BUT this issue was only really a bigdeal in US homeopathy, not anywhere else. If you want page numbers please ask. The only online refs for this stuff are my own writings, which someone else will have to add if they so wish. cheers Peter morrell 11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph at the end [of the section Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion] explaining the schism. Please tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine to me. Peter morrell 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(New discussion follows.)

This reference: A Critical Overview of Homeopathy, Wayne B. Jonas, Ted J. Kaptchuk, Klaus Linde, Ann Intern Med., COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE SERIES, 2003;138:393-399. at the end of page 394 mentions the diversity and talks about "classical" vs. "clinical" homeopathy. More than just the preferred potencies is at issue here. --Art Carlson 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the content. Tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Safety of homeopathic treatments" vs "Safety of homeopathic treatments questioned"

I'm not sure that we need to add then "questioned" as the headline. The headline "Safety of homeopathic treatments" doesn't necessarily advocate Homeopathic treatments as safe but is defining the topic, I.E. the discussion of the safety (or lack thereof) of homeopathic treatments. I'm not so sure that the "questioned" at the end is really required. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, given it's discussing the criticism, that it's best to be descriptive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Safety of homeopathic treatments" implies that safety of treamtent itself is under examination.The text refers to the question how safe it is to choose homeopathic treament vs. convetional drugs. Lets be precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

diluting vs. potentizing (description of thunderstorm remedy)

In the section on remedies, near the end, we describe the thunderstorm remedy. I think it's better to use "diluting", as "potentizing" is jargon, and probably, for most laymen, going to be first met while reading this article. However, like everything in this article, it caused an edit war. I don't think that "made by collecting and diluting the rain" is dismissive - if we said "thunderstorm remedy (diluted rainwater)" that would be. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam, as you know, and according to homeopaths, diluting and potentising are not the same thing. Therefore they are not synonyms and therefore we cannot say diluting. Hope that clarifies. Potentizing is defined in the article and is not jargon. Again as you should know, it involves more than mere diluting. To say diluting is a pejorative term. Absolutely. apart from which it is inaccurate. Do you agree with this? Peter morrell 12:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were the same thing, so long that succussion is presumed to be included (which it always is)? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's right so it is not just dilution...hope that figures. Peter morrell 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Potentization" is the process of dilutions PLUS succissions. Homeopaths want to release the "latent power" of the substances by both diluting it and shaking it all up. Potentization is the name of that process so "Potentization" isn't synonmous with dilution, however does involved dilution. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, it's just a parenthetical aside, and I'd like to keep it simple. How about just "prepared from collected rain"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

statistics cut from lead

There were some excessive statistics on popularity in the lead, and all appeared elsewhere. I've cut it down to the more general statements. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And the overwhelming impression is that they were removed solely because they are about popularity. Why not cut some of the excessive cruft in the criticisms section?...as well? like neutral balance? Peter morrell 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK no worries! you explained it already thanks Peter morrell 12:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also cut some of the history from the lead (I mean, it's the next section! We don't have to describe it fully immediately before describing it fully) and rearranged it a bit for flow. Everything's still in the article, but not everything is still in the lead. If anything really vital needs to still be in the lead, add it back in, but the lead really was excessively detailed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK please keep going! my only point was wikidudeman said [above] to make sure and explain one's changes in detail so folks know what you are editing and why...as long as folks stick to that protocol and don't go too wild ! it should be OK. does that explain? thanks Peter morrell 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be realized. If something is important enough to have it's own section or subsection in the article, then it needs to be mentioned in the lead. The lead isn't actually a "lead" to the article, it's actually a summary of the article and thus should contain all of the most relevant info that the article contains. We shouldn't remove something from the lead simply because it's already mentioned in the article, that wouldn't make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I was trying to remove things that were mentioned elsewhere and were relatively unimportant - trivia (what year was the word homeopathy first mentioned?), excessive detail (The first history section had almost all its content repeated in the lead - I cut it down to a short summary of the most important points, since they'll be reading the full account in another paragraph anyway), and, oddest yet, spelling out the details from a table of popularity by country in sentences (cut in favour of the more general statements about worldwide popularity). In other words, I tried to cut the lead down to the "key points", leaving the details for the article itself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The other problem, by the way, is that if you use the same phrasing in the lead as in the article, if someone doesn't understand it the first time, the second time won't be any help. It can also make reading the article repetitive. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase it in a better way if you can. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No edit waring. Simple rules to follow.

Here is a simple rule for everyone editing here to follow. If someone reverts your edit just once, then move the discussion to the talk page, not the edit summaries. Stop editing and discuss it on the talk page if just one edit is reverted. If the person doesn't respond to the talk page discussions then you can re-add what you edited and if they revert it then precede to leave a message on their talk page. If they continue to revert without discussing it then simply notify an administrator or take the problem to The admin notice board. If you believe that an edit you plan to make MIGHT be reverted then first propose it on the talk page. Don't make controversial edits that you believe will likely be reverted until a consensus is reached first on the talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

These are kind of oddly spaced out - they cluster around the treatments, remedies, and history sections, then you get very little elsewhere. What do you think of moving one or two of the vials elsewhere? They might not be all that relevant to the text where they ended up, though.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd lead/history section sentence

"During the 19th century, homeopathy had a substantial impact upon medicine"

This is essentially a meaningless statement, as the rest of the sentence -- in both sections - does not discuss medicine in general, but the growth homeopathic colleges and practices. Would something like "Homeopathy grew in popularity throughout the 19th century" be an acceptable change? If not, what is this supposed to describe? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that Homeopathy had a strong impact on the testing of medicines in modern medicine including the procedure of experiments and trials, which homeopathy emphasized as early as the late 18th century. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not coming across... I'll tweak. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead is a good size right now, Not too long

The current lead is the perfect size (possibly even too small) for the article. WP:LEAD clearly states that an article who's length is over 30,000kb(around 45,000 characters) should have a lead that is 3-4 paragraphs long. This current article is something like 65kb(maybe larger) and thus should have a lead at least 4 paragraphs long. The lead is definitely not too long and coincides perfectly with WP:LEAD. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it did have some repeated information (that is, within the lead itself). I've shortened it down to two very big paragraphs, which is probably near enough to 4 standard-sized paragraphs (compare, say, the four short paragraphs of the Evolution lead). Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't like the way it currently is. It goes straight into the history of homeopathy without first mentioning in the first 2-3 sentences what exactly it is. It should in the first few sentences say that:"Homeopaths see the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force and believe that treatment of diseases with extremely diluted substances, which in larger quantities cause symptoms of the disease, can harmonize and re-balance the vital force in the body and so restore health." before it goes into the history of homeopathy and the development of such procedures. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] As it stands now, the first paragraph is mainly history and techniques (it seemed convenient to combine the two, so that we don't go over things twice, once to say how they came about, and once to say what they are). The second deals mainly with the controversy, with popularity mentioned at the end, since there was no good place for it. The 19th century got cut (from the lead - it of course remains in the article body) in the rewrite, but, eh, history's the first section, and the only thing we were saying about the 19th century was that Homeopathy grew in popularity.

The trouble with the sentences that came before the history section of the lead is that they repeated, with similar phrasing, things in the history section of the lead. There's other ways we could detangle it, but if we're not careful we could end up going over points three times in quick succession, followed by a fourth time later on in the article. So, I suppose it works out to whether we want the lead to be strong on history, or explain up front? Because I don't think we can do both without repeating a lot. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just thing we should mention the absolute basics of homeopathy in the first 2 or 3 sentences and then we can go into it's history and explain it's procedures in more detail. Tell me what you think of how I made it just now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] That's reasonable, but I think we may be going about it a little oddly - the "vital force" concept is fairly common in alternate medicine, so doesn't distinguish homeopathy very well from other alternative medicines, such as, say, acupuncture, reiki, etc. It's probably best to concentrate on the things most unique to homeopathy, the procedural aspects, and leave the philosophy for the history paragraph where we can walk them through it logically. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried a different phrasing. See what you think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's looks alright to me. Though I don't quite agree with not mentioning the vital force concept simply because it's common among alternative medicines. I think that someone reading this article who knows absolutely nothing about homeopathic or alternative medicine would benefit from knowing that outright. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Though since it's mentioned at the end of that first paragraph, I guess it's OK. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin just added the tag at the top again claiming the lead is too long. The lead isn't too long, It perfectly coincides with WP:LEAD. His summary was "Don't fucking remove my tags again". Orangemarlin, Please read where I elaborated on what WP:LEAD says about how long a lead should be. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of your ownership of these articles. Step away NOW. Let editors who actually understand WP:NPOV handle it. The lead still violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The article is nothing more than a list of pseudoscientific claims.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not showing ownership of this article nor will I "step away". Numerous editors have been contributing to this article aside from myself. If you believe the article violates Undue weight then please give a detailed elaboration so that it can be fixed. Remember, Explaining what homeopathy is and philosophy isn't an argument in support of homeopathy. The article gives more weight to what homeopathy actually is and how it's purported to work than it does to criticism, this is true, however this article is about homeopathy and should explain it clearly and in detail. Giving more weight to the subject of an article than to criticism of it's topic isn't a violation of Undue weight or NPOV, especially when the details of it's philosophy etc are formulated in a way that doesn't make any claims about it's effectiveness. So please do elaborate on what you mean by saying it violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, please list specific examples. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you. ANYTHING that makes a statement of a medical claim that has not been tested is simply a fringe theory and violates undue weight. Write the history all you want, and put in it "this was never proven and is nothing but bullshit," and I'll accept that. You can delete the "bullshit" part, since that's hardly encyclopedic, but the rest should stay. Homeopathy is totally unproven and your history lesson appears to make it sound like it existed. There, I'm not wasting my time with specific examples, because the whole thing represent fringe ideas. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, The article makes no "Medical claims" APART from stating clearly that studies on Homeopathy have proven to be unsuccessful in finding any positive effects from it aside from placebo. Secondly, Again, The article clearly states that the studies done on homeopathy have found no real effect beyond placebo. This is clearly stated. Explaining what "homeopaths believe" isn't a medical claim. If the article says "homeopaths believe dilution and shaking increases the potency of a remedy" then that isn't a medical claim. It's just a claim of what homeopaths believe, not what is necessarily reality. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning homeopathy being ahead of it's time in relation to trials.

This sentence is backed up by sources. Please see [3] and Ernst, E. Homeopathy revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2162 2164. The former states that "Homeopathy has also been given credit for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine." It's true that Homeopathy was ahead of it's time in relation to clinical trials and control groups as well as systematic and quantitative procedures using statistics to test various remedies. This is simply a fact. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy is not science, it's bullshit. So take the bullshit someplace else. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, That's another discussion for another time. Secondly, "Philosophy is not science", assuming that's true, So what? Homeopathy has a philosophy and this philosophy needs mentioning. Explain what you're saying please. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources say that Homeopathy was ahead of it's time and paved the way for various modern medical procedures such as clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine. It should clearly be mentioned. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it's contentious, it should be clearly spelled out how was it ahead and considered whether that's not giving it undue weight. How good are the sources? Reinis^talk 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It was spelled out. Homeopathy was ahead of it's time and paved the way for various modern medical procedures such as clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine. The source is from the Philosophy dept of the University of Colorado and was co-authored by Victor J. Stenger. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the full paragraph:

Homeopathy has made several important indirect contributions to the practice of medicine. At the time that it was developed, the medical treatments of the time were often more dangerous than the disease that they purported to treat. Indeed, homeopathy may have helped hasten the demise of such treatments. Homeopathy provided the initial idea and source for useful drugs such as nitroglycerin6 and aconite.7 Early scientists such as Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led to important pharmacological discoveries because of homeopathy.8 Homeopathy has also been given credit for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine.

I don't think it amounts to establishing that all homeopathy's methods were ahead of its time (as the wording "While the methods of homeopathy, including its focus on patients and emphasis on clinical trials, were ahead of its time when it was conceived" implies). It's also a non-neutral juxtaposition to put it against the current scientific objections. Reinis^talk 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well We do need to mention it somewhere that Homeopathy helped "hasten" the demise of dangerous medical treatments of the time and paved the way for clinical trials and control groups etc. This definitely needs to be mentioned somewhere. Where would you suggest it be mentioned? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We undeniably do, but just not in that place, and not with those words. Reinis^talk 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps you can find a better way to phrase it and place to put it. See if you can better incorporate it somewhere. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning removal of statistics in the lead

The statistics of homeopathy are very relevant. A section of the homeopathy statistics including number of individuals in various country who have used such treatments exists in the article and thus clearly should be mentioned in the lead. This isn't "Pov pushing", it's simply stating the facts. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because 500 million idiots use this crap, means that there are 500 million fucking idiots. Quote me, and I'll accept your bullshit statement in the lead. Anyways, I'm going to delete all of the popularity crap, and put it in a popularity of homeopathy POV fork, where it belongs. Please read undue weight, because you need to. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The statistics are relevant. You may believe that the 500 million people are "fucking idiots" however that isn't relevant. The statistics themselves are relevant and are in no way attempting to assert that homeopathy is in anyway effective because of the number of individuals who have used it. No such assertions are made. I know what Undue weight is and I have explained why it isn't a violation of Undue weight already, though I will again. Explaining what homeopathy is and philosophy isn't an argument in support of homeopathy. The article gives more weight to what homeopathy actually is and how it's purported to work than it does to criticism, this is true, however this article is about homeopathy and should explain it clearly and in detail. Giving more weight to the subject of an article than to criticism of it's topic isn't a violation of Undue weight or NPOV, especially when the details of it's philosophy etc are formulated in a way that doesn't make any claims about it's effectiveness. The statics themselves are very very relevant and should be in the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They are absolutely not relevant. It's nothing more than using a poll (an unscientific one at that) to convince us that 500 million idiots know about what they are talking. By your standard, let's change all of the Creationist articles because 67% of idiot Americans believe in some supernatural being creating the earth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, It's very relevant and in no way attempts to defend homeopathy or use some fallacious arguments from authority. No par of that section does such a thing. Secondly, The Creationism article DOES mention the statistics of the belief in creationism. Allow me to quite:

"This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and a little under 10% of Christian colleges teach it."

And..

"According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[56] about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll."

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are arguing about this edit, WP:WTA about "despite" is relevant:

These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.

So OrangeMarlin is in the right. If the stats stay, they need to be amended to be neutral. Reinis ^talk 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't add that word there, it was added at the end after Adam rewrote part of the lead. Tell me what you think of this edit [4] Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't flow, and the source is not good, because I can't see where it got its numbers from, and it's advancing an ad populum argument for homeopathy. Reinis^talk 18:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is Deutsche Welle, which is a very reliable source. Although It shouldn't be a problem finding other sources for it. Moreover, How is simply stating the statistics necessarily promoting an ad populum argument for homeopathy? How can we present the relevant statistics without doing so? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinis, you're much more civil than I, but you made my point exactly. The Creationism article does have that statement, but it takes a minor point in it. Actually, what I meant to say is that Evolution articles should be changed because 67% of Americans believe in Creationism, Sasquatch and Alien abductions. Creation articles rely upon a faith, rather than a science. If you want to make Homeopathy a faith-based article, on the lines of Creationism, then add your polls. Otherwise, they don't belong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the DW that is advancing an ad populum argument in its article, and therefore it's not reliable. It's also not an academic journal, but just a TV station. The wording, with the "over 100,000", is slanted too. Just give the best guess and place an "around" before it, not use marketing words that sound like you're puffing it. Reinis^talk 18:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the popular support for Evolution in the Evolution article might or might not be relevant, probably more relevant in an offshoot article about the Evolution/Creationism debate. However this article is Homeopathy and thus should mention the statistics concerning homeopathy just as the Creationism article mentions the stats about Creationism. Homeopathy is very much a "faith based" procedure as no science really supports it and people still use it despite that fact. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Miasms section rewritten.

Ye gods, that section was a nightmare. I've rewritten it to the best of my ability, to try and give the information needed to understand the section in the first paragraph, not the second, and other such things. I've also added in an article by Anthony Campbell that I came across when working on another article several months ago. It's somewhat critical, but, well, it's one of the most controversial proposals - that conventional medicine actively harms patients - and needs the other side for NPOV.

I suspect you'll want to tweak it, but please... keep it readable?. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm reading that paragraph about Campbell and I'm not really able to understand what it's saying exactly. Perhaps you could make it a bit clearer. What does it mean by saying that "syphilis, when treated with antibiotics, would have the early stages suppressed, but would go on to the secondary and tertiary stages"? I don't know quite what this sentence even means. What early stages? What are the tertiary stages? How is this Irresponsible to say? It doesn't explain any of that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it's saying that the symptoms of syphilis will be suppressed, but the syphilitic madness will still occur. I'll poke at it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The symptoms will be suppressed but the madness will still occur? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that if one takes homeopathic treatments for Syphilis then the conventional symptoms will occur but the actual symptoms won't? Or something? I have no idea what it's saying. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph for clarity and I also moved it to the relevant section in the criticism area. The section I moved it to is called "Safety of homeopathy" and is a much better location for the paragraph criticizing the safety of belief in miasms. I think that having it plopped in the middle of the miasms section only sets precedent for future additions of criticism into the explanation of homeopathy and will lead to edit wars. I want to keep it as it is now where we say "Here is what homeopathy is and how homeopathys say it works" and "here is what the critics say and what the scientific evidence says" keeping the two separate. I don't want to have a paragraph of criticism in a section simply explaining homeopathy as that will surely lead to someone coming along and adding a counterpoint to the criticism of miasms, which will lead to edit waring. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't make one of the most comntroversial claims of homeopathy, the one that bashes all conventional medicine, and not provide the opposing view. No preemptory strikes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not making any claims about medicine. We're simply saying what Homeopaths believe. We're not saying that it's true. We're not saying that taking conventional drugs drives diseases deeper into the body, we're simply saying that "homeopaths believe taking conventional drugs drives diseases deeper into the body". We are providing what the critics say about it, simply not in that same section, but in another section of it's own about the dangers of homeopathy. I think that having it plopped in the middle of the miasms section only sets precedent for future additions of criticism into the explanation of homeopathy and will lead to edit wars. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this. I've seen it happen before in various articles including the Parapsychology article which is currently very stable. If we have explanations of homeopathy mixed together with criticism then that will surely lead to edit waring over point/counterpoint additions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not just criticism: It also shows that the claim remains current, and is thus important. Let's see if problems develop. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing style

The biggest problem with this article, IMO, is writing style. The heavy use of dependent clauses results in onvoluted sentences. The text flits from idea to idea without adequate development. For example if I didn't already know about the infinite dilutions, the following text would be confusing. "Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some imprint (or memory) of the diluted substance, despite the fact that at many common homeopathic dilutions, no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain". Style is important because if it deters readership POV is moot and readers will skip to External links Cayte 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You should already know about the dilutions if you had read the sentence right before that one, which explain about the dilutions. The sentence right before the one you quoted says "Substances that cause symptoms similar to the disease in large quantities are heavily diluted, with shaking at each stage of the dilution." which should explain about the dilutions, so you should already know about them by the time you reach the sentence you quoted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S., Not that I see anything wrong with that sentence or the lead for that matter, But Adam wrote it, not me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Popularity section unbalanced?

How is the Popularity section unbalanced? It simply states the facts of the use of homeopathic around the world. How would it better be balanced? Please explain. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Orangemarlin means the three by-country sections, which are, perhaps, a little too enthusiastic, mentioning major supporters but ignoring detractors. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What should we do to improve it then? Perhaps mention some notable individuals from those specific countries who were critics of homeopathy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm a bit spent from wrangling with the lead. The British one seems a little gossip magazinish, with its gushing over aristocrats and royals, and the American one is rather badly written. I'm going to get dinner, then DM Dungeons and Dragons. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think that mentioning the detractors of homeopathy is better suited for the criticism section and the "Popularity" section needs to just mention that, the popularity of homeopathy. We could get rid of the part about royals etc though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the part about Prince Charles and reworded the American part to improve neutrality and prose. I think it's very NPOV right now, just stating the relevant facts and statistics and making no arguments either way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>Because of Wikidudeman's continued ownership issues with the article, and his insistent complaints on my talk page and here about my tag of this section, I will endeavor to make a few statements.

The article attempts to use unvalidated and unscientific polling data to convince the casual reader that there is support for this pseudoscience.
Notwithstanding the quality of polling, polling should not be used to make a case.
This section should be deleted and placed elsewhere in a POV fork, so that every Homeopath can pat themselves on the back on how much support they have.
Despite the public support, most European medical societies and regulatory bodies strictly control Homeopathic medicines. In fact, the place with the lowest support, USA, the home of crazies who believe in Creationism, has the least amount of regulation.
WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:FRINGE expressly forbid putting weight to fringe theories and/or popular sentiment.

Now WDM, get off you have too many ownership issues (and I am an expert on this, because I hate it when people come into MY articles and fuck with them, but I've gotten over it) and either help make this article NPOV or stop editing it. Your choice. But from my viewpoint, you are attempting to place a subtle POV by adding in popular polling as a method to validate this pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to your comments as they appear in order.

The article in no way attempts to argue for homeopathy by pointing out the statistics. Please explain how simply presenting the relevant statistics is necessarily arguing for homeopathy.
Explain how the polling "makes a case" for homeopathy.
POV forks should be avoided as much as possible. See WP:POVFORK.
The part about regulation and control of homeopathy can be mentioned. I see no reason why it can't.
Explaining what homeopathy is and philosophy isn't an argument in support of homeopathy. The article gives more weight to what homeopathy actually is and how it's purported to work than it does to criticism, this is true, however this article is about homeopathy and should explain it clearly and in detail. Giving more weight to the subject of an article than to criticism of it's topic isn't a violation of Undue weight or NPOV, especially when the details of it's philosophy etc are formulated in a way that doesn't make any claims about it's effectiveness.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to the bottom to get more attention. I've tweaked the section and I see no POV or WEIGHT issues with it right now. I believe the tag should be removed or some more concrete reasons justifying it's existence provided as well as detailed explanations of how the section can be fixed so the tag can be removed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would actually like to improve this section if it is indeed POV. I have made some improvements to it recently and I would like the editor who placed the tag to highlight anymore specific problems. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a new user and I (still) see things as a casual reader and not as a wikier.

In this article I would like to read about homeopathy. What it is, its philosophy, its practices and methodologies, its history, its categories, about relevant people, relevant education, facts and statistics about National health systems and homeopathy etc. I don’t want to be convinced about its efficiency (there are other sources to do that). I don’t want to be convinced that it’s crap (there are other sources to do that). I just would like to start my reading.

A Criticism section is necessary since this criticism exists. But I would like to make my personal decision about homeopathy. We are not idiots and we can read and understand (I hope). I do care about supporters and opposers opinions (because they sign personally their opinions) but I don’t want the encyclopedia’s opinions. I’ll read encyclopedia articles like this one to find the basic facts and links to other major sources, positive or negative. My average intelligence will help me to make my opinion. Let me know who are the main people today that practice and support homeopathy and who are the main people against it (and their sites /articles to read their opinions)

I think it’s a mistake to compare evolution to homeopathy. We have to compare evolution with medicine and homeopathy with creationism. Have a look at the creationism article. My personal opinion is against the creationism approach but I’m happy with this article.

I was not happy with the previous version of homeopathy article… This one is much-much better but I still have some problems. Mainly because I have to go to other sources to complete my first/basic understanding of what homeopathy is, before I go to any more specific critical or not article. Blogged 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, However right now what I'd like is to have some suggestions on improving this particular section so that we can remove the tag. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made numerous changes to this section since it was tagged and I would like some further reasons for keeping the tag up. I'll give it another day and then I will remove the tag due to insufficient reasons for keeping it up. If anyone would like the tag to stay then they must provide detailed reasons for doing so, so that the section can be improved accordingly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is essential to report the best verifiable estimates we have of how many people practice homeopathy. This is basic encyclopedic information. Presumably these people believe it works, but it is not our job to say whether they are right or wrong or to draw any conclusions about efficacy from this popularity. There is some historical information in this section that could be trimmed or moved to the history section. I don't see any serious problems with balance. If any other editor still sees a problem, he should point it out specifically so we can discuss it and fix it. --Art Carlson 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tag. The section has improved a lot since the tag was placed and after looking hard I can't find any reason for it to remain. If anyone sees a problem with the section still then they should clarify it here on the talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

contradiction Error

Under the prevalent use title, there are 100,000 homeopathic practitioners around the world. Article also states that there are 300,000 practitioners in India alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamevay (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My first reaction is to trust DW, but the Indian report seems to be more detailed and closer to its sources. I tried to find some more definitive numbers, but didn't have much luck. This site says "India has ... 100,000 homeopathic physicians and practitioners". This one (possible quoting from here) talks about "over 1/2 million homeopathic physicians worldwide". This site from the WHO says "About 40 000 homeopathic physicians are registered with the National Council for Homeopathy" in Pakistan and gives a reference for the figure. Another WHO report says there are 64405 "physicians and surgeons (homeopathic)" in India. It looks like 100,000 for the world could be too low and 300,000 for India too high. On the basis of the (presumably most reliable) WHO sites, it seems safe to say "over 100,000 worldwide", but the number for India might be anywhere between 65,000 and 300,000, so maybe we shouldn't mention any number at all. --Art Carlson 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So how should we resolve that? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Say "Estimates of the number of homeopaths vary from X to Y, with some sources stating that there are up to 300,000 practitioners in India alone." Tim Vickers 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what you all think of the new edits. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam just removed the source. How will I say that India has X to Y numbers of Homeopathic practitioners when the source for Y is gone? Without that area of error the two numbers between the amount in India and the amount in the world contradict each other. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientists and regulators regard homeopathy as a pseudoscience?

This sentence is problematic. While for the most part true, The source [5] doesn't even mention the word "pseudoscience" and neither does it represent all scientists or regulators. The only way to mention the scientific view of Homeopathy is to mention specific scientists or organizations and properly reference their opinions. Saying that "scientists" in general view homeopathy as a pseudo science is a vague assertion and false since some "scientists" believe Homeopathy is legitimate. The sentence "Scientists and regulators regard homeopathy as a pseudoscience" is problematic both because the source cited doesn't even mention "pseudoscience" and the source doesn't speak for all scientists. While it's true that a lot of scientists regard Homeopathy as non-effective, Not all scientists do. As mentioned above, the best way to properly go about this is to find specific scientists or organizations who regard Homeopathy as non-effective and mention them and cite them. The article currently does that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent that others think that there are issues with the NPOV of this article. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Why do you carefully walk around the issue? I don't think the article "currently does that." The article still reads like there is some fair balance between the crazies who think Homeopathy works and the crazies who think that it doesn't. In fact, undue weight suggests that the huge amount of data favors the it doesn't work side. I don't know of a good way to count the words, but roughly I'd say 65% of the article "supports" Homeopathy. Is that NPOV? As long as editors come in here and say, "WTF??? This is pseudoscience," you're going to get comments and edits. I still think you're trying to own the article--just because you wrote it doesn't mean it's correct. NPOV rules. And right now, it doesn't read NPOV. Finally, why do we need a source to state that it is a pseudoscience. if you check of all the items that test if something is a pseudoscience, Homeopathy meets all of the standards. But if you want a source.... OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You might want to define "Pseudoscience". Is Pseudoscience a field that has all of the trappings of science and the scientific method but which are not actually science? Homeopathy never purports to be a "science". There is "science" that attempts to determine it's validity and such scientific studies are sometimes flawed, though that doesn't necessarily make them pseudo science. Even if such studies were pseudoscience, those specific studies aren't Homeopathy itself but simply studies "on" homeopathy. Homeopathy purports to be a medicine or rather a field of medicine. If Homeopathy is a "pseudo" anything then it would probably be classified as a "pseudo-medicine" if it fails to meet the criteria of a field of medicine.

Secondly, 65% of the article does NOT "support" Homeopathy. You're confusing "support" with "Explain". This article details the history, philosophy and statistics of Homeopathy without ever saying whether it works or not or even giving any credence to the contention that it might work. The ONLY place that comes even close to giving credence to the contention that Homeopathy 'might work' is the section in the medical efficacy part that talks about supposedly successful studies on homeopathy, but then the sentences right after that explain how such studies were flawed and how newer studies contradicted them. "Explanation" of Homeopathy is not the same thing as "Support of the contention that Homeopathy is medically effective".

Thirdly, We need a source for EVERYTHING. You can't just say "Homeopathy is pseudoscience" without a source. What needs to be said is that "Person A thinks Homeopathy is a pseudo science." or "Organization A thinks it is a pseudo science" but you can't outright say "Homeopathy is a pseudo science", especially without a source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting material

User:Reinis reverted a pile of edits last night (some admittedly of dubious value and poor grammar/spelling) to Adam's also dubious edit. Can you please not rvt material until it has been discussed here? The stated policy is not to revert but to discuss your issues here. Meantime, here is some useful material from Boiron Labs about numbers of homeopaths worldwide, which Adam questioned (quite rightly). Again he should not have reverted that ref but he should have found a better one and raised the issue here. This material below comes from a good source, maybe not a reliable, neutral or scholarly source, but a good one. I will try to find other good sources.

Here is the new stuff: "Homeopathy is currently used in over eighty countries throughout the world, mainly in Europe. It is also highly represented in South America (Brazil, Argentina), India and Pakistan. Although still not very present in North America, constant growth is nevertheless noted. Over the last thirty years, homeopathy has also developed or made an appearance in South Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, Venezuela, Israel, Australia, etc.... Over 100,000 doctors currently use homeopathy in their daily practice." and also India: "Over 250,000 homeopath practitioners (special Indian status) and 75,000 medical auxiliaries prescribe homeopathy. Almost 10% of the population (about 100 million people) use homeopathy. It is included in the Indian national health system beside western medicine and two systems of Indian medicine, Ayurveda and Unani. Doctors wishing to prescribe homeopathic drugs have to undergo special training defined by the Central Council of Homœopathy that depends directly on the Health Department. • Israel 300 prescribing doctors and 1,000 naturopaths. • Japan A medical homeopathy association, the Japanese Society for Homeopathy, was created in the middle of the 90’s and currently includes 70 doctors. • Pakistan Out of 10,000 doctors registered in Pakistan,4,000 or 5,000 prescribe homeopathy on a regular basis. Source: OMHI 2003" [6]

OMHI = Organisation Médicale Homéopathique Internationale ...but so far I have been unable to find their website...apparently it is a Brazilian outfit. Can we please act civilly and check/sift through last night's edits for good stuff which can then be retained and dump the poor stuff? That way the article improves by consensus and we have no edit wars. thank you Peter morrell 06:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, if I see crap edits, I can take them out, and I don't have to ask for your permission. The addition was seriously misrepresenting the source, and was using "however" in a non-neutral way, on top of being poor English. Reinis^talk 07:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are refusing to proceed through consensus in reality, aren't you? What you call a 'crap edit' may not be to someone else. You have no right to do this. And by the way it is not MY permission - you can read the guidelines above for yourself about proceeding with care and not just rashly reverting previous material. You are violating the rules listed above. Your edits will thus all be rvted and edit wars will break out. Thanks for that. Peter morrell 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's completely in my purview to revert edits that are detracting from the article. If you are not defending that particular edit, please stop wasting my time. Reinis^talk 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have an obligation to leave challenged edits in place while they are being discussed. On the contrary, I thought our "stated policy", if an edit is reverted, is to hash it out on the talk page before changing the concensus version again. The Boiron site has a lot of numbers that would be nice to have in the article, but as a homeopathic pharmaceutical manufacturer, Boiron also has an obvious conflict of interest. I hesitate to include any information that comes only from such a source. --Art Carlson 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case there is any ambiguity, here is the 'rule' lifted from higher up this page: If you believe that an edit you plan to make MIGHT be reverted then first propose it on the talk page. Don't make controversial edits that you believe will likely be reverted until a consensus is reached first on the talk page. On that basis some of last night's edits COULD have contained useful stuff (I believe they did) but they were all wiped by Reinis and that is bad editing because it is too rash. We need to think over ANY new stuff that folks throw into the mix which could be salvaged to improve the article. Yes it was bad English, yes the grammar and spelling were poor in places, but it contained some fresh ideas. I am not defending the edits per se nor was I attacking Reinis in a hostile manner, far from it, I was politely pointing out the rashness of that approach, so I think we should go carefully. That was all I was saying. Likewise the stuff deleted by Adam. What wikidudeman encapsulated in the 'rule' is designed (a) to stop edit wars and (b) to improve and stablise the article. I simply share those goals. Reinis clearly does not. Peter morrell 11:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So under that 'rule', Sm565 should have submitted his edits for discussion here first. At any rate, anyone who sees merit in them is welcome to do so now. Myself, I see mostly OR and POV, but I am certainly willing to discuss it. --Art Carlson 12:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you cut the cr*p. I have done nothing wrong, and if you will continue to make false accusations or speculate about my motives, this will be resolved through AN/I. Reinis^talk 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Art, sure we can discuss it thanks. In any case that person was probably not to know because s/he just made those sole edits and left! but in principle yes you are right. I will check through them and we can see what wikidudeman says when he comes online. I don't think Adam's edit was v. helpful as it probably prompted Sm565 to do what they did. OK we can discuss all this forsure. thanks Peter morrell 12:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I have emailed Boiron labs for the source of their data on world numbers of homeopaths, and will report back here when I get the info. thanks Peter morrell 12:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The rules are: If you think an edit might be challenged, Don't make it and instead propose it here. If an edit that you make is reverted, Stop editing until you discuss it first on the talk page. This means that Peter is doing the right thing by discussing it here rather than reverting the edits my Reinis. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the edits in question, I can't see how any of them could be turned into good material. The edits were generally bad grammar, bad spelling and misrepresentation of sources. Peter, If you think that any of the edits could be used to benefit then just make the edits yourself and see how it goes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have checked thru them and they are a bit sloppy as you say. However, I think there may be a couple of points worth retrieving. Will post here any salvageable material for discussion. 'Assume good faith' is a good piece of wiki advice and is far better than 'be bold,' which is OK if it is creative but not OK if it is interpreted as delete whole swathes of stuff. I'm sorry my words were misconstrued. There is no need for any hostility here. Everything is friendly; let's be civil. thank you Peter morrell 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume the editor meant well by adding the material, however that doesn't necessarily mean I need to think the material is worthy of being added. We can discuss what part of the edits you thought could be made into something salvageable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to add text and a link from the BBC website referring to a Lancet report (2005) about homeopathy. It seems to be important. Here it is: "However, the Lancet also reports that a draft report on homoeopathy by the World Health Organization says the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials. Furthermore, it says that homoeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, both in humans and animals." Don’t you agree? Also I tried to add a external link for Vithoulkas since I could not add an internal one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm sm565--Sm565 18:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This substantially misrepresents the BBC report, ignores the criticisms of that study it, and raises one draft of a report to the level of a finalised, peer-review study. The original Lancet report is not difficult to find; why not have a look at what it says, not what the BBC says it says? Because whatever the BBC says, that's not in the Lancet report being discussed, and no citiation is given to where that information is mentioned. As far as I can tell, it's not mentioned in that issue of the journal. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear all

1) This is exactly what the BBC reports. Everyone can verify it by clicking here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm

2) The criticism could be included -if someone whishes- from both sides which can be found in the BBC article:

“Professor Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, said the draft WHO report seemed overtly biased and that all of the trials cited happened to be positive. "They are not the most rigorous ones, not the most recent," he said. 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 randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

However, I think criticism on WHO drafts from individuals MDs supporting or not Homeopathy do not have the same weight as a Lancet article. One could include them though. The problem is that there are thousands. The essential information here is the existing WHO draft.

3)Lets see what other members think about. Is the BBC a trustable source of information? I saw a BBC reference in the Homeopathy article and I thought it is :

^ Jones, Meirion. "Malaria advice 'risks lives'", BBC News, BBC News, 2006-07-14. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.

If tbe BBC cannot be trusted lets remove this reference from the article.

4) Of course the WHO draft could be included, since we cannot ….trust the BBC. --Sm565 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. We can't cite a report of a report of a draft of a report. When the WHO publishes their report, we can consider citing it. --Art Carlson 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I'm not saying we cannot trust the BBC completely, but that article smacks of "false balance" reporting. After some tracking down, I found that they did, indeed, somewhat misrepresent a Lancet article on a draft WHO report (it's doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67159-0 and is a stern criticism of a draft of a WHO report). Those criticisms they quote? Taken from the Lancet report on the controversy, which isn't obvious from the BBC report.

I will emphasise again. This is a *draft*. It is *not* the end version, it is being critiqued BECAUSE it was shown to be incredibly biased, and by a sub-orginisation that had previously misrepresented science related to acupuncture in similar ways. The reliability of this draft report is approximately zero, and any mention of it should be summarily deleted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC states that the Lancet makes a serious reference to the WHO draft. Maybe they are wrong and they don’t present it correctly. I don’t know.

But, if we have doubts about BBC integrity or ability then:

The BBC references in the Homeopathy article 1)( Jones, Meirion. "Malaria advice 'risks lives'", BBC News, BBC News, 2006-07-14. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.) 2) Complementary Therapies: Homeopathy — BBC's "Complementary Medicine" article on Homeopathy should be removed as well. So we can be consistent.

Everybody in this discussion agrees that the BBC cannot be considered completely trustable for an encyclopedia? If yes, you should ask the removal of its references. --Sm565 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling, read what other people are actually saying, have a look at the lancet article the BBC referenced - I gave a link, after all - and don't expect everyone to bow to your arbitrary whims. You misrepresented a BBC article by quoting one sentence out of context for purposes of POV-pushing I pointed out that even in context, that sentence was slightly misleading, as it didn't attribute sources very well, making it unclear that the Lancet article being cited was the source of the criticisms mentioned afterwards. Your response? To ignore the links to the Lancet article in question, and try to use this minor error to cast doubt on all of the BBC, so you can continue your POV-pushing.

You are in violation of WP:POINT WP:NPOV and perhaps even WP:RS and WP:TROLL. Please stop. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adam

This is not a rational response. You are preoccupied.

If serious people, who are not preoccupied, follow the discussion here they will understand my point.Its all here.

By the way: If you click on the link you gave it says: Critics slam draft WHO report on homoeopathy. The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 705-706 M. McCarthy That shows that the draft WHO report exists and some critics strongly disagree with it; most likely because it states that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials. It is an evidence that this controversy about WHO report exists and it should be mentioned. That’s why the BBC (most likely) reported it. The same info I proposed to be added in the article. --Sm565 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a draft. Do you understand what the word "draft" means? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it triggered a Lancet criticism and a BBC reference; therefore, its content should be mentioned. If the specific WHO draft were unimportant the Lancet and the BBC would not waste their time on it.--Sm565 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely rumoured in homeopathic circles that this WHO draft is dynamite and has been suppressed for at least a year. I am told someone in British homeopathy has a copy but refuses to publish its contents. The BBC have clearly got wind of this. I will try to get more info on this. Sm565 is broadly correct in what he is saying. Adam please go easy on this guy you are showing a very hardline and impatient, almost angry aspect which is not good. Let us all show greater respect and tolerance -- why all the anger? Also, why is the Lancet study such a sacred cow to you? In general terms what sm565 is saying is sound. If the BBC got it wrong then we need to know why and move on. If not, then we need to know a bit more about this WHO study, which I repeat has never been published as of now. That is why it is called a draft. It is still a draft today. thank you Peter morrell 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But what are we supposed to say about it? We can't say much from rumours and third-hand (Lancet) and fourth-hand (BBC) reports. I just don't think that we have enough to say anything about it. To put it bluntly, if it wasn't pro-homeopathy, would anyone be pushing for its inclusion, or think it was notable enough to include something that only a few people have seen? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 meters, use 000 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 meters.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- allege
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these might be helpful for improving this page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick copyright status check

Image:Rep1.JPG - This is probably a bit paranoid, but that almost surely isn't an original edition - from the type face, etc, I'd put it around 1950s, give or take a couple decades. Now, I don't think that such simplistic cover design can be copyrighted, but someone just confirm that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact an Indian reprint of the 1990s. What's the big deal about that? Peter morrell 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but if the cover can be copyrighted, we probably have to delete the image (and replace it with one not in copyright if possible), because I'm pretty sure we couldn't make a very good fair use rationale for why we had to use a 1990s version of an 19th century book. Have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Obviously, that's an awfully simple cover design, so it may not be eligable for copyright, but if it is... 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

Deutsche Welle

The data in the Deutsche Welle article is not verifiable. DW doesn't give its source, and it's unknown what the methodology was in collecting it, or even who wrote the article. It's also not a scientific publication, but a TV station, and in the article, it is trying to defend the validity of homeopathy with a blatantly fallacious argument. Therefore, it's not a reliable source, and we should not publish unverified numbers from it. Reinis^talk 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well all refs will have to be checked in the same way for any innate bias either way. That will mean removing all BBC, Skeptic and Quackwatch refs and any funded by pharmaceutical companies as well as the allegedly pro-homeopathy ones. Quite a task. But maybe this is necessary to achieve true neutrality. We should go in that direction. What we will end up with might prove to be rather slim. thanks Peter morrell 11:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here isn't any "innate bias", but the unverifiability of the numbers. They might as well be invented, and there's no way of knowing, because the article doesn't cite its sources. I mentioned the poor logic only in passing, and I never meant that all of DW is biased, only the article. Sorry to confuse you. Reinis^talk 11:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem; I was widening out the comments by Adam and Sn565 as well as those of yourself to a more general point. If we are going to get very picky over the reliability of sources (rightly so, probably), then we must be seen to be even-handed in all respects. This was my main point. thanks Peter morrell 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Reinis, edit conflict with Peter) The claim of 500 million users of homeopathy shows up on a lot of web sites, but I haven't found a single one that quotes a source. I don't have any reason to doubt this number, but I agree that we must be very careful with repeating claims that cannot be traced to a reliable source. As much as I think that the number of users is an interesting and important piece of information, it might be better in this case to say nothing at all. Alternatively, we could use a wimpy formulation like "Although the number of users of homeopathy has not been reliable determined, an often-quoted claim is 500 million." --Art Carlson 11:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a source for that, it would be original research. Reinis^talk 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Art, absolutely, that sounds fine by me; your suggested change is a big improvement on the current mess. I will reply when I get a response from Boiron labs about their figures so hopefully that might disentangle some of the vagueness. thanks Peter morrell 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless statement

"Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India"

...This is essentially meaningless, as "particularly popular" is an undefined term, and the sources are an Indian and a European source that talk about their own regions. There's a point to be made here, but I'd like a little hard data comparing Africa, Asia, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South America, and all the other continents and countries we're ignoring. I'm not sure if this is possible, but if it isn't, could we make a direct comparison, e.g. "Homeopathy is widely used in India (I think the sources will back this up to a reasonable extent), somewhat less common in Europe, but only Z% of United States citizens have used it."

I'm sure you'll hate that phrasing, but you take the point: Let's compare what we actually have good data for, and not make presumptions about all the parts of the world we don't have good data for. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, a lot of that section reads oddly, e.g. "More than 12,000 medical doctors and licensed health care practitioners administer homeopathic treatment in the UK, France, and Germany." (Why single out those three to be grouped together? Not to mention the odd phrasing of "medical doctors and licensed health care practitioners") Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal trends, Worldwide view

This section indeed is limited in it's scope, but This is likely due to the lack of sources for the material in other South American or Asian countries etc. I will look for sources to add more info on it on other countries and I encourage other editors to also look for such sources, however if none can be found I don't believe we should keep the tag up. If we can't add a worldwide view due to a lack of sources I see no reason how the tag could help. Though I'll search for relevant sources, everyone else should help. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, but even if we could just say something general about the rest of the world it'd be better than nothing, so... =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is some info I found about laws and regulations.

That's about all I could find. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeowatch is a quackbuster outfit and thus thoroughly unreliable, that is prejudicial. It cannot be used. Many will say the same for Boiron for oppoite reasons. We must try to find both good and neutral sources or this effort is doomed IMO. thanks Peter morrell 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any other sources. If you have any good ones then please post them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Quackwatch unreliable? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same reason a pro-homeopathy site isn't very reliable. Unless they themselves have sources for the info I suppose we can't verify it. Though the Homeowatch page is actually a transcript from a court case, which shouldn't be hard to verify in itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure: I mean, Quackwatch has won several awards and mentions in prominent journals, as well as having a large advisory board [7]. This isn't true of the homeopathy sites. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, that said, the quackwatch link is not that useful towards the goal of providing a worldwide view, since the U.S. isn't all that badly covered. The Boiron site information, is not presented in any sort of neutral way. So I'll agree that neither is that useful for our purposes.

The Zicam nasal spray case ([8] [9] etc - a simple gogle search for Zicam and smell comes up with hundreds of articles) might just be useful in the safety section, though we shouldn't give much space to it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We still need to get that tag removed though. If we can't find sources for more info then the tag really doesn't serve a purpose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been, what, two days? Give it a little time. The whole point of a tag is to encourage more than just one person to search for information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch is not specifically anti-Homeopath and is quite reliable. A few individuals, especially on this project, have been POV-warrioring over the article on it, but that is not evidence that it is unreliable. In fact, Quackwatch has a huge resource of peer-reviewed articles which will serve our needs quite well. Just one thought--is Zicam being used as an example of homeopathy? I would lump it in with some other article, not specifically Homeopathy. But I'm not so sure. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WDM. The tag removed? Why? Because it's blocking you from getting your article to GA status? How about getting the tag removed because you've satisfied the conditions of having it removed. Every time someone makes a little disagreement with you on a point, it becomes a holy war. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review. By the WHO, no less. Problem solved! We'll have to summarise heavily, of course. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We need more about the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare, since this applies throughout the European Union. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find me a source with info about the European Directorate? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not check out their website: [10] cheers Peter morrell 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the European Directorate we're talking about. =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam, can you please restore the 6000 homeopaths in Germany...here are the links: 6000 homeopaths in Germany [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] deleting stuff is your forte, pity you can't check sources and just place a 'fact' tag instead, thank you Peter morrell 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a legal trend, though, is it? That's more of a prevalence thing, and we already talk about the UK-France-Germany combined total. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The WHO report that Adam posted has some good statistics that can be used, though it doesn't mention anything about the number of homeopaths in Germany. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We need Canada, Asia, and Africa still, by the way. Probably Australia and New Zealand too. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added South Africa as well as Canada. The WHO report doesn't mention much about Homeopathy in Asia, Australia or New Zealand though so I would need other sources for those, which I am unable to find. I think it's fair to remove the tag now. You can add it back if you aren't satisfied with the section and perhaps provide some other sources so that I can add more info. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Weel, we could do Lesotho. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this edit POV?

This edit doesn't seem very POV to me. User:Orangemarlin reverted it saying that they were POV edits, I looked at them and can't see how. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of 10th rate universities, in a boldfaced attempt to increase tuition dollars, add programs in Homeopathy. That adds undue weight to article for the acceptability of Homeopathy. It is POV, lacks notability. Wikidudeman, I have insisted over and over again that this article is highly POV. If you're going to own this article, then I suggest you reduce the POV, not increase it. I've noticed that everyone allows creeping POV in these type of articles. Each one, by themselves, seems innocuous. Then we go down the road a month, and all of a sudden you'd think normal universities are offering degrees in Homeopathy. No medical school in this country allows courses in this subject. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of the notability of the Universities in question, They are notable enough to be mentioned if they are the only ones in the U.S. offering such courses. Moreover, Why do you continue to insist that I am "owning" this article? Please elaborate on this because I fail to see what actions I have taken with this article that would make it seem that I am owning it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Step away from editing, that would be an indication that you do not own the article. And just because you say you aren't does not in fact mean you aren't. I watch your edits, your refusal to allow any tags to be placed (how many tags of mine have you reverted?) and your ongoing argument with Adam about one tag. You want it removed because you want this article FA or GA, and it's POV is so high, I doubt you can get it. Sorry, but two 10th rate universities do not qualify as notable. They qualify as someplace that should not produce graduates, but I won't go there. You really need to read up on undue weight, because just because 2 out of 50,000 (I actually don't know the number) of accredited US colleges and universities, shouldn't be mentioned. If Harvard University medical school offered courses, yes that's notable and requires significant weighting in this article. So please, disown this article and let others edit for balance and NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion of the lack of Universities offering Homeopathic courses in the U.S., it is notable. We need to mention them even if there are only two of them. We can't not mention them in the discussion of University courses today in Homeopathy just because the universities themselves aren't as notable. Notability is judged in the context of the article. For instance we can't mention that some blogger is a critic of George W. Bush in the George W. Bush article because that would not be notable enough in the context of the George W. Bush article, However we COULD mention that the blogger is a critic of George W. Bush on the specific bloggers article. Notability is all about the context of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to your ownership of this article. You are lusting for the GA and FA status, that you cannot step back. Your example is completely irrelevant. I do not even know how it relates to two insignificant universities who are trying to get tuition dollars rather than practice good science. It's giving weight to unnotable activities. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that notability is all in the context. In the context of universities offering Homeopathy courses, Those two otherwise unnotable universities are notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OM, please assume good faith. This edit is valid; according to WP:NOTE, notability guidelines do NOT directly limit article content: "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, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines."

These schools I originally listed, while minor, are notable for this article simply because they offer specialties and certificates in Homeopathy. I could have, but did not for brevity's sake, included even more schools, including the American University of Complementary Medicine, Bastyr University, the New England School of Homeopathy, the Northwestern Academy of Homeopathy, the Pacific Academy of Homeopathic Medicine... the list can go on.

Regardless, I've gone beyond those schools, and included fully-accredited schools as well. In other words: notable.

I think I've made the case for this (actually very minor) edit. It only adds to the article, not detracts; and it's simply encyclopedic NPOV. --profg 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

American University of Complementary Medicine??? ROFLMAO. Not notable. Not NPOV. Not reliable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Accredited? By a reputable agency? Sounds a bit hard to believe. I doubt it. And just because you claim notability does not mean that they are notable. I would suggest, as before, you review carefully WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--Filll 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might butt in, I think the problem is more that the section is on th e closing of the last schools exclusively teaching homeopathy. Objecting that "these minor schools teach homeopathy and other things!" is irrelevant to the main point: that homeopathy has declined in the United States, and there are no longer any purely homeopathic schools. These minor schools aren't exclusively homeopathic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Filll", it doesn't matter whether you find it "hard to believe." Let me enlighten you (if you had bothered to read the footnotes, you wouldn't be having this problem):

The National College of Natural Medicine is accredited at both the master's and doctoral degree levels with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). The Northwest Commission is one of six U.S. regional accrediting bodies recognized by the U. S. Secretary of Education. Their Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) degree is approved by the State of Oregon, Office of Degree Authorization and accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), a programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education

The fully-accredited Everglades University's accreditor, ACCSCT, is recognized by the United States Department of Education as a private, non-profit, independent accrediting agency. ACCSCT's scope of recognition includes the accreditation of private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-granting institutions in the United States, including those granting associate, baccalaureate and master's degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via distance education.

The American Medical College of Homeopathy's Certificate Program is licensed through the State of Arizona and has full accreditation as a comprehensive training program through the Council for Homeopathic Education.

For the sake of peace in the article itself, I've removed the other minor schools mentioned. But if you remove these three, you will show your POV bias, as I have proven my case.

(And OM, if you will please notice, I didn't include the American University of Complementary Medicine in the article itself, just the Talk page. So please cease your uncivil comments like "ROFLMAO" or step away from editing, thank you very much.) --profg 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Profg, I do not think you are someone who should be lecturing anyone about civility. I might humbly suggest that it would be in your best interests to understand a bit more about civility before you instruct others in it's application here. Thanks.--Filll 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, "Filll", I don't see how your humble suggestion even applies here. WP:UNCIVIL is clear, and my reference to it in regards to OM stands on its own merits. Thanks. --profg 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

National College of Natural Medicine is accredited by a regional commission and notable enough. Everglades University and American Medical College of Homeopathy are neither, so far as I can determine. I suggest we examine the school and whether content related to that school should be included in the article. What do you wish included, and how will it enhance the reader's understanding of Homeopathy? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, not sure what you mean, at least in regards to Everglades University. Their accreditor, the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (listed on WP here under "National accreditation"), is recognized by the United States Department of Education as a private, non-profit, independent accrediting agency. (The WP list of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning in the United States, by the way, is taken from the United States Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education and the Directory of Council for Higher Education Accreditation Recognized Organizations 2005-2006.

The American Medical College of Homeopathy (the successor to the Desert Institute School of Classical Homeopathy (DISCH), founded in 1998) seems to be a new school that intends to be fully operational shortly; and while it is licensed through the State of Arizona, it is accredited through the Council for Homeopathic Education, which I don't have a lot of info on (their website was up yesterday, but seems to be down today). Maybe we should remove AMCH until more info can be found. (It is interesting, though, as it would be the first medical school in the U.S. exclusively teaching homeopathy since the 1920s.)

I recommend including those two schools in this section, as it will therefore further enhance the reader's understanding of the "Modern theory of homeopathy" (this section of the article, where the history of schools teaching homeopathy is included). So, KC, could you do me the favor of reversing the latest edit from Ornis so that the NCNM and EU are included, but let's leave out the AMCH for now? (I wouldn't want Ornis to think I'm engaging in POV editing or anything, you know.) Thanks. --profg 14:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We've got to change something, because the article currently says there are currently no ("major") exclusively homeopathic schools in the US, and implies that there are not even any offering homeopathic electives. The references under discussion seem sufficient to disprove both statements. On the other hand, the suggested information is probably too detailed for an overview article on homeopathy. I'd go for something like this:

The last major school in the U.S. exclusively teaching homeopathy closed down in 1920. Since then, there have usually been at least a few schools offering homeopathic electives. More recently, a new exclusively homeopathic school, the American Medical College of Homeopathy, has been founded. (Plus footnotes)

--Art Carlson 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not sure we want to put the American Medical College of Homeopathy in here in this way. The entrance requirement is an Associate Degree with experience in allied health. It was formerly Desert Institute School of Classical Homeopathy. It offers two types of degree; one that takes about 19 40-hour weeks, and another one that only requires 1 40 hour week of training and is taken over the internet. My source claims it has only Provisional Accreditation by the Council of Homeopathic Education, although this might have changed. I am not sure that I have put much stock in this Council of Homeopathic Education. It is supposedly the sole school that exclusively teaches homepathy in the US since the 1920s. Is this place really indicative of much?--Filll 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Art is right. The article currently says that no schools offer homeopathic courses when that isn't reality. We need to mention which schools do regardless of their notability alone. As mentioned above, Notability is in the context and I think that profg has provided more than enough reason for the specific schools to be mentioned. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, I agree with you; could you do me the favor of reversing the latest edit from Ornis so that the NCNM and EU are included, but go ahead and edit out the AMCH for now? Thanks. --profg 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone tell me what you think of this edit [19]. I reworded it to make it more NPOV and shortened it down. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Please know that it's likely someone will eventually try to insist that these schools aren't notable and revert your edit, but that would just be their POV shining through, as has been well-established here. Thanks for your efforts. --profg 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough someone reverted it. It was User:Orangemarlin though this time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Would you two stop acting like children pouting at each other on the playground and discuss the article, not other contributors? That linked name was beyond childish, Profg, which is especially sad considering you're plastering civility warnings around. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We want to discuss it, But some editors prefer to revert everything without discussing anything. We're both here not reverting, just wanting to discuss things. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it, then discuss it - don't go making smarmy comments and snide remarks which are clever to any bully in the 5th grade, but silly and uncivil to anyone past that stage of maturity. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are Satan, or even that "their POV is shining through". Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What snide remarks did I make? I said "Sure enough someone reverted it" and pointed out who it was. I don't see how that's snide if that's what you're talking about. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I apologize. You continued the discussion, in a way, so I tarred you with the same brush. Please accept my apologies for my error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, it is uncool to remove comments from a Talk page that are relevant to the discussion that is happening, just because you believe they are "trolling". I didn't see you remove Filll's comment, which had "NOTHING to do with the article." Please stop smearing editors you don't agree with. --profg 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Colleges

I put the National College of Natural Medicine back in, as the least controversial of the schools offering Homeopathic courses/subjects. Feel free to revert me; there is certainly no consensus for adding this materiel. I removed all the excessive description and such, as that is in the linked article. Everglades I'm still unclear on, but as the current content reads "a few schools, including..." it is clear that NCNM is an example so I see no need to rush to make this decision. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem as I see it with Everglades: it is accredited as Career Schools and Colleges of Technology not as a medical school. NCNM is one of six accredited naturopathic medical schools in NA. As a non-medical school offering some homeopathic courses, is Everglades a good example? NCNM is clearly the most notable example of schools offering courses. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the NCNM demonstrates that it has two halves; a Chinese medicine half and a natural medicine half. The Chinese medicine half is the more heavily accredited piece. Homeopathy is not a major, or a program at the NCNM. There are 8 homeopathy electives, not all of which are offered every year, which are one quarter, 36 hour courses each. It is not clear if a program in homeopathy alone would even gain accreditation, to be honest.--Filll 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is fairly clear that this is only "courses offered", rather than "a degree in", but it may be misleading. Suggestions for clearer phrasing? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. In looking at the article, I don't see anything in this section that would necessitate including only medical schools. The exact wording is, "The last major school in the U.S. exclusively teaching homeopathy closed down in 1920, though the Hahnemann School of Medicine, now part of Drexel University, continued to offer homeopathy electives until the 1940s." I recommend using the actual language referenced in the source: "The last pure homeopathic medical school in the U.S. closed in 1920," and changing the article's language to read "The last exclusively homeopathic medical school in the U.S. closed down in 1920".

We could also clarify with language like, "NCNM's Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) course of study includes at least nine courses on homeopathy."(reference: http://www.ncnm.edu/academics/Program_Layouts_files/sheet003.htm) We could further clarify that "Everglades University, while not a medical college, also offers a BS in Alternative Medicine, with a focus on homeopathy."

I'm not overwhelmingly comfortable with not having some sort of reference to AMCH in here, since it will be one of the first homeopathic medical schools in the United States since the 1920's; however, for the sake of... certain... editors, we could wait to insert until it is fully operational. --profg 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not "for the sake of... certain... editors" (Profg, no one is fooled by that, please cease these petty rudenesses) but because its not an accredited school. It simply isn't. WP:NOT a crystal ball - we're an encyclopedia and only cover that which has been covered, usually fairly exhaustively already. This does not include most future plans and upcoming events. If and when AMCH is accredited and that can be cited by multiple reliable sources, we can have an article about that and add it here. Until then, its a moot point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. :-) --profg 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC

Re: Adam Cuerden's edit - insertion of "American" there is not really accurate, since there are also a number of European colleges teaching homeopathic courses as well. --profg 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph was on American homeopathic schools, so I just wanted to indicate thaat we were still talking about America. But I have no objections to leaving it assumed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance

We have to acknowledge that homeopathy is a very minor activity in the health care industry. It is not supported by any scientific studies. It is of historical interest, but potentially dangerous. Our previous version of this article made this more clear, and eventually this will have to be done at this article as well. --Filll 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right on all fronts; with the minor exception that it is not completely historical as yet, unlike leeching it is still being taught at a few alternative schools. How do you see that the article has lost that clarity and what can be done to retrieve it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Even leeches aren't totally gone.[20] ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, my mistake. The power of collaborative editing at work, my ignorance will not harm this article. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. Leeches have made a big comeback in the last few years, for obvious reasons. And I would bow to my medical friends here for advice on exactly how we should frame this issue and what sort of balance we should strike. I just get the impression that we have to discuss this a bit here. We will see.--Filll 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in awhile. I do know that before it was so long that I could not get myself to make it through. However, have we considered (from a historical pov) that perhaps Homeopathy has added to our current knowledge in some way.. Considering it brought us out of the dark ages of Heroic medicine, perhaps something along the line of "Do no harm".. or the value of a placebo... anything along those lines. In other words, there is always something we can learn from our past - and it is our past. Even medicine's. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I changed "Medical efficacy" to "Doubts about medical efficacy", in keeping with other subheaders in the "Criticism" section -- other subheaders include "Criticism of high dilutions" and "Questions of safety", so unless we want to change those to "High dilutions" and "Safety", this change seems perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic. --profg 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it just say "Medical efficacy" since that's shorter, cleaner and more neutral. While the discussion does indeed discuss the doubts about the medical efficacy, I don't think the header needs to jump to that conclusion prior to the reader even reading the content. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "Doubts about medical efficacy" will cause the reader to "jump to that conclusion" any quicker than "Criticism of high dilutions" and "Questions of safety" would. Maybe I'm missing something? --profg 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to have a title that describes the content. "Medical efficacy" might lead the reader to think it was a section about how homeopathy was shown to be effective, which it hasn't been. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll be bold and change all three subheaders to be consistent with the actual section they are under. Does this work better? I still think we should just keep "Criticism of high dilutions", "Doubts about medical efficacy" and "Questions of safety", since that flows better IMHO, but I can live with this one. --profg 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If Ornis wants to contribute to this article, that's great! However, I would like to ask him to please discuss here on the Talk page if he's going to undo edits that have been specifically brought up here for discussion -- like this one. I'm reverting that edit, so that it can actually be discussed this time. Thanks. --profg 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One option is to place a ? after the title or perhaps to say at the end of the section For a critique of this topic see section so and so and then insert the link to its critique. Safety and efficacy are of course disputed and this should appear, but it should not detract from the main flow of the sections on safety and efficacy. how does that sound? This would be a compromise to the claim that criticisms are being ghettoized. Peter morrell 06:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One word: nonstandard. Reinis^talk 07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One question: you do know that "criticism" is properly a neutral word, not a negative? Here it is being used with an implied negative sense. From my POV, that homeopathy is nonsense, I don't care; but to be NPOV, as we all should be, the use of "criticism" bites. Jim62sch 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Safety and efficacy are of course disputed and this should appear, but it should not detract from the main flow of the sections on safety and efficacy. how does that sound? This would be a compromise to the claim that criticisms are being ghettoized. Perhaps change criticisms to 'anti homeopathy views?' I did not mean that criticism is negative; I simply meant that there exist pro and anti views on this subject. The article should be NPOV and opposing views should also appear. Whether they are ghettoized is another question. thank you Peter morrell 10:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Medical efficacy" section is in the criticism section so I fail to see how it would be unclear that the medical efficacy is being doubted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Ars Technica has published a longish article on homeopathy a few days ago that might be a useful RS. Reinis^talk 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks is it even worth looking at? Prejudicial references should not be used. We must strive to find and use good reliable and neutral refs and purge this article of the numerous bad refs and refs by disputed, discredited or unreliable sources/authors. I sadly imagine this article is exactly in that vein. We either adopt one rule of good refs for both sides or we have no rule at all and use any ref whether reliable, prejudicial or not. Currently many anti homeopathy refs are in use here and IMO they should all go. Maybe we can talk about this important matter? any views on this out there? thank you. Peter morrell 11:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're right, anyone who thinks homeopathy is a crock can only be prejudiced. The only reliable sources are those that make nice-nice with the homeopaths. Reinis^talk 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article and it is 99% garbage. It has no references but it is just blather and opinion. Not one of its claims is substantiated. Is that the best you can do? Is this science? Pity you cannot be serious and respond positively for once to a serious point. We either have good reliable refs in this article or we have repeated edit wars based on disputes about refs and endless counter-attacks. You certainly seem to be one of those who prefers the latter. Let us hope there are more sensible ideas out there. thank you Peter morrell 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you imputing me with negative motives again, and what's with these pronouncements of edit wars? You are using this bogeyman quite a lot, but it doesn't seem to come true.

As for the article, it does have DOI names of Homeopathy articles, so how trustworthy really is your opinion, if you still say that "it has no references"? Reinis^talk 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I told you before that if you keep attacking me, I will seek that it's resolved. Please refrain from saying things like that I prefer edit wars or I lack the ability to be serious. Reinis^talk 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinis, I read the article through and through, and my only hesitation is where you say it "might be a useful RS." Can you qualify what you mean by that? In looking over the rest of the site, I'm not sure I would agree that it's RS. I could be wrong, of course, and missed something, so perhaps you could give points as to why you say so. Thanks. --profg 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on Reliable sources

Reliable sources are sources which can be trusted to be factually accurate when they are secondary sources. Secondary sources are sources that aren't directly from the horses mouth when it comes to citing facts but which are "summaries" of the facts themselves by other parties. Reliable sources don't need to be necessarily neutral but that is always better than bias sources. A source such as this one would be considered very reliable. The authors of the source might not believe in Homeopathy and might be considered "bias" in that fact, however the source is reliable because it itself is well sourced. Sources such as scientific studies published in peer review journals are especially reliable. 95% of Pubmed articles are actually very reliable as primary or secondary sources for this simple fact. Unreliable sources are sources which make various assertions and are not peer reviewed, not from reputable organizations or individuals, or don't actually have sources themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. On this basis the article suggested recently does not meet these criteria, and is not reliable as it does indeed consist of unreferenced opinions and assertions and is not peer reviewed. However, as I floated the idea above, reputable sources should be neutral primarily as this subject attracts such disputes and is highly contentious. Strong opinions persist on both sides. Therefore, I would suggest even greater scrutiny of the content of an article and the publishing record of the author as some of them may appear reputable (e.g. appear on PubMed) but are still from biased sources. That obviously goes for both pro and anti homeopathy articles. thank you Peter morrell 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To better understand what you mean, could you give some examples of biased sources in the article and explain why they are biased? Reinis^talk 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will post up a review later of all the refs in this article. thanks Peter morrell 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Attacking the publishing record of an author in an attempt to repudiate some current publication in question is actually an ad-hominem. We can't attack the author of a work in an attempt to prove the work itself is bias. Non-neutral authors can write neutral works. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not 'attacking' anyone or anything. What I am saying is that certain authors have a proven track record of publications which all slam alt med or specific therapies. Are you saying then that this is fine and they are reliable? I don't think so. Such authors are patently unreliable and biased in their views. If, combined with that they do not properly reference good sources themselves in their work, or only cite their own papers, then absolutely such persons are unreliable and anything they do write must be carefully scrutinised to ensure it is factually and interpretationally sound, not to say also well sourced. If it does not meet such standards, then it is unsuitable. Several such examples are contained in the reference list of this article. I will post them all up soon. Peter morrell 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that we can't use histories of authors as evidence that some current publication of theirs is bias. Also, criticizing homeopathy doesn't necessarily mean that the author doing so is prejudiced or isn't representing the facts. Sometimes, even when all facts are considered, homeopathy itself has a lot of relevant criticism attached to it. This alone shouldn't negate a source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter's list of references

Here are some examples of 'dodgy' sources in this article.

refs 100 and 101 and 34 and 35, 92, 96, are unbiased as they either appear in good jnls and/or the authors are totally neutral, i.e. historians with no obvious strongly held view on the contentious issues surrounding homeopathy.

Refs 75 and 79 are obviously biased anti refs; 79 (and 24, 36) is a disputed person who attacks homeopathy regularly and appears to be a failed homeopath so that is an odd case all round, but I would not dispute the overall relevance of his opinions, as that is what they are; they are not NPOV. His so-called 'historical' articles are riddled with factual errors and numerous uncited opinions masquerading as sound historical analysis. One has to be very cautious of using such sources as their value and veracity are in doubt.

Ref 75 is the kind of highly prejudicial trash that often appears in tabloids like Daily Mail and increasingly in The Guardian and Independent where, over the last 2-3 years, a vociferous anti campaign is being waged by pro-pharmeuctical retired physicians such as Michael Baum. None of this type of material is neutral and rarely if ever does it use good sources. It generally mixes factual information with distortions and misinterpretations to give an intellectual gloss to what are extreme views.

Any article by Edzard Ernst like 73 is fundamentally biased (and refs 6, 7) because he mostly cites his own numerous papers and those of his co-workers (e.g. A R White) which is a disreputable publishing practice and he is wholly opposed to alt med even though bizarrely he holds a chair in it! His self-citation rate is regularly 35-75% which is astonishingly high for a so-called 'academic' writer. No self-respecting academics would ever cite their own work so often. Out of his 800 alleged papers only 1 or 2 come out begrudgingly pro any form of alt med, which is at best suspicious. By such dubious practices he discredits himself, his own papers and his reputation. He is widely despised in CAM and has lost all credibility even among the very mildest pro-CAM persons. On this basis I would urge great caution about citing his work even though much of it appears on PubMed.

Any ref like 58 and 27 by Ramey and Imrie is false or distorted because again they are horse doctors and well-known campaigners against homeopathy. Their sources are all anti and from non-peer reviewed jnls. They regularly mix distorted 'facts' and dubious claims with strong opinions and incorrect deductions for their cause. Likewise anything by Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett (ref 50), Skeptic and homeowatch.

Ref 38 is a good example of an unbiased source in a reputable jnl.

Ref 59 is open to question as who is the O O & L Society?

Ref. 38 (double-blind proving)

Ref 38 is a bit stupid because a so-called 'proving' with 30c Belladonna abrogates the principles of homeopathy. Very few decent provings have ever been made with a drug in potency. All Hahnemann's and all the early provings were made with sub-lethal and molecular doses such as tincture, or 3x, never with a potentised drug. Potentised drugs like 30c can only generate symptoms in highly sensitive persons and only then with frequent repetition (e.g. four doses a day for 3-4 days), which I assume was not followed in this case. Therefore, its conclusions are meaningless and show nothing; it was a flawed study from the outset as it fails to conform to standard proving protocols.

This is an important point, or at least interesting to me. The question of whether provings are done with substantial or potentized doses was discussed here a couple years ago. As I recall, the situation is muddy, but the conclusion was that most contemporary provings are done with potentized doses, although Hahnemann, at least initially, used substantial doses. Do you have some references, Peter, supporting your statement that "standard" provings are done with molecular doses? --Art Carlson 07:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will comment first and then find some refs later. Because I was doing some research recently about Hahnemann's first provings it is very clear that all his early provings were conducted before he started using small doses, i.e. from 1790-1805 and he started reducing doses in 1798-9. Even in 1809, however, he was still using some drugs in crude dose. He transitioned his practice quite slowly to the small doses. But it is very clear that he never proved a drug in potency. Nor did any of the early homeopaths. Potency provings began about 1830s more or less with Dr Hering in the US and have been done ever since. It is always the Americans who preferred high potencies! I shall draw no conclusions from that but some people reckon it had a religious impetus behind it. However, I discussed this recently with George Vithoulkas who has criticised potency provings saying that any proving should be done in crude dose in a double-blinded way against placebo with nobody knowing the name of the drug. He dislikes potency provings as they give rise to allegedly imaginary symptoms. I will try and find some refs for you on this. thanks Peter morrell 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some refs to read. I will try to find more later...

thanks Peter morrell 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two of these references contradict your statement that Hahnemann "never proved a drug in potency." --Art Carlson 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Art, and they are in error. All his provings were more or less done by 1830 and that was the year he introduced 30c, so who is right these old homeopaths or the historical facts? These are commonly supposed myths within homeopathy, but I have yet to find actual evidence that it is true. Until the 1830s he was mostly using potencies at 18c or lower such as 12c, 9c and 6c below the avogadro limit and no provings were done to my knowledge in potency so I stand by that statement until I find evidence that contradicts it. Provisonally, it is as correct as we can ascertain at this point. But feel free to comment further. thanks Peter morrell 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lippe directs us to §128 of the Organon, which reads:

The most recent observations have shown that medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent. In this manner we now find it best to investigate the medicinal powers even of such substances as are deemed weak, and the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potency of such a substance, moistened with a little water or dissolved in more or less water and thoroughly mixed, and let him continue this for several days.

That sure sounds like Hahnemann himself claimed to be doing provings with potencies. --Art Carlson 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Art and that was from the 5th Organon published in 1833. As I said before he did not prove drugs in potency. If you can disprove this then please feel free to do so. There is also a difference between doing something yourself and recommending things to others as a best practice one aims towards. Regardless of his directions to others in the 5th Organon, his provings were all but completed by 'The Chronic Diseases' published in 1828, so how do you suppose he proved drugs in potency when he did not introduce 30c until 1830? the dates simply do not match up. It is a strange issue, I admit, but this is what I have found through searching the historical information available. Maybe I am wrong, but all I can do is go where the evidence takes me. I am not prepared to go where folks (e.g. homeopaths) dearly want me to go. thanks Peter morrell 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't catching the distinction between recommending and doing. Anyway, that still leaves us with the questions of what the "standard practice" is, i.e. What is the basis of the bulk of the provings found in commonly used repertories? It seems hard to believe that classical homeopaths would not prove in potencies if that is what Hahnemann recommended. For clinical homeopathy, one might expect less reverence to Hahnemann, but also more readiness to believe in molecular doses, so I can't second guess whether they would use potencies or not. --Art Carlson 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I was speaking specifically about Hahnemann, what others did is another matter. Yes, many drugs have been proved both in potency and in crude dose. The impression I have is that a good proving should use both crude and diluted drug in parallel with a group of provers all proving a drug they do not know the name of. I think your alleged distinction between 'classical' and 'clinical' is more imagined than real. All homeopaths aspire to the classical method but it needs adapting in certain cases and that's about it. The homeopath takes as many symptoms as possible and then prescribes for the totality, regardless of the chief presenting condition. The info in repertories is mostly derived form provings of various types. What are you driving at there? thanks Peter morrell 16:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm driving at is simple. This thread starting with you saying that Ref 38 is "stupid" because it studied a proving at 30c, which "fails to conform to standard proving protocols". Now you are saying that a good proving should use high potencies (in parallel with crude doses). If your latest statements are true, then there is nothing wrong with this study and the reference to it. --Art Carlson 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was not a case of having it both ways; the proving was 'stupid' because it attempted to prove Belladonna just with 30c, which is indeed possible but not the usual method and thus liable to be inconclusive; that was the original point. As I also said, to induce good reliable symptoms using a drug in potency you need very frequent repetition and sensitive individuals. Was that followed in this case? Some people are not sensitive generally or not to certain drugs and so get very few symptoms. They are thus hopeless for proving drugs. One way of overcoming that is to use crude dose or low doses like 2x or 3x in the proving, which induce symptoms more readily. That is the long-established and most reliable method. Modern provings tend to be a mix of drugs in potency and some in crude dose with a group of provers. Some provings have been done with 200c and 10M potencies, but folks like Vithoulkas dispute the veracity of the symptoms obtained. That is why I said the proving of Belladonna using 30c seems a dodgy way to do it. Does this now clarify the situation? Peter morrell 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but I think we have enough information now for the question at hand, namely, is Ref 38 a reliable source. (Actually, you seem to be questioning its relevance, not its reliability, but that's OK.) We have established that provings are often (although not exclusively) done with potentized doses. Ref 38 is a serious attempt to rigorously test one aspect of homeopathy. It is not above criticism (but note that all your criticisms would apply as well to many provings used in repertories), but it is the best scientific test of this aspect that has been done to date. (Or do you know of a better one?) This ref is clearly reliable and relevant. --Art Carlson 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree the study has led only to a false conclusion; that a drug has been 'proved' with 30c and nothing happened and so suggesting that the proving is not a valid concept in homeopathy. That is a false conclusion because sure as hell if they had used 3x or some similar low potency then every one of the provers would have experienced symptoms in-line with previous Belladonna provings. Therefore this study is not reliable though it is relevant. It is unreliable because it leads to a false conclusion and it was not done in accordance with previous and long-established proving protocols. And it only appears in this article to lend support to a false premise. Peter morrell 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Slowly, please. Is it true, or is it not, that many (not all) of the entries in commonly used repertories are based, at least in part, on provings done with high potency doses? Secondly, do you know of any scientific studies (double-blind, placebo-controlled) that back up your belief that 3x provings are robust? --Art Carlson 07:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Peter's list

Ref 73 is also questionable or flawed because you cannot have a trial of 'homeopathy for 'osteoarthritis' as there is no such 'disease' in homeopathic conceptuality; homeopathy treats individuals, not alleged 'disease entities,' which it regards as fictitious human constructs. There are just different people with different types of joint problems; each would require different remedies and evaluations. Such poorly conceived studies are utterly meaningless and actually reveal nothing about the clinical use of homeopathy. Most such studies are eagerly funded by drug companies and even that should sound alarm bells; there is a clearcut commercial conflict of interest.

Same applies to ref 74 as again there is no such thing as 'migraine' as far as homeopathy is concerned. Such studies reveal the hopeless grasp these workers have of homeopathy and such studies funded by drug company money are inherently biased.

The two bullets above touch the reason I wanted to include info on different types of homeopathy. It is correct that classical homeopathy does not consider a diagnosis of "osteoarthritis" or "migraine" to be useful, much less trying to treat all such cases with the same remedy. Consequently these studies and similar ones can say nothing about the efficacy of classical homeopathy. On the other hand, there is substantial use of clinical homeopathy, which practices exactly that way. While we can and should point out what applies to which, this article needs to cover both types, not just "true" homeopathy. (As a side jab, if classical homeopathy were the only effective form, you would expect the studies to show that. In fact, whether it is the result of placebo or not, classical and clinical homeopathy are about equally effective.) --Art Carlson 07:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You greatly exaggerate the alleged differences between so-called 'clinical' and 'classical' homeopathy. Can you please give examples of these practices and where they occur? and how widespread is their use. thanks Peter morrell 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Open your eyes. Advocates of homeopathy hold many different positions that contradict each other. Some rely on a detailed anamnesis, others buy their drugs over-the-counter. Some use a single dose of a single preparation, others use multiple doses and/or multiple substances. Some prescribe a remedy based only on symptoms, others first diagnose a disease. Some believe high-potency provings are unreliable, others believe they are best. Your homeopathy may be the right one, but it is not the only one. I wish I had some numbers, but I don't. Nevertheless, we have no basis to imply in the article that only one form of homeopathy exists, or that any particular form is in any way better than any other. --Art Carlson 08:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some random links that discuss this dichotomy are this and that (-> Contents -> Chapter 2: Scope of Homeopathic Pharmacy). --Art Carlson 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref 82 is from a biased and unreliable source.

Ref 84 almost certainly likewise of questionable commercial support and again campaigning material not at all neutral. Do you see what I mean? thank you Peter morrell 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion on the sources. Concerning the source by Ramey et al is quite reliable only because it itself is highly sourced. While they may not believe in Homeopathy or it's medical efficacy, I don't believe this alone should mean they can't be sourced. Could you post a list of the sources you think should absolutely be removed? We can discuss it from there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is the following refs are the most unreliable and should go: 75, 82, 73, 74, 38, 58, 27, 6, 7, 50 and any by quackwatch, homeowatch. But it is not up to me but for people to debate. Peter morrell 06:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Peter's list

Okay,... let's look this over. I've given the full reference, because, frankly, soon as you change one or add one the numbering's going to change, making Peter's numbering somewhat useless.

75: Jha, Alok. "Homeopaths 'endangering lives' by offering malaria remedies", Guardian Unlimited, 2006-07-14. - This article in a major British newspaper is perfectly acceptable in a criticism section

82 Online Lawyer Source: Zicam Settlement - one of three references for the same sentence, all of which say about the same thing. I suspect Peter actually means 72: Long L, Ernst E (2001). "Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review". The British homoeopathic journal 90 (1): 37-43. PMID 11212088. - Edzard Ernst is a very notable critic, and, given where the reference is used, I see no problem with it.

73: Whitmarsh TE, Coleston-Shields DM, Steiner TJ (1997). "Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine". Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache 17 (5): 600-4. PMID 9251877. - for as far as this source is actually used, which is not very far at all, it seems appropriate.

74 Weissmann, Gerald (2006). "Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales". The FASEB Journal. 20: 1755–1758. PMID 16940145. Retrieved on 2007-08-13. - This one's fairly weak, and could reasonably be replaced by a better source providing the same information, given how it's used.

38: ^ a b Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K (2003). "A critical overview of homeopathy". Ann. Intern. Med. 138 (5): 393-9. PMID 12614092. - It's perfectly appropriate in its first use, providing a definition, and I don't see any particular reason why the brief mention in the second use is troublesome. The journal is notable. Could you clarify, Peter?

58: Bellows, HP (1906). "The test drug-proving of the O O and L Society. A reproving of belladonna.". O O & L Society. Retrieved on 2007-07-25. There's no link, so this shouldn't have a retrieved-on date, but, since it's used strictly as a reference to early history of homeopathic testing (e..g "this is the 1906 article we mention"), I see no problem with it.

27: Borderline. I wouldn't remove it outright, but I'd give a second source for everything. Since this article is pretty well sourced, we should be able to just go to its sources for a second opinion.

6 & 7 Ernst E (1997). "The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine". Eur. J. Pediatr. 156 (7): 513-5. PMID 9243229. and Ernst E, White AR (1995). "Homoeopathy and immunization". The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 45 (400): 629-30. PMID 8554846. Absolutely NO reason to remove them; Ernst is a particularly notable critic, these have been widely reported... Very notable studies that would be impossible to replace anyway.

50: Barrett is certainly a notable critic, and there's plenty of recommendations from major medical orginisations for Quackwatch as a source.]] That said, we shouldn't use only Quackwatch: Let's add a couple more sources alongside this one.

In short, I'm afraid that I almost entirely disagree with Peter's views on source reliability, and in a few cases quite strongly disagree. Just because something is critical of homeopathy does not make it inherently unreliable for talking about criticism of homeopathy, particularly when the subjects being critical are highly notable in their own right. I think most of these sources are used appropriately, though some could use a second source to back them up. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs discussing further. Second refs is a good idea for a start, Adam, so we can agree on that. I have already stated why Ernst is a discredited person so I stick by my view on him. If you can find better refs to support the ones I mentioned then please do. The Kaptchuk article is a good one - did I number that one by mistake? sorry will have to come back to this later am out all day. thanks Peter morrell 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Weel, let's just add more sources, then - it should be relatively trivial. A few of these references are used in such a trivial manner that we really don't need to worry too much - For instance, the list of specific medical conditions where homeopathy has been shown to be ineffective is just a sample; none of them are particularly notable in themselves. To be honest, I'm not sure I like that section anyway - it's too specific; and if we're letting single, unconfirmed trials in, then we're going to go straight back to the problems with the old article: about 1 in 20 small-scale studies will give false positives due to the cutoff chosen for statistical significance, and publication bias, badly-designed studies, or lack of an appropriate placebo control will increase this. In other words: If it's sufficiently researched, you should be able to find at least a few studies that "show" that any medical treatment has a slight effect, or, given enough studies or badly-enough designed studies, larger effects. It seems to rather be asking for trouble and edit wars to make too much of a few single studies. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter, would you object to sources written by authors who constantly tout alt-meds as being the outstandingly efficacious? Jim62sch 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, has anyone seen this? Good grief, they refer to ohomeopathy as pseudoscience. No doubt an unreliable source. Jim62sch 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ars Technica has already been discussed, Jim, and it is regarded as an unreliable source. I do not think articles being pro or anti anything should be the overriding criterion that determines their worth per se, far from it. IMO any good study of a therapy that is well researched should get an airing in good jnls. Question is: does that happen that often, or more commonly do we not see articles published that pander to the prejudices of the mob and those of the so-called researchers? In this field, sadly, the latter is much the commonest. Alt med is crying out for better research that is neutral, that does not have a commercial conflict of interest and that does not pander to a priori prejudices but simply studies them within their own claims and systems of beliefs. Is that so outrageous a statement? thanks Peter morrell 06:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the part about studying alt med claims "within their own claims and systems of beliefs" is outrageous. They should be studied within the framework of and using the methods of science. I hope and presume you meant to say "simply studies their claims and systems of beliefs within a scientific framework. --Art Carlson 07:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Art, and now in this context you will define 'scientific framework' for us I hope. thank you Peter morrell 12:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Science doesn't take into account any prior conceptions when doing experiments. An experiment on Homeopathy does not take into account the fact that it's philosophy seems to conflict with basic chemistry or physics. Good experiments (as most of the ones cited) simply study Homeopathy as they would study any other medical remedy. Double blind placebo controlled trials. If it works, then they examine the methodology of the trial and attempt to recreate it, perhaps with better protocols. If it's a failure, there's always someone else out there willing to try it again and again. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and dream on! In any case that's not what I meant. Yes let's see some open minded stuff going on but first you have to accept that 'sick person' is not defined the same way in so-called scientific medicine and homeopathy and so the protocols and parameters of a piece of research ought to take that into account. Too many studies focus on a so-called 'disease' and fail to take into account the complexity of a person's health. The complexity gets filtered out in simplistic studies. Most scientific studies of alt med are deeply simplistic. Although the 'allopathy' that Hahnemann railed against two centuries ago is not the same as the allopathy homeopaths of today rail against, yet they are still similar enough in certain respects for a wide disagreement on many matters important in such research. Until you have greater convergence of medical views and definitions, I fail to see how good studies can even begin to come through. Peter morrell 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Homeopaths see the "cause" and "workings" of sickness different from modern scientists, however I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that if someone has cancer or aids or the flu they would be categorized as 'sick' in homeopathy or modern medicine. This means that it would not be difficult to determine the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies on individuals which both homeopathy and modern medicine categorize as "sick", regardless of what either of the two think of as the cause or workings of sickness are. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, this was cool, "I do not think articles being pro or anti anything should be the overriding criterion that determines their worth per se, far from it" -- not everyone can blow their own primary argument out of the water. Oh, as I must've missed it, 'splain to me why the source is not reliable -- preferably rationally (as in, actually explain why without the tangential nonsense you seem to be so fond of). Thanks. Jim62sch 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting sources

The "Prevalence of use" section needs more countries mentioned to be better in scope and show a worldwide view. Does anyone have sources on the use of homeopathy in countries such as in Asia, Other European countries, African countries or South American countries? Sources that mention % of use and % of doctors who use as well as some histories of homeopathy in said countries would be good. Please make sure they are very reliable. Post them here so that I can improve the section ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At this site: http://www.lmhint.net/national.html [21] you can find histories of homeopathy in many countries plus email contacts for each. Maybe you can contact them for some reliable published data on numbers of homeopaths in the main countries and the % use of homeopathy, as far as it can be established with any certainty. Does this help? thank you Peter morrell 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful that source would be. Some histories of some countries might be helpful, but I also need statistics dealing with % of use in various countries as well. See if you can find some sources for that. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are some hopefully useful refs:

Scotland Scotland India India UK Parliament Re: Sale of herbal and homeopathic products in Europe Article about Professor Ernst

I will try and find more in due course. some do contain % figures. thanks Peter morrell 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now if I can get another Asian country in there as well as a south American one then we should be set. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more info...not sure about reliability, however.

• Argentina 1,200 homeopath doctors out of a total of 88,000 doctors.

• Brazil 9 million people use homeopathy in Brazil*. Homeopathy is a medical speciality that has been recognised by the Conselho Federal de Medicina since 1980. Out of the 15,000 Brazilian doctors that practice homeopathy (out of a total of 282,000 doctors), we note a large number of paediatricians.

• United States Homeopathic drugs have been official since 1938 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). The conditions for their commercialisation were specified by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the Compliance Policy Guide of 1988. The American Medical Association is not in favour of homeopathy. For this reason, there are only a few hundred homeopaths out of a total of 615,000 doctors. In 11 out of 50 states, a certain number of non-medical health practitioners, mainly naturopaths, have been legally authorised to prescribe homeopathic drugs.

• Mexico Homeopathy has been officially recognised. 4,000 homeopath physicians out of a total of 92,000 doctors.

AFRICA : • Senegal, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Kenya are the main African countries using homeopathy, restricted to doctors. Homeopath physicians are also present in dispensaries or in religious missions.

• North Africa After almost disappearing, homeopathy has surfaced in Morocco and Tunisia over the last fifteen years. A few hundred doctors use homeopathy.

• South Africa, that offers medical training in homeopathy, counts about one hundred doctors in this discipline.

ASIA • India Over 250,000 homeopath practitioners (sspecial Indian status) and 75,000 medical auxiliaries prescribe homeopathy. Almost 10% of the population (about 100 million people) use homeopathy. It is included in the Indian national health system beside western medicine and two systems of Indian medicine, Ayurveda and Unani. Doctors wishing to prescribe homeopathic drugs have to undergo special training defined by the Central Council of Homœopathy that depends directly on the Health Department.

• Israel 300 prescribing doctors and 1,000 naturopaths.

• Japan A medical homeopathy association, the Japanese Society for Homeopathy, was created in the middle of the 90’s and currently includes 70 doctors.

• Pakistan Out of 10,000 doctors registered in Pakistan,4,000 or 5,000 prescribe homeopathy on a regular basis.

Israel 300 prescribing doctors and 1,000 naturopaths.

• Japan A medical homeopathy association, the Japanese Society for Homeopathy, was created in the middle of the 90’s and currently includes 70 doctors.

• Pakistan Out of 10,000 doctors registered in Pakistan,4,000 or 5,000 prescribe homeopathy on a regular basis Source : OMHI 2003 [22]

Quick facts on worldwide trends in homeopathy today.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that homeopathy is the second most widely used medical modality for primary health care worldwide. Allopathic medicine is a distant fourth. In a recent U.S. survey, 84 percent of the individuals who used a homeopathic medicine stated they would buy it again. Sixty-nine percent of U.S. chain pharmacies and more than 3,000 independents stock homeopathic drugs. Thirty-six percent of the French population use homeopathic medicine. Thirty-three percent of French physicians consider homeopathy to be effective and use it in their practices. Twenty-one of the 24 Colleges of Pharmacy in France teach homeopathy, and homeopathic doctor visits are reimbursed by the national health plan. Forty-two percent of British physicians refer patients to homeopathic practitioners. Twenty-five percent of Germany's natural health practitioners use homeopathy. In Canada, 70 percent of homeopathic sales are through pharmacies. India has more than 100 medical schools providing rigorous training for physicians in homeopathic medicine. An estimated 100,000 homeopathic medical doctors are practicing in India. Homeopathy has a strong presence in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, including schools and advanced training available to physicians. The popularity of homeopathy is rising in Sweden and the Netherlands. More than two and a half million Americans use homeopathy. [23]

I hope it helps. Peter morrell 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All of that above info is from those 2 sources? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Peter morrell 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The second source probably isn't very reliable, It cites no sources. The first one though might be reliable. I'll let some others input on that. Do you all think that this is a reliable source? It's from Boiron, A French Homeopathy manufacturer. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Boiron is THE major homeopathy manufacturer in Europe. It is one of the biggest in world terms. I would say it is reliable and about as reliable as you gonna get, but obviously that is an opinion. I can't give a definitive answer as I don't have any dealings with them and have no way of checking what they publish. I can't see why it isn't reliable. Sorry, that's all I know. Peter morrell 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a day or two and if no one objects I'll add the relevant info using it as a source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either cite would hold up if we were going to move this towards FA. The Stewart-French site is by far the "worse" of the two, though: it's very amateurish, with lots of typos. However, Boiron's not going to hold up very well without some evidence it's a respected site. The Stewart-French mentions a WHO report - Can we track that down? Other possibilities are medical journals, etc. Preferably mainstream ones, or at least indexed journals. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help me find some scientific studies dealing with the statistics of use of homeopathy in various countries so that we can get that ugly tag removed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WHO reports

Here [24] is a WHO report not sure if it's the right one not even read it yet. Hope it helps. Peter morrell 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the one we've been using for the legal status section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here [25] is another report probably the main one folks have been banging on about. But it is a few years old. Peter morrell 06:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any prevalence stats, and it seems, at a skim, not to be as detailed or as useful as the other WHO report, as it only covers countries that use homeopathy in their publicly-funded health service. There's undoubtedly usable stuff in there, but we should be somewhat careful - Public-funded homeopathy is, as far as I'm aware, not typical, but the restricted scope of that article, if used as the only source, could make it appear it was. This is obviously an opinion piece, written by the head of a French homeopathic research group. I would imagine this was part of a set of bulletins putting forth the range of opinions on complementary medicine, or similar.

That said, for anything we're actually likely to use it for - prevalence data, minor expansion of legal trends - it seems to be a reliable source as far as it goes. I do think we should be selective as to what information we use from it to augment better sources (e.g. the first of these three) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This WHO article [26] ironically by Prof. Ernst, contains a lot of data about prevalanet use of alt med inlcuding homeopathy in various countries. Possibly of use. Peter morrell 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this one's just the U.K. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has access to full texts of Studies. Please E-mail me these following studies:

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we care about prevalence of use? I hope we're not trying to make a case that because it meets a certain level of prevalence we will violate WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE. Also, WDM, you do realize that the abstract is sufficient in confirming the validity of a reference. Usually, I only read the underlying article if I need more detailed statistical analysis or an understanding of the methodology. Otherwise, the abstract is a perfect summary of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I need the full texts so that I can include info on separate countries. The abstracts often aren't enough to get that sort of info. Information such as the references the study uses for further sources to use. Also, Some don't even have abstracts. Also, I think prevalence of use is very relevant. No one's trying to make an argument from popularity for Homeopathy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Just don't violate any copyright issues. With regards to prevalence, I would strongly disagree with you--discussing popularity in its own right is fine, but don't give it weight. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the numbers are relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. I forgot that you own this article and will brook no criticism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are only relevant to the prevalence of use section, however they have no bearing on the efficacy of or lack of scientific proof for homeopathy. As long as you stay within those guidelines you'll be fine. Jim62sch 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying how common something has no bearing on if it is useful, for example in the tuberculosis article I cite statistics about how common TB is - this isn't me promoting the idea that TB is a good thing. These concerns about giving undue weight to data on prevalence are a little over-stated. As long as this is not used as an "argument from popularity" you're fine. Tim Vickers 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim is correct. And OM, WDM has made it quite clear that he doesn't "own" the article, despite your repeated accusations to the contrary. It appears to me that he's simply more willing to put the time into making this a good article than other people are. I can see consensus here that the numbers are, in fact, relevant. --profg 16:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)