Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on the use of questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is homeopathy controversial?

I posted this question before intending to open a RFC so the whole community could read and an administrator deleted it. I would like to open it again. Whats wrong about RFCs? - assuming that the talk page is an appropriate place to discuss this.

According to many reliable sources Homeopathy is considered to be a controversial subject. [1] some scientists regard it as pseudoscience and others find the results of the studies promising ( even if they regard them inconclusive or unconvincing ), positive and encourage the scientific community to be open minded. [2]

[3].

1. Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

2. The authors conclude that the small number of randomised clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212088

3. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy Interpretation : Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [4]

4. NCCAM ‘s funding research on homeopathy. [5]

5. [6]

6. However, homeopathy continues to be one of the most controversial CAM practices for children or indeed any other patient group. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/inside.asp?AID=4251&UID=

7.. Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).

Why the following wiki rule of wikipedia is not applied in this case ? Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

Only fyslee answered to this question saying that the reliable sources do nor show a division in the scientific community about homeopathy. Suggestions from scientists who argue (in reliable sources [7] ) that scientists should be open minded about the possible value of homeopathy show a clear dispute and controversy. But besides that reliable sources above themselves characterize homeopathy controversial - it is not my own assumption. (More info here) [8]Please comment. --Area69 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A few dissenters do not a controversy make. The moon landing is not controversial. Evolution is not controversial. In both cases you can find examples of experts who deny them (insert scare quotes as necessary). There are dissenters to pretty much every scientific theory, but that doesn't necessarily raise it to the level of a controversy. To do that, it needs to be a good proportion of scientists.

Now, in the case of homeopathy, why might there appear to be a larger proportion of scientists who support it? Well, it has to do with medicine and medical research being run a bit differently from other types of science. First of all, there are institutions such as the NCCAM which have a prior bias in favor of anything alternative. This makes it a lot easier to get funding to run a study on them. Catch is, to run a study on, say, homeopathy, you don't necessarily need a degree in traditional medical research. So you have studies run by people who in other fields wouldn't qualify as scientists at all, but medicine's a bit different. This leads to many studies being performed by people with a pro-Homeopathy bias. Even if the study shows no results of any significance, you can count on them to spin this positively and say it's encouraging. They'll point to whichever aspect of their study looks best, even if it isn't statistically significant, and say that further research should be done in that area.

Let me be honest here. From a scientific perspective, almost no CAM therapies are controversial. There are a few exceptions where the jury is still out for the moment, such as Acupuncture, but for the most part CAM therapies are resoundingly rejected by the mainstream (there are also a few therapies which are actually accepted by the mainstream, though these tend to lose their CAM label over time). It might be fair to say that there's a controversy between the groups, I'll give you that, but that's a bit different of an issue, and not the connotation we want to give off by labeling something as "controversial." --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments about Infophile's previous paragraph.

I think using the term controversial to mean "disputed within the scientific establishment" (or words to that effect) is giving the term a remarkably narrow meaning.

When I read the title of this section, "Is homeopathy controversial?", my reaction was "Is this some kind of a joke?" When the article on a subject has been under heated discussion/argument for 98.6% of the life of the article, I think the subject is controversial by any reasonable measure. (98.6% - a statistic I derived by pulling numbers out of a hat until I got one that looked about right.)

I thank Infophile for raising a remarkable point: "there are also a few therapies which are actually accepted by the mainstream, though these tend to lose their CAM label over time". This describes a process whereby alternative medicine is continually marginalized. I.E., alternative therapies which prove highly or indisputably effective are no longer labelled "alternative". Perhaps this allows the medical establishment to continue to use "alternative" as a derogatory label, because some of the most successful parts of alternative medicine are no longer labelled as such.

Wanderer57 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the meaning we should be using. If not, then we're faced with the problem of having to declare subjects such as evolution controversial. There's certainly a notable controversy when it comes to a large section of the American public (and much less, though still notable, for most other developed nations), but none within the scientific community. When it comes to legitimate attempts to determine the nature of reality, anti-evolutionists just don't have a leg to stand on. This is why the article presents evolution as being unambiguously fact. Among the scientific community who studies related subjects (chemistry and medicine mostly), Homeopathy is just as soundly rejected as Intelligent Design. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think our difference here is about word use, not about the underlying facts. The normal everyday meaning of "controversial" is not "disputed within the scientific establishment". For example, the Wikipedia article Controversy does not even mention scientific opinion or scientists. Giving the word "controversial" a special narrow meaning is confusing and inaccurate.

It reminds me of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less". Wanderer57 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Wanderer57 here. It might not be controversial within a tiny group (allopathic doctors and scientists), but in society at large, it is quite controversial. This talk page is evidence of that. --Filll (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, could be. I'm still wary of a Teach the Controversy-type situation, to be honest. Maybe my analogy to evolution isn't quite appropriate, though. Medicine is certainly a much less clear-cut area. Then again, that comes with the fact that almost all alternative medicine is controversial by definition (and some might extend that to mainstream medicine as well), so what do we gain by pointing it out? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that western medicine is not universally accepted. Asian countries have medical systems that are very different from allopathy. Homeopathy is part of the mainstream medical system in India. The US-centric bias is not really consistent with NPOV. —Whig (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

---

infophile again : this is not my opinion. All the reliable sources above regard homeopathy as controversial including NCCAM. No one can seriously argue for its exclusion – after all it is already used in the article to support a specific point of view. Therefore categorizing homeopathy as pseudoscience violates the wikirule.

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories.

Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.This is obvious. I intend to open a RFC about this. --Area69 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links Need Updating

Several of the external links provided out-dated information. I suggest that the link for "The Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy – Article from the American Council on Science and Health" should be deleted because its most recently updated article is from 2000, making this information at least 8 years old. If this link were to information on history, its dated nature would be somewhat moot, but because it claims to be a link for research, it should not be a part of this article unless the series were articles were more current. Second, I have the same recommendation for "Quackwatch." Although this site lists various articles by the date they were "posted," the vast majority of articles were written in the 1990s, as is obvious by the references in each article. Also, because the Quackwatch site is notoriously POV, its link in the External Links section doesn't support NPOV that we try to achieve.

Whether there is consensus to delete these sites or not (I look forward to this dialogue), it seems imperative that we add several external links here. When reviewing other articles on "alternative medicine" on wikipedia, there are consistently links to leading non-profit organizations of practitioners and/or consumers who advocate for it. In this light, there should be links to leading American, British, and European organizations, as well as links to the leading academic journal in the field and to a site that is an information-dense site on homeopathic history (sponsored by a non-profit organization). I propose the following External Links: -- [9] National Center for Homeopathy (NCH) -- [10] American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH) -- [11] British Homeopathic Association (BHA) -- [12] European Committee for Homeopathy (ECH) -- [13] European Council for Classical Homeopathy(ECCH) -- [14] Homeopathe International (HI) -- [15] Homeopathy, the leading academic journal in the field, published by Elsevier DanaUllman^Talk 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to note that in one breath, you say Quackwatch shouldn't get a link because it's POV, while in the next, you argue for the inclusion of various sites that in your own words "advocate for it." NPOV works both ways, and in any case, there's no rule against having external links to sites with a POV. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem in talking about Quackwatch is that "anti-homeopathy due to a basis in sound science and legitimate medical practices" is considered some sort of "bias" or "POV." It's like saying that biology textbooks are "POV" about evolution because they present the obvious conclusions of the available evidence and don't give space to creationist hogwash. The idea that there should be any sort of "balance" between provable facts about homeopathy (such as its actual working being completely impossible) and pro-homeopathy snake oil pitches is ludicrous. This fundamental misunderstanding about NPOV and the attendant appeals to democracy and endless arguments over nonsense on the talk page is the elephant in the room with this article; until we resolve it (ideally, by declaring a clear and final "homeopathy is an unscientific belief which will be described here in the manner of other pages which describe religious beliefs, pseudoscience, and scams, and not as any kind of legitimate medical practice") and bar people who insist on evangelizing for magic from the article, the article will never approach any reasonable standard of quality, no matter how many pointless tangents about side issues are argued about without addressing the major, fundamental problem. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottomline is that this is an article on homeopathy. Reference and links to its leading non-profit organizations and its leading journal should be a part of this article in the External Links section, just as it is in other alternative medicine articles. Whether you think that homeopathy is a useful OR useless treatment, reference to its leading organizations makes sense. Are there any level-headed folks out there? My concerns about some of the skeptics' links is that they are out-dated, and because these sites claim to discuss research, how would you feel if the Lancet only reported on research that was 8 years old (or more)?

DanaUllman^Talk 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does this leave Linde et al. (1997) and Linde et al. (1994), for example? Brunton (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious fact is that this is an encyclopedia article on homeopathy, not a webstie devoted to "debunking" therapeutic modalities that are not part of current mainstream perspectives. External links to the associations that are related to homeopathy should be included, and I would expect that to be an obvious statement also.

Any discussions that are merely editorializing against homeopathy do not help our coming to a consensus on how best to improve this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can keep dismissing correct science as "editorializing" or "what I think," it doesn't change the fact that it is correct and you are blocking any progress on this article by insisting that it treat your well-disproven religious beliefs as true or potentially true. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy. I do not believe you are being very helpful in coming to a consensus by simply repeating your opinion, which I find extreme. If you have further evidence that has not yet been presented here, fine; but otherwise we all have to work within the totality of the evidence that we have available to us. Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The explicit conclusions of Western science are not "my opinion," nor are they subject to debate. They are objectively correct facts, and anyone who disagrees with them is either misinformed or ill-intentioned. The fact that we're even discussing this is insane.

People who believe in homeopathy need to get off this article. Fundamentally irrational people are by definition beyond rational discussion, and can do nothing but impede progress. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Science is a method, not a body of objective facts. What you are proposing is a religious belief in scientific orthodoxy, and you are placing it beyond rational discussion. It is an objectively correct fact that people use homeopathy. We should try to document what it is and why people use it from all significant perspectives backed by verifiable, reliable sources. —Whig (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you do not have any new evidence, then? Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the statements above, for about the 500th time in a row, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. If we were managing this encyclopedic enterprise reasonably, people who persist in promoting an agenda that is against the principles under which Wikipedia is organized and operates should be summarily sanctioned. Until people here understand what NPOV is, there will be big trouble here. I do not mean to be uncivil; I am just stating a fact. Learn what Wikipedia is about, not what you want it to be or you think it should be. It is what it is. So we have to operate within the parameters that are set out for us. --Filll (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Randy really needs to get a grip. Above all he should stop getting uptight about the truth and just dispassionately pursue verifiability. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not take your concerns to WT:NPOV and you can discuss with other editors what the policy means. —Whig (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the kind of response that should be sanctioned. I am afraid I am arguing for us to follow the rules of Wikipedia and NPOV, and some of the homeopathy proponents are arguing frantically for us to ignore NPOV, or to change its meaning. This will not lead in a positive direction, so I would ask everyone to please reconsider this path. Remember that this article is under probation, so people can be sanctioned for "stone walling" and other very minor infractions which would normally not be any cause for concern.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see why the recommendation to enlist the help of WT:NPOV should be sanctioned? Anthon01 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to right the ship...

Folks, let's get off the track of hurling insults. WP:EL has a few relevant points to consider:

• "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
• "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews [should be linked]"
• There are many links to be avoided

Please, everyone, keep all of these in mind as we discuss moving forward.

Now, Dana, I'm not opposed to linking to a major homeopathy organization or three, but I'm hesitant to approve of six links. I've not (yet) looked directly at any of these sites, so I won't comment on their appropriateness, but considering WP:EL, is it necessary to have them all? Probably not, and we probably shouldn't.

Linking to Homeopathy doesn't seem too unreasonable, but we should avoid "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." How much is available for free?

As for your recommendations to remove the ACSH & Quackwatch links, I strongly disagree. To turn it around, how much of the content of the homeopathy organization websites is "at least 8 years old"--let's be honest, homeopaths will hang onto a piece of "positive" evidence for just as long as anti-homeopaths will present negative stuff. It's not like groundbreaking research in the last 8 years have proven Barrett and others wrong... — Scientizzle 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since homeopathy is still largely based on work done by Hahnemann in the 18th century, I think the inclusion of other people's work from eight years ago is perfectly acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Scientizzle for realizing that leading homeopathic organizations/journals have a place here in this article on homeopathy (I admittedly feel a bit funny thanking you for acknowledge the obvious, but in the light of some editors have much more extreme views, I still thank you). And Tim, I understand your point, but if we want to keep the link to the American Council, we should not call their body of information "Scientific Evidence on Homeopathy" unless they make a more sincere effort to remain up-to-date on this subject. Also, there is a difference between historical reviews and research reviews. The American Council focuses on the research, and because it doesn't do a good job here, I feel it should be deleted. To clarify, Hahnemann first coined the word "homeopathy" in 1807. Please don't refer to his work as 18th century. As for selecting which homeopathic sites to have in the External Links section, none of them require anyone to pay to access the vast majority of their information. Secondly, all of the sites (except the one for the AIH) are information-dense sites that are regularly updated. I suggest that we insert them all, except for the AIH site. I encourage people to visit these sites to evaluate them yourselves...and I hope that some of the reasonable skeptics will police some of the more extreme ones. Let's keep this place friendly [WP:AGF] and provide good wiki-information. DanaUllman^Talk 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While Hahnemann may not have coined the word "homeopathy" until 1807, his investigations of the effects of cinchona bark took place as early as 1790, and he published an essay extending his findings on cinchona into a general principle in 1796 [16]. It doesn't appear unreasonable to refer to this work, on which he based homoeopathy, as 18th century. Brunton (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a good measure of sources on all sides, including extreme sources on both sides. It is impossible to write a reasonable article with reasonable sources unless we include the extremes as well. So if there are really crazy homeopaths out there making crazy claims, let's see them. If there are scientists who say it is all nonsense, let's see them. If there are homeopaths who have a less extreme view, they should be represented. If there are scientists who think there is something mysterious here, lets see it. Censoring any of this material will not do anything positive for our readers. Remember, we are not here to present homeopathy in a good light or any particular light besides NPOV. And if 99% of the scientific community thinks it is pure garbage, then we need to have that described with evidence. If 30% or 50% of all homeopaths do not agree with vaccination, then that should be described, with evidence. And the ratio of "pro-homeopathy" to "anti-homeopathy" material should be in proportion to the prominence of the belief, which of course we can discuss and measure or estimate in various ways. But it is clear that this is a WP:FRINGE area and we should follow the appropriate guidelines.--Filll (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally link to extreme sources, only significant views are to be included in Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well by that measure no scientific evidence in favor of homeopathy would be presented. And I think that is not helpful. And I think by that measure we might not describe the uses of starlight or Berlin Wall in remedies. And I think that is not helpful. By that measure some might argue that any mention of homeopathy in the US aside from a historical context should be elided. And that I do not think is helpful. I think there is a place for extreme views held by a minority in some circumstances, particularly when the entire topic is an extreme view held by a minority.--Filll (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A significant number of people use homeopathy in the United States. In California it is fully mainstream, in fact‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . If you don't understand or agree with the NPOV policy, I'm sorry. —Whig (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Our best data show that in the US, homeopathy is used by about 2% of the population at large. Using as a measure of prominence research dollars or consumer spending, it is probably even more minor. By number of practitioners, it is probably more minor. By any reasonable measure, it is a WP:FRINGE belief in any country except for India, and even in India it is pretty minor compared to allopathy. The homeopathic products sold in the US like HeadOn, Zicam and Oscillococinium do not even advertise themselves as homeopathic remedies. The fact that they are homeopathic remedies does not even appear on the packages of the packages I have seen. If this is not a sign that homeopathy is not mainstream and is a minor WP:FRINGE belief, I do not know what is. And you can claim all you like that I do not understand NPOV, but I have not seen any evidence of that. Show me with direct quotes from WP policies how minority positions are not supposed to be presented in proportion to their prominence.That is NPOV.--Filll (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's mainstream in California. Certainly it is not mainstream in Pennsylvania. —Whig (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The continued erroneous belief and insistence that "the ratio of 'pro-homeopathy' to 'anti-homeopathy' material should be in proportion to the prominence of the belief" for an article in Wikipedia will never result in getting this article to academic NPOV standards. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As an academic, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "academic NPOV standards". Give me a link in an academic peer-reviewed mainstream journal that discusses "academic NPOV standards". NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, and does state that the proportions of pro and anti material should correspond to the prominence of their beliefs. That is WP NPOV, like it or not.--Filll (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Open any encyclopedia and you will immediately see what the academic standards are: unbiased presentation of the subject matter. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the source of your confusion. Wikipedia does not make a neutral presentation of the subject matter, and Wikipedia does not strive for an unbiased presentation of the subject matter. Wikipedia uses WP:NPOV as its standard, which is NOT unbiased and NOT neutral. NPOV balances various views , and tries to include all views, neutral and nonneutral and extreme in proportion to their prominence.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not just a binary, there may be a diversity of views and any of them which are held by a significant number of people should be represented in proportion to the prominence of those views. This does not mean only prominence in scientific terms but prominence also in the public eye. We have millions of people in California using homeopathic medicines‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , and all Wikipedia can tell them is they must be stupid. —Whig (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, that an unbiased presentation of homeopathy will state that homeopathy does not work, is scientifically impossible, and is a form of medical fraud practiced by con men. That's not "bias," it's the truth. The bias is when people distort that truth to protect their own cognitive dissonance and evangelize for magic. This is EXACTLY the same thing that goes on with evolution-related articles--there is no "bias" or "value judgment" in saying that evolution is a fact and creationism is a lie. That statement is true, and anyone seeking equal time or "fair" representation for creationism is seeking to introduce bias and falsehood. So it goes for homeopathy. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. the amount of evidence pro is, and has always been, greater than the amount of evidence anti; it is the nature of the beast (the quality of this evidence involves a less easily quantified judgement call). Also, surely it is not the number of believers versus disbelievers that is important as most people probably would admit to being 'dont knows'. Should we be concerned with the relative numbers of those with informed views then probably the pros would have greater numbers again. In the final analysis, we should be discussing both views using the evidence available and linking (internal and external) to the relevant sources that help readers to understand the topic and any 'controversy' better, hopefully without giving space to those with extreme views governed only by their gut instincts. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with having more pro-homeopathy sources and discussion in this article. And it has always been so. However, the contrary pro-science and pro-allopathy position must be represented, and contant efforts to get rid of it will end us up in big trouble and turn the article into a promotional vehicle for this WP:FRINGE treatment, which is completely against Wikipedia principles.--Filll (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to include both and characterize them neutrally, without saying that one of them is correct and one of them is not. —Whig (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Also, Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. As I have said, continual efforts to do this will not be positive in all likelihood.--Filll (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig: I expect that Filll has studied the NPOV policy as carefully as you; perhaps more so. The problem isn't that he doesn't understand it.

The problem is that you have two different understandings. Generalized disagreement will not resolve this. Specific discussions might.

It seems to me that the article might be thought of as having three components, as follows: (I'm not suggesting the three components need to be presented in three separate "clumps".) The components are meant to be an organizing principle.

• Description of Homeopathy, including history, underlying theory, current practise, how widely it is used, how regulated, etc, etc. This should be factual and objective material, not opinion-based.

• Positive opinion material about the importance, value, etc of Homeopathy.

• Critical negative opinion material about Homeopathy.

Viewed this way, the balance between positive and negative opinion suggested by NPOV is a balance between the last two components. The objective, "fact-based" material is not subject to the balance.

Whether this is any help, I don't know. I hope so. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that discussions over what NPOV means might better be had on WT:NPOV. —Whig (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wanderers position. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of the proportions that are appropriate, but one thing is clear; there must be a solid measure of "anti-homeopathy" material and sources in the article. This might seem unfair, but it is totally inline with Wikipedia policies. There are other Wikis which do not require this, but from everything I have read and understood, one cannot rewrite articles on WP:FRINGE topics to exclude the mainstream views. And no, pro-science and pro-allopathy is not some extreme minority POV. It is the mainstream view. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has advocated removing anti-homeopathy material, and that would still be the case even if the anti-homeopathy material were the minority view. No need to invoke WP:FRINGE which may or may not have any bearing here at all. However, we do not need to link to partisan, unreliable sources regardless of their view. —Whig (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion started with the advocacy of including 7 "pro" links and removing 2 "anti" links...and there's been plenty of prior such advocacy. Don't play dumb. — Scientizzle 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual links may be appropriate or not, that is not the point. Nobody has suggested excluding all criticism of homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has explicitly suggested excluding all criticism of homeopathy, because you are far too well-versed in gamesmanship and dirty pool to actually come out and say what you want. But this discussion started over a line of reasoning on Quackwatch that goes "we can't include it as a legitimate anti-homeopathy source, because it contains material that is disparaging towards homeopathy, therefore it is biased against homeopathy." It's setting up a line of reasoning which would automatically exclude all criticism of homeopathy by using the fact that it is criticism as evidence for bias. I'm not the only one who can see what's going on here. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I regard this as a personal attack. —Whig (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that's another one of your clique's tactics--report anyone who tries to engage in discussion with you on the talk page for "attacking" you by disagreeing. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday. I have watched this going on on this page for a good 8 months. I wrote huge blocks of material that were folded into the current version; probably more than anyone else currently on this talk page.

You cannot start by saying "it is not fair and neutral and unbiased that these critical articles and this critical homeopathy debunking material be included" and then when you are called on it, claim you never said it, the same way you did the last 500 times you said it. It is obvious what is going on. The fact that you are complaining at all in this way over and over and over and over and over and over is a bad bad bad sign. Frankly, it stinks to high heaven. And maybe we need to call in an admin to start some blocking if this continues.--Filll (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are quoting, Filll. If you're going to engage with strawmen, there's not much point to continuing the discussion. —Whig (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it impossible to believe that you do not know what we are referring to. This sort of "playing dumb" to obstruct the discussion on purpose probably falls under the category of "stonewalling" which I notice others have been blocked for on this page. But just in case you missed what started this discussion, perhaps you remember this?--Filll (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, why do you bother? This appears to be an exercise in futility as the ship already sank. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think Whig is right. In the midst of a reasonably civil discussion, Randy Blackamoor came in with an attack statement about "gamesmanship and dirty pool". Then unfortunately Filll seemed to escalate the problem. Justifying an attack on Whig over an edit made by another editor does not make any sense, except perhaps as a diversionary tactic..

I also think that bringing back the apocalypse scenario, "the ship already sank", is unhelpful. Of course, approximately half the people who read this will think my comments unhelpful.

Yes yes, keep wringing your hands about how "uncivil" people are for pointing out your obvious Wikipolitics and tactical debating, and how magically all the people who want the article to be anything short of a total magic-endorsing piece of insanity are "uncivil" and need to be banned. Have all sorts of other crazy people come out of the woodwork and drop their monocles in shock, and gang up on the few remaining people who are trying to stop the hordes of idiots. It's nothing that doesn't go on at this article every week. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Blackamoor: I reject your description of my comments as "Wikipolitics and tactical debating"; I also reject the suggestion that I labelled an entire class of editors as "uncivil" and suggested they be banned. I made a specific statement to the effect that you had made an "attack statement" about "gamesmanship and dirty pool". Wanderer57 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemens, I just came out of the woodwork and I dropped my monocle on shock at how far this discussion has strayed from trying to improve the article. I suggest that further discussion of the topic "uncivility and gamesmanship (or the lack of thereof) on wikipedia" be held by leaving messages on each other's user pages, so it wouldn't clutter this page, it wouldn't suffer interruptions by monocle-dropping editors, and it wouldn't scare away people that try to contribute to the article and give up seeing this sort of conversation being held here. Oh, yeah, and WP:TALK, too. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of people whose "contributions" really ought to be "scared away" if the article is to be improved. As it stands now, we have a gang of pro-magic, anti-rationality people who are placing warnings on talk pages of anybody who disagrees, having sympathetic administrators ban people for objecting, and handing out "barnstars" to each other like candy for their valorous service to the cause of being retarded. It's a concerted effort to bully sane, anti-homeopathy people off the article. That's who's being "scared away." If the situation were possibly reversed, and the people who want to deny reality, pretend that magic memory water cures disease, debate in incomprehensible moon language, pretend that posted evidence was not posted, and engage in Wikipolitics of all kinds, were the ones being intimidated, it could only be to the article's benefit. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In this polarized debate, it would be very refreshing, when someone on "side A" writes something that is inappropriate in one way or another, to have someone else from "side A" call them on it. Also, of course, the other way around. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried; hasn't been refreshing I'm afraid. Pete St.John (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. And so it all comes down to: If you believe that NPOV should be followed, you are wrong. If you believe that the position of science and allopathy should be mentioned, you are wrong. If you try to have a discussion with a homeopath, you are wrong. If you believe in science and reason and evidence, you are wrong. If you try to discuss this in a reasonable way with the proponents of homeopathy, you are wrong. If you do anything at all that the pro-homeopathy cabal does not like, you are wrong. So you lead us to a very very ugly place. Yep, the ship has sunk and the only thing now left to do is drown the survivors. Thanks for making your position clear. So nice and reasonable. So willing to WP:AGF...but not really. But so be it. I will not bother with this nonsense any further. You proved your point. Unfortunately, the consequences might not be so positive. --Filll (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: in my note just above, I wrote mostly about civility. Nothing about science, anti-science, NPOV, or even homeopathy. I don't see how your comments can be meant as a reply to mine. Yet, based on the sequence, they appear to be.  ??? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have had enough.--Filll (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that coming from Filll, especially since Wanderer57 is such a civil guy and his idea for changing this article is very sound. I support it...and further, I'm ready to contribute some important references to meta-analyses that are presently not a part of this article. In fact, I have a proposed reworking of the controversial second paragraph. What is the best venue to propose these suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with sandboxes. DanaUllman^Talk 04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy...this ship is sure wobbly...

I've taken a look at the links Dana provided and I have some notes. Thanks, Dana, for reasonably suggesting that the AIH site needn't be included.

• National Center for Homeopathy seems okay, though its incluson of a "store" to sell wares knocks 'em down a peg in my book.
• European Committee for Homeopathy looks good
• European Council for Classical Homeopathy is reasonable as well
• Homeopathe International looks like a crappy old-school html website, with flashing advert all over it (and a "Boutique" to boot)
• British Homeopathic Association and Faculty of Homeopathy looks fine

Given that WP:EL suggests that links should avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and avoid "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" or "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising", I propose that we eliminate Homeopathe International from consideration. If we keep the other four, it covers North America, the UK & Europe without getting too long of a list. Remember, we don't have to provide this information, it exists to provide additional information beyond the Wikipedia article; there's no obligation to link these major organizations, but the four I think are okay do provide info without overselling products. The rest of the organizations can be found using Google, to which I assume a Wikipedia article-reader is likely to be vaguely familiar. I'm leaning against including the journal link since "a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." — Scientizzle 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle... 'Tis a pleasure to collaborate with you here. I'm glad that you agree that at least 4 of the above sites are worthy. I want to also include the NCH site becuase it is an information-dense site with a wide variety of practical information on the subject of this article. Its "store" represents only a very small part of the site. As for the site for Homeopathe International, the flashing ad is a distraction, though this site is one of the most information-filled sites on the history of homeopathy (and it includes many articles by the widely appreciated wiki-editor, [Peter Morrell]]. That said, I'm willing to compromise and omit it, though I'd love to hear others' thoughts here. As for the journal, "Homeopathy," this IS a subscription-based academic journal, though it IS the leading academic journal on the subject of this article. I will love to hear from some wiki-experts on their thoughts on wiki-policy on this subject. DanaUllman^Talk 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The journal Homeopathy provides Abstracts of its articles and occasional free full content via Science Direct at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14754916 . This is still a useful link. Martin Chaplin (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the environment is so poisonous now that no one can dare comment, or at least will do so at tremendous risk. So thanks but no thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

while Homeoapthe internatinoale has a lot of important sources that do so to be hlepful, if the advertisements and general character of the site ais noisome to wikipedia then it should be removed. There is a nolot of redundancy on the Intenret so it is possible that the same information could be found plagiarized somewhere else. if someone can find a plagiarist or borrower site that fits WP's criteria for external links then we should substitute that in for the Homeopathe Interntionale website.

I also recomend against the removal of the website metnioned by Scientizzle that sells products unless absolutely necessary. Smith Jones (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we use plagiarized sources. —Whig (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY NOT? ui have compowered the rules a dozen time and i see nothing that explicitly prohibits tuing plagiaried or borrowed sources as an alternative for commercial sites when writing about homeopath.y. that choice is in perfect compliance with all known wikipedia regulations and consensusesSmith Jones (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Copyrights for more information on our policies. Specifically: However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. —Whig (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much as DanaUllman's references seem reasonable, the problem is that they are all with a Point Of View, ie they are biased. Contrary to the homeopaths' statements, there are no organisations who balance this view. Balance probably isn't the word to use because as others in this discussion have noted the majority of scientists and evidence based medical doctors find homeopathy lacking in effectiveness. However many blogs and forums have detailed discussions about the various clinical trials that are advertised in those references. These trials are the sole claim of the homeopaths that homeopathy works because the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy lack any credence. I suggest that if the DanaUllman references are used then references to BadScience by Ben Goldacre, LeCanardNoir by Andy Lewis, The New England Skeptical Society mainly led by Steven Novella and Orac at Respectful Insolence should also be included at the very minimum. Acleron (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Acleron: You say: "the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy lack any credence". I'm not going to agree or disagree with that statement, but can we agree that it is a statement of opinion on your part? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that we do not generally use blogs as reliable sources, and I don't think that WP:BALANCE is a policy superseding WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In due respect, before those new homeopathic organizations were added, virtually ALL of the external links were to skeptics' sites. Are you suggesting that Randi is an advocate or Stephen Barrett is? Only the history book was not from a skeptics' viewpoint. The fact of the matter is that articles on wikipedia have external links to other primary sources of information...and without these links, this article would be POV to the max. DanaUllman^Talk 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still insisting that the conclusions of mainstream science are "POV" or need to be "balanced" with the rantings of crazy people. This is neither correct nor in line with what the Wikipedia NPOV policy states. There should, in fact, be mostly links to people who do not believe in full-blown insane nonsense like homeopathy, with a few links to those who do believe in such things to provide citations for descriptions in the article of what homeopaths believe. Again, this is like calling a biologist an "advocate" or a "skeptic" or a "POV pusher" for talking about how evolution works, and demanding "balance" by bean-counting for creationist websites. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Following Randy Blackamoor's comment above, I've banned him for 7 days from all homeopathy related pages. Addhoc (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to all concerned if you could explain WHY you have banned him? He has not said anything above that he has not said before several times. Irritating though that may be yet he is surely entitled to express his view and has he actually insulted anyone? Furthermore, he has not tampered with the article. Purely from a sociological viewpoint his view, extreme though it is, should be heard IMO. thanks Peter morrell 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, yes I agree he has made a large number of similar comments, and, if you look at his talk page, he has received warnings for these comments. Regarding his 1 week ban, I don't think his conduct was helping to improving the article. Remember, this page isn't a free-for-all debating forum, but is supposed to be civil, productive discussion on how we can improve the article. Finally, in keeping with this page being purely for discussion on how we can improve the article, if you want to continue this discussion could you do so at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents. Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: As suggested by Addhoc, I have copied the above two paragraphs HERE, and added my opinion. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This probayshun thingee is werkin real good, i'n'it?

Bottom line: until both sides (ain't no middle 's far as I can tell) accept the fact that items "unpalatable" to their view must be here, this nonsense will continue unabated. Personally, I'd like to see everyone but Filll and Peter be banned from editing the article. No offense to the rest of y'all, but ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wandere57, homeopathy relies first on 'The Law of Similars' ie that a substance that causes a symptom in a healthy person, when diluted to nothing will cure that symptom in a sick person. No mechanism known in biochemistry or the related medical sciences supports this hypothesis. The second problem is in the dilution which seems to require several mechanisms unknown to science 1) the substance conveys some information to water 2) when the substance is no longer present (commonly termed as exceeding the Avogadro limit) the information replicates itself 3) when the water is added to a lactose pill and dried the information transfers to the pill and 4) the information now back in an aqueous environment penetrates a cell wall and produces an effect. I could say 'the mechanisms put forward for homeopathy are unknown to science' if that makes it more palatable. But they still lack credence. Acleron (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada section

The information that appears under Canada is misleading in that the wording "...homeopathy is not officially recognized by the Federal Food and Drug Act..." is not appropriate. It would be the same as saying that the Federal Food and Drugs Act doesn't officially recognize Ritalin or psychiatrists since they are also not officially named in the Act. The recognition or regulation of the practice of medicine, whether physician, vet, homeopathy or other is provincial jurisdiction and not federal, and there are 2 provincial governments that recognize homeopathy. Homeopathic medicine was regulated under the Canadian Food and Drug Act and many of the remedies still carry DIN (Drug Identification Number). In 2004 homeopathic medicines came under new regulation in the Natural Health Product Regulations, which are federal and are under the Food and Drug Act. In the guidance documents associated with these regulations it is recommended that a homeopath be part of any clinical trial for a homeopathic medicine. So the wording "not officially recognized" is not accurate and misleading. This information is easily verified by going to the Government of Canada website and searching for either "Homeopath", "Homeopathy" or "Homeopathic Medicine", there are lots of references. Jennyd7777 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)jennyd7777

Thanx for the clarification. I support you deleting the incorrect info now. Perhaps give your suggestions for replacement language here before inserting into the article. DanaUllman^Talk 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since the Federa Food and Drugs ACt does not explicitly mention or refer to or acknowledge or even mention homeopathy, why should a refernece to it even be shoehorned into this article? I recommend that User:Jennyd take it down, Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, homeopathy IS mentioned in that famous Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. In fact, that law was sponsored by the senator from New York, [Royal Copeland], who also just happened to be a homeopathic physician and former Dean of the New York Homeopathic Medical College. That law gave formal federal recognition to homeopathic medicines as "drugs," and later, they will primarily deemed "over-the-counter drugs" (not requiring a doctor's prescription, due to their safety). Copeland died within a couple of days after his bill was signed into law. A classic and great story for a bill that became one of the most important consumer rights laws ever passed. DanaUllman^Talk 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

okay im officialyl confused. tHe original post was talking about canada, but your comment metnions a Senator from New York. New York is in the UNITED STATES anwihile Canada is in the North America above the United STate.s are we talking in two directions here or am i Seirously misreading your posts? Smith Jones (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry for the confusion that I created. When you mentioned the Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act, I clicked on what was said about the US law. Please ignore it (for now). DanaUllman^Talk 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous? "not requiring a doctor's prescription, due to their safety". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim: This prob-babe-lee is a stoopid questuion but I've assed those befor. Will you please explain yur comment just above? Thankyou Wanderer57 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic solutions are probably safer than Aquafina, Evian, Perrier or Poland Spring water ... and as effective. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PS While I'm at it, I would like to know from Dana what the wording is of the "famous Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938" that he refers to. Is it on-line somewhere? Thankyou. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont think that Dana will be able to answers that since she just mentioned above that yous hould ignore it (probably because seh misread it or made it all up) Smith Jones (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Smith Jones: I understand that there was confusion between US and Canadian legislation. But DanaUllman mentioned the "famous Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938, sponsored by the senator from New York". This is clearly US legislation and I was asking about how I might find it. Okay?

I'm appalled by your comment "or made it all up"

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

and i am apalled by the implication that canada and the united states are interchangelab, but since i realize that DanaUllman made an honet mistake and im not going to harp on about it like you have decided to which would only bring up a minor mistake over and over.

and regarding DAna Ullmans drug act i think he might have been reading this article (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm). its a safe link i already checked it out and there is no spam, popups, keyloggers, or pornography on that site. Smith Jones (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones: You may be right. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Metaanalyses and lead

I tried to add this and user Tim Vickers reverted it. Please justify.

• File:Ajpe07tbl1-1-.jpg

--Dana4 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted image, only the journals in this list are under a Creative-Commons licence on PubMed central. I'm deleting this image as a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Addhoc: COuld you please justify why did you cut the "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. It is one of the 4 sentences of the conclusions. --Dana4 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Although that is a nice chart, it is quite busy. I am not sure it belongs in this article. If I understand, the biggest problem is that when studies are double-blinded, or large, or other more stringent measures are applied, homeopathy always seems to fail. So people try to come up with reasons why homeopathy still works just not in the presence of more careful controls. Ah well...--Filll (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i cant see the graph can anyone else see it or is ti just something wron giwth my computer?Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was copied from a copyrighted journal. The image has been deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

very well. then the problem is moto and we can just al for fend about it right now. Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Filll, glad to see your kind remarks about Peter Morrell below. I will AGF, but I want to make certain that you (and others) know that there are a LOT of high-quality double-blind trials that show that homeopathic medicines are effective. It is time that editors stop making ill- and un-informed statements such as the one Filll made just above. Here are some worthy of your attention:

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

-- Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957. (Oscillococcinum has been shown to be effective in treating influenza, though not in its prevention)

-- Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476. (This is the FOURTH trial by this group of researchers at the University of Glasgow. Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials don't--you choose!).

-- Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. [17] (This study was conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital, published in the leading respiratory health journal in the world, found "substantially significant" results, and is notable enough to now have two universities planning to replicate it.)

One final note about Filll's comment about "large" trials. The problem with most of the largest trials in homeopathy is that they only use ONE homeopathic medicine for every patient without any degree of individualization of treatment. While using ONE medicine is sometimes effective (as in Oscillo or in the above trial on COPD using homeopathic potassium dichromate or Kali bic), these instances are the exception to the rule. By the way, for unknown reasons, the Shang (2005) comparison of studies "overlooked" the two of three LARGE and positive Oscillococcinum trials. I guess that they had to make room to fit that one study on weight-loss (that had a negative result...what a surprise). DanaUllman^Talk 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I will confine my comments for now to the Frass study and Oscillococcinum. You have just confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArsenicum_album&diff=192719779&oldid=192510465) that the words you placed in quotation marks were your own not quotations from the paper itself. It would demonstrate "good faith" if you would now explicitly confirm this. When you are citing a paper, it is sloppy practice, at best, to place words in quotations that are your own not the authors'. You have been told before that this study was not appropriately performed to bear the weight of interpretation that you require. Your confusion seems to reside in the fact that a pre-treatment group difference that is not statistically significant may amplify through the study, indeed this paper is a very good example of this problem. That completely undermines the validity of interpreting the low p-values in the way you have done. A better choice of words, to describe the p-values rather than "substantially significant" is "probably erroneous". The protection against it with such a highly heterogeneous patient-group is either to control better for the confounding variables and/or to recruit larger numbers. You have been told this before as well. Bear in mind the fact that of your having to rely so heavily on this single study speaks volumes for the sparsity of apparent positive effects for homeopathic therapies in controlled trials. The existence of a few apparent positives amongst a mass of equivocal and negative findings is exactly what one would expect from a therapeutic modality that is entirely placebo so that occasional positives will turn up due to bad study design and statistical fluke, aided by our old friend publication bias.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Oscillococcinum, perhaps you would like to remind us of the clearest 'positive' statistical finding reported by the Cochrane review. I think other readers will find the answer most illuminating.OffTheFence (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT to Taylor et al, Reilly may have concluded that either homeopathy works or that RCTs don't but this is a false dichotomy. Others have concluded that the trials do not support the authors' conclusions [18] Acleron (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear OffTheFence, in due respect, you seem to be misinformed about the CHEST study. The chart in the article that compares the treatment and control group had no statistically significant differences. You chose to use the term "highly heterogeneous patient-group." To what are you referring, and whatever it is, ask yourself if this difference in a couple of patients was significant enough to lead to the big (actually HUGE) differences in results. Please respond to this. I used the terms "substantially significant" because the results were just that ("Group I" was the treatment group): The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]).

As for the Oscillococcinum trials, the fact of the matter is that the Cochrane report found that there WAS a beneficial effect beyond a placebo effect and that they referred to it as "promising." Acleron, your comment reminds me of the guy who claimed to fly and shows skeptics that he is able to do so. However, skeptics insist that because he doesn't fly as high or as fast as a jet, it is no big thing. Oscillo had an effect. Skeptics insist that there is "no evidence" for homeopathy. The Oscillo trials prove this wrong, especially in the light of the fact that these trials were replicated by independent researchers and were large trials (By the way, the imfamous Shang (2005) comparison study in the LANCET only chose to include 1 of the 3 large treatment trials...if he would have followed his own guidelines, he would have included all 3 of them.)

As for the critique of the four studies by Reilly...is that critique the only one you got because it is totally inadequate. Two of the Reilly studies were published in the Lancet and one in the BMJ...and you think that one short letter on one study is a killer? Not in my book. DanaUllman^Talk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllmanTalk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, my problem is that you persistently place the phrase "substantially significant" in quotation marks. The phrase "substantially significant" does not appear in the paper, so you cannot use quotation marks. Nothing controversial or problematical, just use quotation marks for quotations.[19]OffTheFence (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, you seemed to have a problem my characterising a group of 50 patients in the ICU as "heterogeneous". I cannot see why and had thought this was self-evident. Clearly it was not so I shall explain. You have failed to ask why the patients were in the ICU in the first place. They were not there because of their COPD. No indication is given as to the reasons for their being there. The patients could have had anything from severe head trauma following a fall to sepsis after a ruptured gastric ulcer. Here are the Inclusion Criteria- "Inclusion criteria included a documented history of tobacco use and COPD for at least 10 years before acute deterioration; spontaneous breathing with CPAP with a FIO2 varying between 0.21 and 0.3, and positive airway pressure from 5 to 7 cm H2O after weaning from controlled mechanical ventilation. Additionally, extubation was impossible due to profuse tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions according to the criteria listed above." The COPD this group suffered form was just one feature of the complex medical problems that brought them to the ICU and not even their main problem. We cannot judge whether the treatment and control groups had similar kinds of diseases because we are not given the information. We cannot therefore judge how similar the groups were. I am sure you have already been told this but groups of 25 are small for an ICU study for precisely these reasons. It is no more than a pilot.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you would comment on the bizarre homeopathy being practised here. Non-individualised. Focused on a single clinical feature in these complex cases. Let me speculate what might have been your first criticism had this study produced negative findings. I guess we just put this one on file to be produced every time one of your colleagues complains about lack of good homeopathic practice in any negative trial. In that respect, your advocacy of this paper has been of great service to the sceptical appraisal of homeopathic trials. Thank you.OffTheFence (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In this instance the guy who claims to fly bases his claim on asking people to look very carefully and see that sometimes a paper-thin separation might appear between the soles of his feet and the ground."There was no evidence that homoeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 1.43). Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chances that a patient considered treatment to be effective (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00)."[20]. Note the lower end of these 95% Confidence Intervals, 0.06d, RR 1.00. I think we can reasonably ask for a more stringent CI criterion for something as inherently implausible as homeopathy [21], but even a 99% CI would render these data Non-Significant. Even at a 95% CI they would have to be described as marginally statistically significant and of negligible biological significance. By the way, accusing the sceptics of saying there is "no evidence" for homeopathy is close to being a strawman. In my experience, "no evidence" is usually meant as short-hand for "no valid evidence". There is a mass of "evidence" for homeopathy: all of it is properly dismissed as useless.OffTheFence (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried scrolling down to the bottom of the 2000 BMJ Taylor et al. paper (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7259/471)? You'll find a commentary on the paper and the conclusions that can be drawn from it right there. Brunton (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't, to use your overly emotive language, think it a killer, it was an apposite response to your unreferenced quote. You used a false dichotomy in that comment and now you use a strawman argument. Scientists and skeptics, yes they can be the same, would love proof that existing theories are wrong, such is stuff of Nobel prizes, but it happens very rarely. Analogy is useful in teaching but not in real science, a fact that pseudoscientists find hard to handle. Your analogy requires but little modification:- homeopaths leap off the ground and even after their feet meet the earth they still claim they have been flying.Acleron (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Real patients"

"Orangemarlin" changed "patients" to "consumers" with the edit note: "Since this isn't real medicine, it doesn't have real patients. These are consumers." I would suggest that "specific effects on patients and consumers" would be more accurate.

I respectfully point out that there are many physicians who administer homeopathic medicines to their patients. This is much more prevelant in countries such as France, Germany, and India, but is also well represented in the U.S.A, where all three types of priamry care physicians have some doctors who utilize homeopathy: [22] Here is a partial list of MDs (Medical Doctors) and DOs (Doctors of Osteopathy) in the U.S. that use homeopathy: [23] and a partial list of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) in the US that use homeopathy: [24] Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, it is not mainstream medicine -- either its practitioners, its researchers, or its academics -- that have a problem with calling non-mainstream practices "medicine", or calling the people they treat "patients". This is scientistic dogma. Friarslantern (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Random note: You may find Scientism a more appropriate link there. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

'Did it on purpose.... Friarslantern (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Patients and consumers is appropriate. Anthon01 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My word, some people are ultra-sensitive

I browsed into this article and decided I could improve it by changing one word in a caption, replacing "remedies" with "preparations" because the former is pov. Smith Jones followed and changed "preparations" to "products" which is even better. But the edit summary by Smith Jones is a real doosey. He/she said "seems like an inconsequential and petty change to me". Inconsequential? Can't be, because the consequence of my change was that he felt compelled to change it. Petty? Removal of pov is petty? Gee, people hereabouts are really tetchy. 222.153.79.118 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is tetchiness treated with remedies or preparations? :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - - - - Go to your litter box. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

you misunderstand me. i was refering to MY edit as being inconsequential and petty; the only reaosn i did it was because it was i like hte word products more than preparations. i have no objection to your edit other than my own personal prefrence and if you wanted to revert it i wouldnt try to stop you. Smith Jones (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did misinterpret, so I apologise. But, no I don't see a necessity to revert" 222.153.79.118 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

Hello 222.153.79.118: Why pray tell is it POV to label the pictured items as homeopathic remedies? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wanderer. Tthe definition of "remedies" to some people includes agents that cure something undesirable. Some people believe homeopathic products can and do have remedial properties, whereas other people believe they can not and do not -- two opposed povs. If someone insisted on inclusion of the word "remedies" and someone else insisted on its exclusion we would probably have a long lived thread going nowhere. Replacing the word "remedies" with the word "products" has avoided any hint of non neutrality. Incidentally, I don't say people shouldn't have povs, but we should take the chance to avoid them in wikipedia articles when the opportunity arises, as happened here. 222.153.79.118 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct legal words are "homeopathic drugs" (the vast majority of countries recognize homeopathic medicines as "drugs", usually over-the-counter drugs. Therefore, it is totally appropriate and even more accurate to call them drugs or medicines. DanaUllman^Talk 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 'products' is more neutral. Addhoc (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal definitions don't matter. The plain English meaning of medicine is clear. Use that definition as your guide. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Homeopathic remedies", "homeopathic drugs", and "homeopathic medicines" have always been used to refer to these. There is no reason to invent new terms that no one uses anywhere else. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although it has completly wrong implications, "homeopathic remedies" does seem to be a term of the art. (Use of "drugs" and "medicines" would be illegal in enough jurisditions that we should avoid using them even if they were the standard terms.) I prefer "preperations", myself, as the use of "product" implies that there is an actual product, which has not really been established. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some of these fights are sort of nonsense. They are preparations, but they call them homeopathic remedies in most places that I look. We should use the names they use mostly otherwise it will be confusing. We have to express all views, the homeopathic view, the science view, the medical view, and it has to be accessible. And inventing new words and phrases does not help. We will have enough trouble defining the words and phrases that homeopathy uses that are unique to homeopathy. So I think we are just wallowing in nonsense trying to dance around and avoid the common terms that homeopaths use. We should use them, and define them accordingly and make sure the mainstream view is there too. So all views are heard.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

fine. all iw ante dto do was to make the article flow better. if you are so attached to the term "remedy" then fine. personally i thinkthat products has a far smaller chance of triggering a flame war from the zealots who occasionally pop in an dfire off a few salvos around here but if the word remedy makes more sense to you then i have no real objections. ive already enforced your concensus by the way; the word remedy is back in the article. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now look, I'm on the "science" side of this issue, if it matters. But, since "remedies" is what is used, it needs to be in the article unless it is extremely misleading or a WP:BLP violation, even if I would prefer that the only claims made in the article were those which are scientifically verified.

<sarcasm>Since we seem to have a consensus on this word, shall we get on to other disputes, such as "found" / "claimed" / "reported" / "alleged"?</sarcasm> — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word 'Remedy'

'Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by ingesting substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'

Given that the usual use of the word 'remedy' by homeopaths is the 'homeopathic product', can I suggest 'remedies for diseases can be created' in the sentence above is inappropriate as it also implies the production of remedies which is confusing. I'd like to suggest: 'diseases can be treated' to replace 'remedies for diseases can be created' [updated Scifuture (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)] Scifuture (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one seems to object so I will make the change.Scifuture (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It got reverted back would someone like to explain why?Scifuture (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scifuture is right I think. The problem is that the sentence opening this section says the act of ingestion creates the remedy. I think the normally understood sequence is that the remedy is created before it is ingested.

Either of the following wordings would be a distinct improvement, IMO. The first is the one Scifuture suggested.

'Homeopathic practitioners contend that diseases can be treated by ingesting substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'

'Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created from substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease.'

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second even more than my own suggestion.Scifuture (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard should be the definition. Only "remedies" can have "remedial" properties. Since the remedial quality of homeopathy preparations and products has not been demonstrated, it would be POV to beg the question of efficacy by using the term "remedy." Naturezak (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This sentence starts with 'Homeopathic practitioners contend'; this is the sentence which SHOULD accurately reflect THE pov of the homeopathic community otherwise it undermines the whole documentScifuture (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

OK so far as it goes except that homeopaths do not treat imputed human fictions called 'diseases,' they treat people, that is a person totality, NOT an alleged 'disease entity.' Peter morrell 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed but can we tackle the sentence structure and start a discussion on the word 'diseases' separately?Scifuture (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter - Including both the idea that 'like treats like' and the idea of treating an organic totality seems to me to put an unbearable burden on one sentence. Could not the idea of treating the totality rather than the disease symptoms follow later? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry about that maybe we could paraphrase it to say: 'Homeopathic practitioners contend that a sick person can be treated by ingesting a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the entire sickness.' how does that sound? it replaces 'disease' with 'sick person' or 'sickness,' which is vague enough to suggest a form of totality rather than an alleged entity commonly called a 'disease,' to which homeopathy is opposed rather fundamentally. Peter morrell 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll suggest a slightly different version.

"Homeopathic practitioners contend that a ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, some symptoms similar to those of the illness."

• I suggest illness instead of sickness. I think it sounds better but cannot explain why I think so.

• I would remove "by ingesting" as that wording suggests that it is the act of ingesting that is efficacious rather than the substance. Also, "treated by ingesting" suggests to me at least that the practitioner does the ingesting.

• I would add "some" and leave out "entire". If I show up with symptoms rash, vomiting, incontinence, coughing, hiccoughs, and dizzyness and am treated with a preparation derived from poison ivy, it would not, I think, be correct that "the substance produces symptoms similar to those of the entire sickness." The main similarity in this example would be between the poison ivy and one symptom, the rash. Would it not be more accurate to say "the substance produces some symptoms similar to those of the sickness"? (Or for sake of brevity, leave out the "some".) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to omit the 'some' but otherwise fine by me(apart from 'aN ill person'Scifuture (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK by me too Peter morrell 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll make the change. Thanks both. Scifuture (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the confusion here is that the word "remedy" is a polyseme and has essentially a technical meaning in homeopathy, which is related but not identical to the main meaning in English.--Filll (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

References in lead

Can someone please explain why we need all refs 15, 16, 17 and 18? Ref 18 in particular is not a real article but a short OPINION about CAM in the Nigerian med jnl. why is that even in here or regarded as RS? it adds nothing whatever to the pseudoscience claim in the homeopathy article text. Maybe the abundance of some of these refs in the lead need reviewing? thank you Peter morrell 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are different opinions about the style of the LEAD. Some prefer the LEAD have no references at all. However, in controversial articles like this one, references are vital, and even in the LEAD. For example, almost every negative statement in a controversial articles get challenged, over and over and over. This is even true for the LEAD, and might be especially true for the LEAD. Therefore, we end up with references in the LEAD for controversial, critical or negative statements. See intelligent design for comparison.--Filll (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs with any of that Filll but do we really need 4 refs all saying the same thing for a single point? and at least one of which is pretty useless? there seems to be excessive bunching of refs and sometimes overkill on a single point...sledgehammers and nuts spring to mind! all those refs should be carefully reviewed IMO; 2 cents FWIW. Peter morrell 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In the best of all possible worlds we would not need so many. However, this article is mired in a terrible mess from which it might not recover.--Filll (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference 18 is a short abstract, not a paper. Following the link to the paper just led me around in a circle. I don't see enough in the abstract to get a sense of the credibility of the paper. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This is found in the current lead:

The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol similarly prepared but is still claimed to have specific effects.

I have no idea what "similarly prepared but is still claimed to have specific effects" is even supposed to be driving at. I doubt most readers will know what this means either. When I changed the sentence to the more readable and understandable:

The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.

Martin Chapman changed it back with an edit summary that did not explain what the phrase meant, but rather said that there was discussion of this paritcular phrase on the talk page. Only, I don't see that particular phrase discussed anywhere on this talk page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree...maybe it got spliced in by accident from another para...dunno Peter morrell 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for editing at the same time as you were talking. I have now clarified it, I hope. Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, except the lead is still terrible. See the below two sections. You need to explain yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Friends. This sentence needed greater specificity, but once it was provided, it was now shown to be wrong! My reference above to the review of in-vitro studies, most of which were replicated (!), provides this sentence is wrong and should be deleted. DanaUllman^Talk 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that when a solute is diluted to homeopathic dilutions the end result is materially indistinguishable from the pure solvent is not only not wrong, it's really not up for debate. The issue here is how to properly phrase the sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman, if you continue to behave in this manner, then you could be banned from this subject area. Addhoc (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana has a point. He suggested a change and justified it. (BTW I dont see what kind behavior from Dana's part you find unhelpful. )--70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What behaviour is being objected to? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the last time: this article is under probation. If DanaUllman achieves a consensus between editors on both sides of this dispute, then he can modify the article in accordance with this consensus. However, if there isn't consensus, then he can't change the article. Repeating statements that a particular sentence should be removed or added is tiresome. Either he should work to generate a consensus or stop posting. Addhoc (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, for NPOV, we must include a large dose of critical material. I know that some might not like it, but these are the rules of Wikipedia. How many times does it have to be said? Tendentious argumentation on these points which has gone on for months on end, including spamming the talk page with repeated nonsense just makes things worse here. I am pleading with everyone to try to not be so aggressive in trying to slant the entire article one way or another. It will just end in tragedy I am afraid. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Fill about tendentious behavior, including spamming the talk page with repeated nonsense. Addhoc (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy in the lead

The lead now reads:

According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is materially indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water, sugar or alcohol, but is still claimed to have specific effects.

This is redundant. The first sentence explicitly says, "the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent." The second sentence then simply rephrases this by saying, "but is still claimed to have specific effects." Why do we need to have this repetition in two adjacent sentences? It looks very poor from an editorial standpoint.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That was partially my fault, I'm afraid. I restored "materially indistinguishable" and added a comma. Perhaps the "still claimed" clause should be removed entirely, with the sources (if used in the lead) attached to the first sentence? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That would make sense to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly prepared?

The current lead says:

it is materially indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water, sugar or alcohol

What do we mean by "similarly prepared"? This wording is entirely confusing. There is no "similar preparation" necessary to explain the material composition of the solvents.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be necessary. The successive mixing and shaking could plausibly change the characteristics of the water or alcohol, although I have doubts about sugar. I've noticed that many of the so-called "blinded" studies leave the control group as pure water, rather than shaken (not stirred) water. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Feh. The sentence says materially indistinguishable. Unless the shaking can somehow change the material composition of the solvents, this is irrelevant to the sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist; you should read the discussion that we had earlier. It is above. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The shaking can, in the case of powders, change the particle size or the amount (and possibly even the composition) of the air between the particles, and in the case of liquids, change the gas content or amount of dissolved glass/plastic. (As an aside, remember polywater? The shaking would have eliminated that effect.) I've noted, in a previous comment (now, apparently archived), the fact the studies mentioned which show an effect use pure water (possibly not from the same source as the water used in the homeopathic "remedy") as a control, rather then "shaken" water. I could create a study with those characteristics which would probably pass review, but would leave a clear taste difference between the tap water used in the control and the purified water used in the homeopathic remedy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't me, and it was above. My mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This smacks of an original research justification. Claiming that the "air is different" in shaken water compared to water that hasn't been shaken is far from a material difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't have a reference for the statement as it is in any form. We should really just get that, then go with what that says... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of reference are you talking about? The basic solution chemistry of the situation is common knowledge among every relevant expert. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet on this page it's constantly debated. On an article like this, we need references even for common knowledge. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not likely to be good enough. See User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur. What we need is a moratorium on referencing common knowledge and an agreement that the lead can fairly summarize points we have later in the article. We can reference this point to one of the dozens of reliable sources which point out this fact. How about using one of these? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if shaken vs still water has no difference, this is common knowledge? Couldn't the dissolved gases be different? Above, I am surprised to read that the control for homeopathic studies are usually still water as opposed to the accurate control of still water at 30C (or what ever dilution is being tested). David D. (Talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, your skepticism is still original research. In fact, it is a standard intro chemistry experiment to determine whether shaking versus stirring changes the characteristics of liquid solutions. The null result is a famous indication that confirms that randomness is a more driving factor than how randomness is arrived at. Have you taken chemistry? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not since I forgot it all :) I'm a biologist and it's not uncommon to deal with water that has different concentrations of CO₂ or oxygen. The chemistry experiment depends on what you measure of course. Is part of the experiment to titrate for CO₂ concentration before and after? And what of the controls which are neither stirred nor shaken (i.e. the before)? David D. (Talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that homeopathic preparations are left to sit for such a long time after preparation that any extra dissolved gases that end up in them are driven out through their own higher vapor pressure. In sum, the idea that homeopathy works through extra gas dissolved in water is not something I have seen sourced anywhere. The material identities between homeopathic preparations and their solvents is referenced in each of the four references I provide above. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, if we're talking about the remedies themselves they'll equilibrate. I was thinking more along the lines of this so-called data that can distinguish between still water and the 30C remedy. In those experiments do they test immediately after preparation or allow it to equilibrate? I have no idea since I don't generally read such papers. Nevertheless, this sentence is clearly talking about the remedies, I agree they will be the same at equilibrium. David D. (Talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this, but I think this is an entirely different issue. A good WP:REDFLAG to raise in the instance of someone trying to cite such a study elsewhere in the article. As it is, I think we have agreement that similar preparations is not something that needs to be mentioned in this sentence of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. David D. (Talk) 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are again missing the earlier discussion. You have moved off target on to different ground. I disagree with ScienceApologist. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to the section? David D. (Talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have not got the hang of linking, but it is Arbitrary section break 2. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there was any real counter to the points made in this section here. Just a lot of grandstanding. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Where are the papers that prove it is the same?" Is this the point you are making? Gases are not an issue, you would agree, assuming we are talking about remedies that have been on a shelf. Your other claim is silicon dioxide, but this assume the control water is not in a similar container, does it not? With respect to the proof, is this not going to be a problem with respect to publication bias? People who do such experiments are trying to write a paper that shows there is a difference, they are unlikely to publish studies that report the opposite as they'll "assume" their data is flawed (similar to confirmation bias). Or do homeopaths sometimes publish their negative results? What is the chance that a scientist would try and disprove homeopathy by trying to prove the solutions are identical? To prove a negative is not so productive, especially when quantum mechanics and meta physics gets thrown back at you. What is typically done is to determine the efficacy. Are there not several papers that show no statistical difference? What would occam's razor suggest with regard to the differences between the remedies and the still water? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

David, I am glad you are reading the info. The original debate was over whether the homeopathic preparations were different from 'pure water'. That is why eventually it was decided to put in 'indistinguishable from similarly prepared pure water' rather than 'indistinguishable from pure water', as I think we got consensus (at that time) for them not being indistinguishable from 'pure water'. I agree that you may well have expected the controls were the 'similarly prepared' stuff but they often (always?) are not. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So the issue is with the use of the term pure water? David D. (Talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is where it started, and where I would have liked it to finish. I believe that the homeopathic preparations differ from the 'pure water' that was used in making them. I do not believe that there is any definitive proof one way or the other that they differ in a chemically analysable way from proper controls. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We have reliable sources which show that homeopathic remedies are materially indistinguishable from the solvents. That's good enough for us. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what will happen is that there will end up being many more references than otherwise necessary here because of the environment that has developed on this page. I would remind all editors here that the mainstream, scientific and allopathic viewpoints must be featured prominently in this article. --Filll (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

prominently does not mean exclusion of the minority views the article is about.

it could contain homeopaths views using reliable sources and inform the reader about the current controversy and critisism. This is not difficult. The current lead does not provide this info. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash. This talk page has megabytes of archives of text re-hashing and dealing with this. Make diffs. Make quotes. State problems. These nebulous one-off drive-by complaints about nothing in particular aren't useful to improving the article. I may start removing them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

the administrators who are around would feel that the above comment does not fit in the good faith atmosphere we try to create in the talk page?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic medicines are distinguishable from pure water

At present, the following sentence in the 1st paragraph is inaccuate. "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have specific effects.[2][3][4]" First, all of the references (#2, #3, and #4 are not notable and are not RS, never published in a peer-review journal, nor have they been refeneced in peer-review journals). References 2 & 4 are to a website that doesn't even review a single laboratory or basic science study. Because this sentence makes specific reference to "laboratory tests," these references have no place for this statement. Reference #3 is a simple homeopathic guidebook that is not oriented towards research at all, and is not even a notable book in homeopathic medicine. As for the laboratory evidence that there IS a difference between homeopathic water and placebo water, there is a large body of such evidence, including a review of 67 in vitro studies, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” DanaUllman^Talk 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

exactly!!! Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Analytical chemistry and other forms of lab testing generaly require things to be reproduceable. If they are not them the test is pretty much useless.Geni 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

it is reproducable. Anmother user Arion 3x3 has posted several articles and experiments who have replciated those exact results in other talk pages. in each of them someone made the objection that you just m,ade. if this experiment is reproducable so many times then how can it be totally useless??? Smith Jones (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Geni, all types of laboratory tests are not 100% reproducible and yet are still considered valid...and needless to say, this is also true of clinical studies (even vaccination doesn't have 100% efficacy). The fact of the matter is that the above review of in vitro studies shows an impressive number of studies that have been replicated. DanaUllman^Talk 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

efficacy and reproducibilty are not the same thing.Geni 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, if you want to get your edits into the article without controversy, I recommend you find a friendly skeptic, perhaps Scientizzle, and collaborate. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the in vitro studies? Anthon01 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Jehochman, I agree...and please know that I am always interested in collaboration...and most of all, I am always committed to accuracy, to RS, V, and notability. Despite having a point of view, I am a reasonably guy. DanaUllman^Talk 02:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the reference above to a large number of in vitro studies that have been replicated not NPOV? I'm afraid that your statement is a better example of POV than anything else here...unless you somehow feel that double-blind in vitro studies can show an effect from a homeopathic medicine because a scientist has a conscious or sub-conscious wish (in that case, you are much more metaphysical than I). DanaUllman^Talk 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the main point of Dana. The statement "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests" is inaccurate. I have no doubt that succussed water is different (at least in its solute composition) from water that has not been succussed and the difference is provable and has been proven. It is not, and never was, pure water, in any case. The main difficulty is understanding and explaining how the dilution has any extra effect beyond dilution. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that references [2] and [4] are not good references to the sentence "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have specific effects.[2][3][4]" and I agree that reference [3] is not a recognised text in homeopathy. Dana is taking a balanced view of the in-vitro studies [Witt et al] Scifuture (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the NPOV policy, the article balance, that is how pro or anti the article is, should be in proportion to the prominence of each view. Therefore, when Fill said the mainstream view should be the most prominent, he was correct. Addhoc (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So this article should mainly be written by scientists with little experience or understanding of the homeopathic process and history - how would that be good wikipedia policy? Who is in the majority - scientists or millions of homeopathy users worldwide and their homeopaths? Forgive me if this has been debated before.Scifuture (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:PROMINENCE: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well lets get this straight then. This is a homeopathy article and the appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint is all that is required. Anthon01 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So who exactly are the majority and the minority here on the Homeopathy page. You can't be serious that homeopaths are the minority?Scifuture (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientifically they are the extreme minority, so sections on the scientific evidence should be written accordingly. Jefffire (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme or not doesn't have a bearing on policy that appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint is all that is required. Anthon01 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate authority on scientific matters is the scientific community. Jefffire (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to dwell on this point as Whig has given the WP view we should follow, but is there any solid evidence either way on this issue of minority/majority of informed opinion? Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For my benefit can someone restate the 'WP view' here please or point me in the right direction?Scifuture (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Evidence that the scientific community has soundly rejected Homeopathy has been given before on this talk page. I see no reason to retread this issue, which is why I'm not going to get into the argument here. We shouldn't have to fight the same fight over and over again with every pro-homeopathy editor who comes by. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. I certainly do not wish to retread any issue but I do not see any such evidence presented in the article. It should be there, if it exists. Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what you means by a good strong dose of mainstream content. The policy says appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint. What do you think that means? Anthon01 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The majority viewpoint is not the majority on this page. It is not the majority among alternative medicine practioners. It is not the majority in your home. It is not the majority in your town. It is not the majority among the public. It is not the majority among homeopaths. It is the majority view in the relevant field(s). The relevant fields here include healthcare and/or medicine and/or science, since claims are made about issues in medicine and science. The mainstream, majority view in medicine and science needs to be repeated to you? Does it need to be proven that is the majority? I think we have gone over this hundreds of times. And the policy says lots of similar things, such as "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" and "All relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence" and "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". What do you think those mean?--Filll (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the answer to the question, why don't you just say so? Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" is the governing principle. Anthon01 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Aromatherapy page to compare the styles. It is a reasonably balanced article at first glance with a large 'Criticism' section mid-way down the page. This seems a reasonable approach rather than pepper every section with critical points.Scifuture (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Aromatherapy is rated as "Start" class. In other words, it is not a good example of what Wikipedia aims for probably. If you want to see, look at intelligent design. It is rated "FA". And sections where the criticism is segregated are usually discouraged. For example, from [25]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).--Filll (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, not the best example - the article has been tagged as having neutrality problems. Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good model article is Traditional Chinese medicine. Like Homeopathy it is a medical practice used by millions of people but not well accepted by the Western establishment. Both of these practices are well established in some countries, Homeopathy is well accepted in India for example. —Whig (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It is rated B class, much lower than this article. Look at intelligent design. Also, the TCM article is in point form, does not describe the 5 elements, and has many citations missing. I am sure if I looked longer I would find many more problems.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings notwithstanding, intelligent design is unrelated. —Whig (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Having a comment in the lead about it is a different matter. The lead should definitely make appropriate reference to critical views. One of these views is that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water. We have it there; we have it cited; it should stay. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is the references, find better ones. That homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from water is something so basic I thought even the homeopaths agreed with it. If you think differently and think you can show a difference, James Randi has a million dollars for you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(But only for two more years, so hurry!) The thing is, now Dana's arguing that you can detect a difference by their effects on people, and citing a meta-analysis as evidence. Problem is all the other studies that don't find any difference and the fact that even if this worked, there's no practical way to apply this method. There's no simple chemical or physical test that can be performed to tell the difference. If you need to run a huge study and then base your results off a spike which is hardly distinguishable from noise, then it's not a good test. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A result on the people in a test is not a test of the substance used in the test. The sentence proposes a test of the physical attributes of the substance, and that is what a reference would need to state. True or false, a study showing positive (or negative, anything other than neutral) results of the substance when used to treat a malady is not a test of the substance. It's a several fold leap from the statement in the sentence to the results of the study. Which you, Infophile, agree with I'm sure, I'm stating this for the benefit of anyone making a leapfrog reference like that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Maybe in highly-qualified circumstances we could (properly double-blinded, randomized trial, large enough effect that it can't just be noise). In that case, we might be able to assume that there is some difference that our other methods of testing can't distinguish. The difference here is that we can only make this assumption once we have a study strong enough to rule out other potential confounders - the only possible difference is a difference in the substances. Anyways, I've pulled up the study Dana mentioned, and I'll look through it now to see if it has any merit. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

As far as I know, we have no method of distinguishing high potency homeopathic remedies from water. Homeopaths are unable to. Scientists are unable to. That does not mean we will not be able to do so at some point in the future. But at the moment, we cannot. If someone has a peer-reviewed reference that is some sort of repeatable study demonstrating this, that has gained mainstream scientific acceptance, then I would like to look at it. Something in Science magazine, or Nature, or PNAS, or Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. --Filll (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As a "friendly skeptic", I have to fully agree with this statement by Filll. That there is no readily repeatable way to determine if a remedy is different from diluent vehicle is quite well known. That homeopathy promoters trot out misunderstandings of quantum theory or speculative notions of water memory to try to explain the perceived effects of a treatment is precisely because they have yet to convincingly show (to those that weren't already convinced) any difference between their 30C whatever and a nice glass of tap water. That Dana can cite studies that claim to show an in vitro or in vivo difference in a treatment result beyond control or placebo is not evidence that the vehicle of the homeopathic test is distinguishable from the contorl, but rather that the entire treatment set produces a distinguishable result; an alteration a shaken-not-stirred water is a possible explanation for that treatment difference, but Occam and co. (and many here, many times over) have made it clear that more plausible explanations exist to explain such phenomena.

I see nothing wrong with the sources as presented, and peer review is hardly a requirement, but here's a few more that say the same thing:

• this section already in the article
• ...and this section
• "An Idea Whose Time Has Gone: Why Homeopathy is bunk". Retrieved 2008-02-25.
• Teixeira J (2007). "Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view". Homeopathy. 96 (3): 158–62. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.001. PMID 17678811.
• Anick DJ (2004). "High sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies made in water". BMC Complement Altern Med. 4: 15. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-4-15. PMID 15518588.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Bottom line, until the scientific community is given sufficient evidence of any actual difference (in ultramolecular structure or whathaveyou) between water and water with 0 molecules of something in it, the claim that there's no detectable difference should stand as representative of the mainstream stance. — Scientizzle 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If Filli considefr the study provided by DanaUllman to be indaequate, then we should leav ethe information regarding homeopathy and water distinguishability off the aritcle until a better source be found. it is my personal philsophy that in a contentious article such as ]hoemopathy and related subjects it is better to leave unsourced info off the article unless a source is likely to be foudn shorlty, which from my own personal reaserch is unlikely since homeopathy tends to be included from sources such as Nature or Science magazine. Smith Jones (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would leave out material that we cannot find good sources for, unless we can find some mainstream sources that rebut the conclusions. So if we have some study that purports to show a difference, even if it is in a venue less prestigious than Science or Nature, or even if it has not been verified by others who managed to repeat the experiment, I would suggest we admit it ONLY if we also have comments from several mainstream scientists and/or allopaths on the inconclusiveness etc of the study. If we have balancing comments, however, we could admit it even if it has not been repeated or published in a mainstream location.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they're indistinguishable is sourced. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that some people have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with it I think.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I deleted the offending sentence because all of the references given to it do not give any substantiation for it (the "sources" cited do not even review in vitro or basic science studies!). As such, this statement in the article should be deleted. References to disprove it are secondary because there is no substantiation for it in the first place. That said, the review of in vitro studies above provides evidence that there is a difference between placebo water and homeopathic water. Such reviews do not need to be in Nature (which doesn't publish clinical meta-analyses) nor Science...as long as it is in a RS. Although the above review of research acknowledges that no single study has had 100% replicability, there are innumerable conventional tests that are not 100% replicable (most immunology studies for example). This non-replicability is even more common in clinical findings. DanaUllman^Talk 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you badly badly badly want to make this only positive for homeopathy and remove any mainstream views. However, by NPOV, we cannot do this. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DUDE i was AGREEING with you and Infophile that the pro-homeopathy informaiton unsourced should not be included without a source. there is no reason to bite my head off when there are a whole bunch of other editsor on here. 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I am not sure what you are talking about. I just want to make sure we slowly learn here what NPOV is.--Filll (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How are water and a homeopathic potency deemed to be identical? chemically? physically? therapeutically? Funny, I think I read somewhere that NMR studies had shown they are different. Hmmm Peter morrell 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Peter. There have been studies that appear from time to time showing they are different. However, these have all turned out to be false alarms, or at least not accepted or confirmed by the mainstream, at least not yet. If someone manages to repeat one of these studies and it is documented and confirmed, then it will be one of the biggest discoveries of the century. Someone will win a Nobel Prize for sure.--Filll (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Fill, just showing the solutions are different is really no big deal and is truly unimportant. Water dissolves the silica from glass test-tubes by simply shaking water in them. Also shaking dissolves carbon-dioxide and creates small changes in other solutes such as hydrogen peroxide. These in themselves prove very little. We know they are different and it would generally, now, not be important enough to publish. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The paper by J. Teixeira (Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view, Homeopathy 96 (2007) 158-162) certainly talks about the water used in homeopathy certainly being not pure and the papers by Elia (Elia V, Niccoli M. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. J Therm Anal Calorim 2004; 75: 815–836) and Rao et al (Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R Bell and Richard Hoover, The defining role of structure (including epitaxy)in the plausibility of homeopathy, Homeopathy (2007) 96, 175–182,) show it is different from just solvent. Where are the papers that prove it is the same? Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Same" is not equivalent to "indistiguishable". And, Dr. Chaplin, you know better than to ask for proof of sameness (or, rather, proof of no difference--proving such a negative is bound to be quite difficult). Indeed, can you honestly say as a scientist that the consensus scientific view of homeopathic dilutions is that there is an established difference from pure vehicle? Successful replication of these type of experiments is rather low, is it not? Certainly there have been suggestive studies and plausible observations and hypotheses (such as you've stated)...and perhaps the next generation of tools will have the sensitivity to unearth waht we've been missing all along. But, be honest, isn't "The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests" accurate? — Scientizzle 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, this page is busy! I did not ask for proof of sameness, I expressed doubt over it having being done. (I agree with you, but some editors here state that sameness has been proved). Yes I believe that it is the consensus view that the solutions are different (and the consensus may also be that this difference is unimportant). To an extent the dilution aspect is immaterial to my argument here. But it is the difference between the succussed solution and pure solvent that we are discussing here. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well a good test would be to place some of the "active ingredient" in water in a container, and engage in potentization to 30C, say. And then take an identical container, and place no active ingredient in water in the container and perform the same potentization steps to 30C. And do this for 100 containers that start with the active ingredient in water, and 100 containers that start with just water. Then guard against the person doing this procedure learning which is which. And then pass on these 200 containers to someone else to test their properties and see if they are distinguishable or not. This would be interesting, I think. Has someone done anything like this? --Filll (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

wouldnt the container itself act to contiminate the water in both the control and the xperimental groups?? that wasn issue at the lab I used to work at; a lot of false readings came up early on when unexperienced scientists were involved and we ended up having to throw out all the results from the early stages of the research until down in R&D came up wth a way to contemplate for the presence of any foreign and unknown contaminants in the experimental and control groups. Smith Jones (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill, Many of such experiments would indeed be interesting, but homeopathy research is short on funding due to the sceptics controlling the purse strings. I cannot say whether such solutions would be provably different or not without doing the experiments. In any case the dispute, I believe, was simply over whether such solutions are different from 'pure water'. I have a feeling that you might well believe they are. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is not particularly convincing. I just suggested a well-controlled experiment. You have stated that such an experiment would yield a Nobel Prize-winning result and would overthrow all of chemistry and physics and that everyone knows it and that it is obvious. I have to say, it is not particularly obvious to me. And I think they are not particularly obvious to anyone with standard scientific training.--Filll (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple papers in some back-water journals does-not-a-rewriting-of-the-rules-of-chemistry-make. If the results of Teixeria 2007 and Elia & Niccoli 2004 were real and could be repeated/substantiated, then the effect would be well known in chemistry. It's not. There's no mention in any textbook or review article, and there's not even any mention of the effect in any mainstream chemistry or physics journals that I know of. Like Filll said, this is Nobel Prize winning stuff, so if the effect were real, then mainstream science would know about it. Yilloslime (t) 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that glass and carbon dioxide dissolve in water is well known and hardly rates a Nobel prize. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about something where you dilute something to 30C and then still be able to detect it. THAT would win a Nobel Prize. I am positive. Because there is no standard reason it should be detectable or distinguishable from plain water. We are not talking about detecting whether shaking water dissolves air in it or some of the container finds its way into the water or not. We are talking about something far more profound. And far harder to believe, frankly.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are, which is why it has no bearing on Dana's proposed deletion. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. Let me try this again. So do you claim that ALL (or most) mainstream scientists know there is a big difference between pure water and 30C remedy? And this is widely known and accepted? --Filll (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Ball (certainly no friend of Homeopathy) stated in his column in Chemistry World "Certainly, silicate does get added, in minute quantities, to water held in glass". Now I have made it clear that I do not think that this necessarily proves anything except that a 30C remedy will be different from pure solvent. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think he's saying that homeopathic preparations are different from pure water because of the silica/air/etc. that dissolve into it. In essence, splitting hairs. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here. The question is not whether silica is dissolved in minute quantities and whether that is detectable or not. The question is whether the effect of potentizing a solvent containing an active ingredient like Thuja is detectable or not, compared to a control (a solvent containing no active ingredient).--Filll (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the question needs to be rephrased? The Nobel prize would probably be awarded for any two different 30C homeopathic remedies to be reliably distinguishable.David D. (Talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the question is the one at the top of this section (no other) posed by Dana. Spitting hairs or not, they are not the same. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Dana did not mention the Nobel prize. I am clarifying what would win the Nobel prize. David D. (Talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how does this look? [26] --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you have said many times that I only want "positive" information on homeopathy in this article. You say that I want it "badly badly badly." I insist that you stop making up these fantasy statements and strawmen. Please show me where I said this OR stop saying it. It is that plain and simple. Your words are offensive and not constructive. I want good, accurate NPOV information. The fact that no one, including Filll, has given NPOV reference to the statement that I previously deleted, I will delete it again. If you wish to re-insert it, you will need to prove that it is true with RS. I have provide evidence from a review of in vitro studies that shows that homeopathic medicines have a biologically active effect that this different than water. DanaUllman^Talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to give any offense. However, let me ask you; do you believe that this is a well established effect and no one in mainstream science or allopathy doubts it? Is it in all the mainstream textbooks in chemistry and biochemistry and medicine? Do you believe that it is completely uncontroversial to say that there is an effect and no one doubts that? Or do you believe that there are some in the mainstream that do not accept this yet? And the material we have found is representative of those in the mainstream who do not accept this effect yet? Over the last 8 months, I have seen mainstream source after mainstream source that expresses extreme doubt, disbelief, skepticism, or worse about the claims of homeopathy float by. We could probably create an article with 100s of negative statements, each with 10 mainstream references. This is what has to be done on the creationism articles. And I guess if you want to fight like this, that is what will happen to this article. There will be 100 references cited in the LEAD alone of mainstream science and medical people making negative statements about homeopathy. Because believe me, fighting will not make us forget NPOV. You might like to think it will, but I am afraid it will not. Sorry. As Jimbo said, NPOV is non-negotiable. And no I do not think you understand what NPOV is. NPOV means including a large chunk of mainstream critical material. As has been explained here 500 times previously. That is what NPOV means. Sorry if that is offensive. But that is what it means in this case.--Filll (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman, if you keep editing the article without first establishing consensus, you are going to banned from editing this subject. This has been explained to you several times already. Addhoc (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section break 3

Phew! we got there in the end. There is no proof for the statement but I see no good proof against it either (yet). Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As Filll mentioned before, it's impossible to prove there's no difference between two things. We have to infer it from a failure to find any difference. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, we aren't supposed to make inferences, unless we can reliably source them. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Question re ScienceApologist's recent edit to the article) "Indistinguishable by lab test" was changed to "materially indistinguishable". Is "materially indistinguishable" meant as a stronger statement, e.g., "indistinguishable by any means whatsoever including lab testing"? Or is "materially indistinguishable" intended to carry some other shade of meaning? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont think that they were any interior motives to Scientologist's reacent edit. Materially might mean that the the metaphysical wouldnt not be ruled out. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not considered the metaphysical realm. (I didn't mean to imply any particular motives, either interior, exterior, ulterior, or occult.) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV -lead.

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10]

@User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat Look at the references which "support" the above statement.

Besides the "one man" paper the rest state that they have no data to evaluate homeopathy.

There are other views about studies on homeopathy which are not included in the lead. (mainstream)

[27] --70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what or -something like that- someone could use

"Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy." Comments?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly encyclopedic. In fact, awful.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that this is a quote from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97) already cited in the article which is supposed to support the above sentence. Filll?--Area69 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, way I look at it, saying there's no data for any of homeopathy's claimed effects is the same thing as saying it's unsupported (no data to support it, you see?). It's impossible to have a study rule out an effect; you'd just expect many to not find an effect. When this happens, you can safely say it's unsupported. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article were not such a battleground, we could have a section describing all the ideas that have been advanced to explain why homeopathy might work and counterarguments describing why all these suggestions are pure nonsense. However, the atmosphere here is too nasty to attempt anything like that. But the only way I would suggest anything like our anon friend has written to go into the article is if it is balanced by mainstream rebuttals. So in the net, it will make homeopathy look much worse. So lets not even go there.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments re subsection "Ethical and safety issues"

Two substantive issues, plus suggested minor wording changes.

• Minor wording change - "As homeopathic remedies usually contain often only water and/or alcohol, they are thought to be generally safe." The word "usually" makes "often" redundant. (I've made this edit - Wanderer57)

• "Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. In one such case, an unusually undiluted (1:100 or "2X") solution of zinc gluconate, marketed as Zicam Nasal Spray, allegedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell."

It seems to me there are credibility and relevance issues with this report.

1. The Washington Post side story "The Men Behind Zicam" gives information about their backgrounds. There is no indication that either is trained in homeopathy.
2. Was the Zicam stuff truly a homeopathic remedy? It was not ingested. It was sprayed into the nostrils. Quoting the court transcript: "The nasal pump utilized by Defendant Matrixx in delivering the Zicam nasal spray to the user's nose is capable of propelling the Zicam approximately ten feet." (Emphasis added)

• Minor wording change - "Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that it is claimed could <BE or HAVE BEEN> diagnosed or cured with conventional medicine." (I've made this edit - ) Wanderer57 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Zicam was legaly a homeopathic remedy. No evidence to suggest it was not prepared according to homeopathic principles.Geni 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Some homeopaths suggest that vaccines be replaced with homeopathically diluted "nosodes", ........modern homeopaths often use them and there is no evidence to...." et cetera.

There is no indication that the first reference is available on-line. The second apparently is, for a fee of $30 which is outside my research budget. So I can't check if either reference supports the "homeopaths often use" statement. Further, even if they do support it, they are over 15 years old (both 1992) and suspiciously dated as confirmation of what modern homeopathists do.

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wanderer57, I found this link Addhoc (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be distinguished that these kinds of products are not remedies used or recommended by homeopaths, but marketed directly to the general public by the companies that produce their "patent" medicines. —Whig (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The amount of misinformation in this article is significant, and sadly, even many people who seem to advocate for homeopathy don't seem to notice. First, a vast amount of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies today have material doses of the medicinal substance in them. By definition, only those medicines that are 24X or 12C and higher are in the sub-molecular range. Because of the significant body of research on [hormesis] (I'm talking about thousands of studies!), there IS a lot of evidence for low-dose effects on a wide variety of biological systems. IF (!) we wish to say that homeopathic medicines usually do not contain any molecules of the original substance, we have to differentiate the LARGE number of OTC homeopathics for which this statement is not accurate. DanaUllman^Talk 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dana. Could you show us the math that indicates "only those medicines that are 24X or 12C and higher are in the sub-molecular range"? That's something that has always puzzled me. Thanks Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI. There is a discussion of this at User:Filll/homeopathyscales#Avogadro's number calculations and in the section immediately after. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a 1e chart on dilutions. I moved it to here.[28] [User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The dilution ratios aren't meaningful unless we know the amount of substance that the preparation begins with and the size of the ultimate dose. Does the preparation always begin with a gram-mole of the original substance before the first dilution? And how much is a typical does -- a glassful, a teaspoon...? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I part of the remedy is mixed with 9 parts dilutent. However I think I see the point you are making. You would have to mix 1 mole of the substance with 9 moles of dilutant in order to get 24, 1 to 9 dilutions to get one or no molecules. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. If the starting ratio is different (say, a couple grams of the remedy in a liter of water) then that effectively counts as another dilution or two. The size of the dose also is relevant. A gram-mole of water is a little over a tablespoon. If the dose is smaller then there's proportionately less likelihood of any of the remedy being in the dose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The simplistic explanations never address the issue of molarity. Since chemist (assume) are involved in these homeopathic labs I would expect that moles are used. I will search for a more formal explanation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just not important. Whether you start with concentrated stuff or not, and whether you end up looking at a milligram or a kilogram, the answer just varies by a few points on the C scale (or several points on the X scale). By the time you get to 30C, or even 20C, there's just nothing left no matter how you do the math. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's more personal curiosity than anything. Though I do think it's relevant to know the dilution at which a typical dose of a typical preparation is unlikely to contain any of the original substance. It has to be less (numerically) than 12C, perhaps around 10C. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of potency in homeopathy is decided by therapeutic indications NOT by the molecular dogmas of chemistry. Your 'question' is thus totally irrelevant to this subject. Peter morrell 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Potencies of dilutions on chemistry are based on experimental facts, not on dogmas. And, for a discussion of how many molecules of the original substance remain on the homeopathic medicine, they are very relevant --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the above statement about the "dangers" of seeking homeopathic care, it may be appropriate to acknowledge this risk AS WELL AS the risk of not seeking safer alternative to conventional medications for which there are significant different risks. I suggest that we do not go into this quagmire and that we delete that sentence. DanaUllman^Talk 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The risk levels of real medicine are not relivant to this article.Geni 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Peter morrell 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately under the current environment, it is probably too dangerous to explain.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Communications

As well as the frequently discussed problems, I think there is a specific communication problem in Talk:Homeopathy. It would not be appropriate to insert my views here, but I will mention here that I have created a page on the issue HERE.

Feedback on that page would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Random idea

Why don't we remove the references section to the top of the page? That should save us the headache of having to constantly move it down (or it keeping us from using the + tab to add sections). We'll just have to be careful not to archive it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i tried that it really screwd up the whole article i almost had to recommend the article for deleting and trying to recreate the article from memory. i guess we just have to live iwth it on the bottom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

I tried putting it above but it did not include the four cites that are on the page. Try putting a test reference right at the bottom of the page, you'll see it does not show up in the reference list. It appears that only references above the {{reflist}} template get included. If you know anyway around that problem, then I agree, put it at the top. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

nah waxt eof time. i already tried to put it on the top 6 ytimes and each occasion the talk page was completely annihilated. if i try ot put it on the top again i might not beable to fix it and the only thing we will have to do is rereate this whole talk page + archives from memory, which sounds extremelyl yidfficult. !!!~ Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was only annihilated because you missed out a "|}" to close the hide/show box. Note, putting it above does not annihilate the page. The problem is the references only get listed if they are above the {{reflist}} template. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

sure pin the whole mess on me. i tried to fix it and i was able to see where i went wrong., thanks a lot. Smith Jones (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we just move this page to "criticism of science" or something

Let's take the pro-fork POV to its logical extreme and delete all pages on homeopathy, chiropractic, ear candling, vaccines causing autism, herbalism, Dr. Phil, faith healing, Ayurvedic medicine, and other quack medical practices off of Wikipedia. We'll just have one page labeled "criticism of legitimate medical practice" or "criticism of science" or "criticism of Enlightenment culture," or perhaps "criticism of allowing people with disease to continue living," that can briefly summarize all of these things in strict accordance with some ridiculous bean-counting of their number of followers. Does that sound fair? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Such pages already more or less exist. Making an umbrella doesn't mean the subarticles cease to be. There is a Complementary and alternative medicine which references complementary medicine and alternative medicine, and along the way mentions integrative medicine and various other subarticles on herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and nutritional stuff like naturopathy. What's the problem? SBHarris 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing you are you missing is this violates WP principles and guidelines.--Filll (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the articles Sbharris listed violate WP principles or what Randy Blackamoor unseriously proposed? —Whig (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you only ask off-topic questions? Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is topical, as I am trying to understand what Filll was saying violates WP principles. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with German and French versions

Since supposedly homeopathy is so much more popular in France and Germany, and in particular German Wikipedia is much more strict and follows the Wikipedia rules much more closely than other Wikipedias, what do their homeopathy articles look like? I did some reading today. And guess what? They look pretty much like ours. I would be glad to translate their LEADs for anyone who wanted to compare. But both of them describe homeopathy as highly controversial. The German version calls it pseudoscience and "fantasy medicine". Both state that dilutions are carried on past the point of detection, etc. And these articles are in languages from countries that supposedly celebrate homeopathy and where it is a mainstream treatment, etc! It would be interesting to translate the Hindi version of homeopathy as well.

By the way, the references are quite light in the French and German versions compared to the English version; we have much better documentation.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My German is not very good, but from the number of talk archive pages at de:Diskussion:Homöopathie I'd say the editors of the German version are fighting just as much as the editors of this article; it looks like there are claims of NPOV problems over there. The French version is much more peaceful, and the lead of the French article is only 1 sentence long! --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the discussion is not near as nasty at the German version as at ours, and there are not near as many posts. They are voting on assorted things I notice, but it is not as contentious as this. The French LEAD is quite short; but the French article also has an introductory section which is where they really start to describe homeopathy. I will provide translations if anyone is interested.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just translated the Dutch version as well. Same thing; all three: Dutch, German and French are just like our version pretty much.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you working off an automated translation for these, or your own knowledge? I'm just thinking that I read French reasonably well, so I might be able to get a better picture of that article than just from Google translations or whatever. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I speak a little French and I know a tiny amount of German. I used some automated tools to help. If you want to help, I will give you some links to look at. --Filll (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the French article, I have to say that it comes down pretty hard on homeopathy, even early on. The first couple sections of the article are rough summaries (and more detailed versions of them exist further on). The first of these is a simple description of what homeopathy is and its basic tenets. The second goes into how well it works, and it comes out pretty clearly in saying that it doesn't. There's only a brief mention there that homeopaths still believe it works from anecdotal experience. No studies are mentioned as supporting that homeopathy works. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The German version calls it pseudoscience and "fantasy medicine". Don't know where you got that. The last sentence of the lead is "Aus diesen und weiteren Gründen wird die Homöopathie häufig als Paramedizin oder Pseudowissenschaft bezeichnet." For these reasons and more homeopathy is often called paramedicine or pseudoscience. In light of the discussions we have had here, the distinction between "Homeopathy is pseudoscience" and "Homeopathy is often called pseudoscience" is significant. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...whether it works or not, it's pseudoscience, isn't it? It's a child's caricature of science, which includes fantasies like "water memory". What else would you call a field based on imaginary principles? Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A multilingual friend has now looked at the homeopathy articles in Catalan, Occitan, Portuguese, Spanish, Galician, Italian, and Romanian as well, and assures me that in all those languages as well, homeopathy is described as unsupported by the evidence. So anyone who wants to change Wikipedia articles on homeopathy has their work cut out for them. That is 11 Wikipedia homeopathy articles by my count, in 11 different languages, that all include a substantial amount of critical material in their articles. Does not look good for the pro-homeopathy cabal...--Filll (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish critique

One way out of this fork idea would be to specify in the article where the critique is found. Example below of the current lead. In other words distinguish between the two 'voices' in the article? what do you think?

Lead

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine first defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the 18th century.[1] Homeopathic practitioners contend that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness. According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.[2][3][4] Practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state[5] of the patient, both of which are considered important to selecting the remedy.[6]

Critique

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge".[11][12][13] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[14] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[15][16][17][18] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".[19]

Usage

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[20][21] to 15 percent in India, where homeopathy is now considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[22] Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions;[23][24] however, homeopaths have been criticised for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[25] anti-malarial drugs[26] and antibiotics.[27] In many countries, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies.[28]

this could be done right through the entire article wherever crit appears not just in the lead. Advantage? any person reading it can then identify the crit clearly and read what they want. any comments? thanks Peter morrell 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the cleanest and most efficient way to organize the criticism of homeopathy is to put it in a criticism section, and not have it strewn throughout the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is counter to WP policy. And in any case, you are going to get a chunk of it in the LEAD anyway.--Filll (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Criticism-section for an explanation of how segregation into a criticism section is a bad idea. As Peter notes, the article at present does include much of the "criticism" in identifiable paragraphs, but the important thing is to relate all views to the particular aspect that they discuss, and not separate different views away so that one view appears to be unchallenged when it is in contention. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed fork Criticism of homeopathy

Per discussion occurring at WT:NPOV it is proposed that an article fork named Criticism of homeopathy be created. This article then can be a neutral presentation of homeopathy with a summary of and a link to the criticism. The criticism article should likewise summarize this one and link back. —Whig (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and double no. The scientific legitimacy of a subject is of paramount importance and should never be shuffled off into a fork. Jefffire (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary should prominently make clear the issues, but the fuller and detailed arguments can be described at length in the fork, both for and against. —Whig (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. This looks exactly like a PoV fork. Jefffire (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems an excellent way forward. The Tutor (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No this would constitute a POV fork, have a look at Wikipedia:Criticism for how criticism should be incorporated into the article. Addhoc (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out maybe a few dozen times. This is what Wikinfo does, not Wikipedia. At Wikipedia we have something called WP:NPOV. Ever hear of it? You might want to learn about it.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea in most cases. If the criticism is so large that overwhelms the article, what can be considered is a WP:SUMMARY, that is different than a POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

iagree with the dissnters. whenever we create an article like this, we end up with a overhwelmingly pro-homeopathy main article and an overwehelmingly anti-homeopathy criticism article, which would essentially have hte same problems as this article plus the fact that its an illegal content fork. Smith Jones (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to make a new fork of a pro-homeopathy article and then rename the present one anti-homeopathy! ;-) maybe I am kidding who knows? Peter morrell 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in a couple article disputes before when the idea was raised to create a separate article for criticism. In some cases it has worked, and other it has not. I don't believe it would work well with Homeopathy. Homeopathy, as a fringe belief, has ideas that cannot be presented adequately without including inline criticizing text. I would also caution any supporter of this idea who thinks it would give them room to present homeopathy without criticism. Any statement of how homeopathy works would still be roundly surrounded by the science. The history of how homeopathy developed would have to be put in context of pre-atomic physics which has since then thoroughly discarded those ideas, etc, etc. Criticism articles can work when the criticism is the minority or fringe position - and when the controversy is notable in and of itself. In this case, that would be backwards. Homeopathy is the fringe topic. It can't be presented without the criticism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

apart from the bald assertions that homeopathy is "fringe", i aree with everything schmucky the cat just said. criticizng text is key to the article and divesting it here and placing it over elsewehraea like in another article would be a disservice to readers. the science must remain in order to have a fair and adequate portrayal of homeopathy, its tenets, and criticisms thereof. if we split it off we could end up wiht an abomination like "criticisms of sylvia browne where the criticism is more or less forked off from the main article due to lenght alone. Smith Jones (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brown article had problems with BLP: we are talking about a practice, not a person. Homeopathy won't get its feelings hurt, or sue. If you would please READ WP:FORK you will see that forks per se are only discouraged, and NOT "illegal" and even what's discouraged is trying to do to it to hide a controversy, instead of to flesh it out and enlighten it when it's unavoidable, since the very topic is a POV. Please see Criticism of Mormonism and Anti-Mormonism for examples. Then, very carefully read this, from WP:Fork:

Articles whose subject is a POV: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

.

Now, what is it that you don't understand about this? Do you infer from it that there something wrong and illegal about doing what the guide suggests doing? SBHarris 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Several editors from both sides have indicated they don't consider this idea to be worth pursuing. In my honest opinion, this proposal hasn't much chance of being accepted. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, that's too bad. If we have Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism articles and a Scientific investigation of chiropractic article, we can certainly have a Criticism of homeopathy article, and meantime let the homeopaths have relatively free rein to present their own beliefs in the Homeopathy article (not too much hype), along with a short summary of the criticism or negative scientific findings, and link to the criticism/science article as a "main" article for the criticism. That's the way Wikipedia works. Example: we have a pedophilia article which is pretty neutral, but it contains equal lengh small summary subsections on Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism, and each references the appropriate longer sub-article, of the same name. Get it?

I might add that if you really want to do this symmetrically, you can have a Homeopathy article which presents mostly history and principles, as taught. Then a Scientific investigation of homeopathy article (to mirror the chiropractic one), with main subarticles to Scientific results favoring homeopathy and another on Negative scientific results unfavorable to homeopathy. Summarize and link all the way. Eventually you'll get to a place where everybody can write down all their reference-able stuff, without too much hassle from anybody else. Okay? SBHarris 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the "NPOV" treatment of child molestors on Wikipedia is one of its biggest disgraces and one of the things most commonly used to point out why Wikipedia is a joke, I would not use articles on that topic as the model for how things should be done in the future.

There is an endless amount of factual information about Catholicism to present, aside from criticism of the Catholic Church. That may be a good example of a split. But chiropractors, like homeopaths, have no business presenting their beliefs as true or trying to fill up a lengthy article with a topic devoid of substance. Any article that is written from a verifiable, true, neutral perspective that is inline with FRINGE, WEIGHT, and other stated policies, about chiropractors, or about homeopaths, will contain mostly criticism, since that is what the reliable sources have to offer about those topics, and that is why they are significant. Homeopathy is significant as a consumer fraud and as a leading form of pseudoscience, because millions of people are hoodwinked into participating in it each year. It is not significant as "medicine" or as a "field" because it is no such thing, and any information presenting it as such is de facto unreliable. Thus, the article should largely be about homeopathy as a social phenomenon, explaining why people believe in bunkum and what the legal status of medical fraud is. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Apologies for the length of this. As for medical "fraud," chiropractors and acupuncturists and homeopaths have just as much business presenting their ideas as "true" as your local religion does, when it sells you a ticket to Heaven of some kind, in exchange for your "support" (which generally means your money). Medical fraud is simply a subset of all consumer fraud, and we don't even apply "consumer fraud" to religion or philosophical beliefs. Why? For pragmatic reasons. Trying to do so resulted historically in things like the Hundred Years War, not because the principles weren't the same! The FTC and FDA don't look at religions, not because money doesn't change hands (it does-- see the Scientology wars with the IRS), but because we've just decided not to go there, because they can't win. I don't think you can mount a strictly logical (vs merely pragmatic) argument for why we shouldn't, though, if you really think the state should be involved with questions that science can't fully answer, where people pay money for services that can just as well be classified as "entertainment," such as fortune-telling and astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis. ;)

I'm on the review board for SKEPTIC magazine, and have written for the Skeptical Inquirer. How about you? As for Wikipedia, it's not Skeptipedia. Skeptipedia actually exists-- perhaps you were looking for it, and found yourself here by mistake? If you'll look at my own Wiki USER and TALK pages you'll see you're preaching to the converted about homeopathy-- I also think it's nonsense, on par with Feng shui and intercessory prayer. I'm about as thoroughgoing a materialist and rationalist as you're likely to find, but that does not mean that I think the best way to promote rational skepticism in the world is by suppressing presentation of information on nonskeptical beliefs. I'm a libertarian. I don't want the state (see the FDA) deciding what's "fraud"-- partly because these people are nearly as big fools as the quacks.

Anyway, most people in the US, indeed the world, have what I'll call "proto-religious" beliefs-- the idea that they can influence future events by means other than scientific. Never mind prayer-- consider "lucky" actions, and even watch people gyrate after rolling a bowling ball, as though their body movements had any influence over what was going to happen after the release was completed.

Our mission on Wikipedia is not to stamp all that out. We couldn't if we tried. Our mission is to write an encyclopedia documenting the human condition and human thinking. Where science is appropriate as a method, we should give the conclusions science has available, and if science is still arguing about something, we need to give both sides.

Where the question hasn't even been admitted to be resolvable with scientific methods (ethics, religious assertions not testable by science, and also assertions with built-in "science experiment filters"), we should leave for philosophical or ethical or religious debate, the various modes these have already established. It's no good stating that any information which leads against our a priori beliefs is "defacto" unreliable-- that simply defines the evidence we're willing to listen to in terms of what we think already (No true Scotsman has been quoted). I don't like that sort of thinking.

In any case, even if we were to agree to scientific "Queensbury rules" at the out-set, Catholicism and traditional Chinese medicine and (to some large extent) psychoanalysis and homeopathy are not even natural scientific pursuits, as you and I understand the term natural science (I'm not sure all homeopaths will ADMIT to this, but it becomes quite clear to me in arguing with them, since they are such masters of ad hoc-ery as never to be subject to the rules of science). Thus, it's no more fair to make an article on homeopathy hew to rules of scientific proof than it is an article about the utility of Catholic indulgences, rosary work or devotional medals of Saint Christopher do so. Religion survives on ad hoc-ery and mystery! That doesn't mean all such articles must contain reference after reference, stating that, according to the scientific method, they're all crap.

Major religions do have entire critical articles. Articles like those on Feng Shui and New age thinking in general have nice locular criticism sections, but they're small and not pervasive. If some are not spun off into subarticles, that is only because the criticism isn't very complete, or else reference to scientific skepticism as a subarticle serves for all. Much criticism of New Age thinking comes from older orthodox religion, in fact, and nobody has written the full Wikis on the Jeremiads of the evangelicals against the hippies. Nor do I want to read them! But I'm not against including them when they come along, so long as sourced, referenced, and summarized. Religion vs. religion is always entertaining (are you a believer?). I merely suggest that it's not the job of Wikipedia to be SKEPTIC magazine. That's SKEPTIC magazine's job.

So be inclusionist, and lighten up a bit. I'm sure you believe many things that you couldn't prove with the scientific method. Is it better, for example, to do the kind vs. the expedient/profitable thing, even if you have no chance of getting caught or noticed, either way? Yes, you say? Well, ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  I say. Prove it. SBHarris 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"meantime let the homeopaths have relatively free rein to present their own beliefs"

That is exactly what forking the content out does NOT mean. Even if this was a good idea, that isn't the way it is done. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

While we're at it, let's make the "creationism" article say that God created the world 6000 years ago, the "slavery" article say that slavery was good for black Americans, the "Jews" article be nothing but conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the media, and the "9/11 attacks" article be nothing but an allegation that George Bush (and the same Jews) took down the towers. Then, we'll put all the actual information about those things in separate articles called "scientific view of creationism," "criticism of slavery," "responses to Jewish conspiracy theories," and "historical perspective on 9/11 attacks," which will be shorter than the articles about fringe theories, harder to find, present themselves as less legitimate since they are sub-article forks, and used as bludgeons to keep rational, objective information off of the main pages for those topics. That's the kind of Wikipedia that the homeopathy people appear to want. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Randy. Addhoc (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's good to see a rational point of view expressed again. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked we Jews do own the media.  :) Randy, excellent rant!!! I'm quoting it in the future, unless it's copyrighted somewhere.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

yea i have to agree with Randy's argument here. my main criticism of this idea is that it creates an artificial pressentation of homeopathic science by forking off science-based criticism to a subarticle that people might not initally see. The way its done now is a lot better, and unless someone can come up with a really good reason why hoemoapthy shoul dbe forked off into 4 or 5 subarticles with titles like [[Scientific results favoring homeopathy]] and negative scientific results disfavoring homeoapthy then it should not be done. Smith Jones (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the proposal, however. Simply creating Criticism of homeopathy does not fork POV in multiple directions, it allows all criticism to be included in an appropriate place which does not prevent the reader from learning about the subject itself in the main article, with appropriate summaries and links to ensure that nobody is confused, and the criticisms then set forth at as much length as needed. —Whig (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would also lead to legitimate criticisms of homoeopathy being excluded from the main article, which would then not be NPOV. Brunton (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't correct. The main article would necessarily contain a summary of the criticism and a link to the article where it can be set forth at as much length as needed. —Whig (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should not prefix "Criticism" with some label like "Scientific criticism" because organizations which identify themselves as scientific are not necessarily to be regarded by everyone as such. We should try to be conservative about creating more articles, going from one to five at a single time would be a bad idea. If someone wants to suggest an amendment to the proposal that the second article should have a different name or that we really do need a third article for some reason, then that would be a constructive discussion to have. —Whig (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

btut you see we have already gone through hudnreds of paragraphs of discussion of this idea and i and a lot of other people on this raticle talk page see no construcitve erason to multilate the article to such an extent that content is being forked around in random directions. for example, the article on scientific criticism can and hsould be easily incorporated into the article. Smith Jones (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that Homeopathy has been a battleground. Yes, and we're trying to fix that, to create a more peaceful editing environment for not only skeptics and proponents but for the whole of Wikipedia. Just because some people think that homeopathy is wrong does not mean it isn't notable. The criticism of homeopathy is also very important and notable and deserves an article and ought not to be hidden away but prominently summarized and linked here. —Whig (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has said two revealing things, both of which dictate that the fork should not be created- "This article then can be a neutral presentation of homeopathy". It is not neutral if it only contains material that is predicated on this nonsensical therapy being valid. " it allows all criticism to be included in an appropriate place which does not prevent the reader from learning about the subject itself in the main article" again with the implicit assumption that the therapy has validity and that learning about it need not require learning the counter-arguments. You may say, and I have made this point to Whig previously, that the Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was required to keep the Sun rising and be perfectly NPOV. You may not say, The Sun requires regular human sacrifice to keep rising as was discovered by the Aztecs and having established that 'fact' then head off into a description of which were found to be the best sacrificial knives. Homeopathy as a whole is nonsense, but it is also fatally internally fractured. Next, supposing that Whig does not believe that homeopathic 'nosodes' are valid homeopathy we'll have to fork off to another article about nosodes away from the homeopathy article to avoid the inconvenience of addressing the contradictions they pose in the 'true homeopathy' article. What about 'constitutional therapies'? Same applies. On the other hand, if you can cope with including those contradictory approaches to homeopathy in one article then you should cope with mentioning the ways in which homeopathy contradicts everything we know about medicine, biology chemistry and physics. It is a pity for the homeopaths that they cannot deal with the vast counterweight that any reasonable balancing material presents, but that is their problem. It is perfectly NPOV to say that homeopathy doesn't work. It doesn't. Fundamentally, the NPOV view is that homeopathy doesn't work. Just like the NPOV view is that the Earth rotates around the Sun not vice versa. It really is not controversial. The problem is that some people insist for various reasons that homeopathy is dealt with as if it still has a chance of being valid, will not contemplate the alternative and think that everyone is 'out to get them'. Being in the wrong may lead to paranoia but it doesn't lead to not being in the wrong and no matter how you tilt the pitch homeopathy is just plain wrong and silly to boot. Whig will point out that Wikipedia does not concern itself with what is True. However, when something happens to be False it is funny how the evidence just stacks up against it when any attempt is made to balance these things dispassionately. It could even be that its advocates would learn from this that they have placed their faith in a fiction. As I have already said, I have no problem presenting material about homeopathy any more than I have a problem presenting material about how the Aztecs thought the Sun required sacrifice to keep rising. They are interesting and valid topics for people to enquire about. The problem arises when the believers in such false ideas insist that their material is presented as if it was true and try to suppress the counter-evidence. OffTheFence (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence does not agree with our policies of NPOV, NOR and V. It would not be constructive to debate over the question of whether his POV is more "true" than someone else's. There is no intention of possibility of suppressing "the counter-evidence" by creating an article for the purpose of setting forward criticism at as much length as needed, keeping a prominent summary here. —Whig (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's that royal plural personal pronoun creeping in again. I have patiently explained to you and illustrated where Wikipedia's rules fail badly when it comes to sifting scientific research in a field dominated by poor quality research published in poor quality journals where the "peers" doing the reviewing are tendentious and/or weak. I have shown you why and how that research is of poor quality, which is particularly ironic given that the papers we have discussed were being presented as being of the highest standards. You have been unable to rebut that criticism, but have fallen back on various attempts to use Wikipedia's rules to engineer objectively bad information into its Articles. Having said that, I have become somewhat encouraged by the support given by other editors for applying constraints such as WP:WEIGHT. But where pro-homeopathy editors continually try to exploit these weaknesses the task of trying to create balance is tiresomely sisyphean. The saddest thing is that the obvious lesson to draw from the need to fall back on these tactics to protect homeopathy is that homeopathy does not deserve this protection. The problem only arises because its supportive evidence is of the weakest and most biased kind, based almost entirely, need I really remind you, on user testimonials such as the ones you have cited on your own behalf. OffTheFence (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate changing or ignoring Wikipedia's core policies. —Whig (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says? If the core policies lead to a stupid decision being made here then it is time to discuss them. However, it looks at the moment like the core policies are going to lead to your daft proposal being rejected. I should also point out that, as I have said previously, on reflection, I can see no need to reject those core policies as a whole, but they do need to be applied sensibly rather than in a partisan and tendentious manner by exploiting their susceptibility to excessively narrow interpretations that are to the detriment of achieving good encyclopaedia Articles. I also note, that yet again you have no answer to my specific criticisms. OffTheFence (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose when to apply the core policies of NPOV, NOR and V. They apply at all times to all articles no matter what you may think. —Whig (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not constructive, Filll. If you have a specific thing that you wish to disagree with, then make your point more clearly. —Whig (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this idea, since it would be a POV fork. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion was made to create a fork by User:Sbharris on the WT:NPOV thread which I strongly encourage you to read. It is not a POV fork if we do it properly. In particular, when I said that similar proposals had been called POV forks in the past, he replied: "Yes, but that was wrong. If you read WP:FORK carefully, you'll see it does NOT forbid forking in this way, so long as no information is lost, and summaries of each fork article are left in the other. Sometimes this is the only way out which pleases everybody. Politically, it's good. SBHarris 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)" —Whig (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia:Content forking policy states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why Criticism of homeopathy should contain all criticism and rebuttals with reliable sources, not just those of one POV. This article should also make proper reference to the criticism. —Whig (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is precious. You want us to take all criticism off of the "homeopathy" page, but then you want "criticism of homeopathy" to contain "rebuttals" to the criticism! It looks like all you want to do is have TWO pages full of farcical pro-homeopathy nonsense! I for one am shocked that a homeopathy proponent would manipulate the Wikipedia process, scheme towards a long-term goal, and hide his true motives, on this talk page. Shocked! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a misrepresentation. Per the WP:Content forking editing guideline, There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A blatant POV fork like that won't work and will fail to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. The article is of a size where splitting sections in careful accordance with WP:SUMMARY is in order, based on existing sections. #Prevalence and legal trends is one section which could reasonably be summarised and split off as a sub article. Further options can be considered. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "blatant POV fork." "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." I have no such intention, nor did Sbharris in proposing a fork be created. —Whig (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks that way. Criticism of a subject is a point of view, and you're openly pushing the idea of shifting full coverage of "the scientific point of view" elsewhere, while keeping promotion of homeopathy, or perhaps "the pseudoscientific point of view", in the main article. As Tim says, that's completely against the core values of NPOV. .. dave souza, talk 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's been lurking here for a little while, I'll go on record as opposing spitting. Regardless of how carefully we try to do it, the split articles will inevitably devolve into POV forks. Yilloslime (t) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is being pushed by one or two editors who have shown their POV very clearly. Can we move on, since there is a greater chance of finding one molecule in a homeopathy solution than creating a POV fork. If it's created, the list of individuals who will speedy delete is so long, that we'd have a bet on who would be first. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare something like this with a religion article - while all our religion articles have serious POV problems, they are presented as religions, not as facts. And even there, it isn't acceptable to segregate criticism off into daughter articles. Homeopathy is an obvious fantasy, based on imaginary concepts. We aren't going to segregate into an article called "Criticisms of Harry Potter" the claims that Harry Potter isn't real. We admit it up front: "Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels..." We owe it to our readers to do the same here. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that low potency homeopathy is equally fantastic? —Whig (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all make-believe - does it matter whether some make-believe is harder to believe than other? I don't think that distinction matters past the age of 9 or 10, not that I am an expert in child development or anything. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So a 1x potency is make-believe? —Whig (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not homeopathy and would probably be poisonousAcleron (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So Calms Forté, a commonly available over the counter sleep aid which is labeled as Homeopathic, and contains a number of 1x remedies, is either poisonous or not homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And today's fallacy is the False Dichotomy- " is either poisonous or not homeopathy?" It can be both. Homeopathy is nonsense at all potencies. At low potencies it can be nonsense and poisonous. At high potencies it is just nonsense. There is no evidence that the "Law of Similars" as any kind of generalisable natural law, so however homeopathy is used the "homeo" part always means it is nonsense. Cherry-picking a few items from normal medicine's cabinet, like vaccines, and saying this somehow proves that the Law of Similars is valid is a commonly deployed trick and deeply dishonest. For the Law of Similars to be true you need to prove that the arsenic at any dilution is capable of curing symptoms, whatever their cause, that appropriately resemble those caused by arsenic intoxication and to repeat that exercise for any number of other examples. A single counter-example is sufficient to disprove the "Law". This "Law" is asserted as true, but it has no valid evidential base at all. OffTheFence (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a religious argument here. We aren't talking about arsenic, but Calms Forté is a homeopathic medicine that is sitting right here in front of me which I bought at the Walgreen's per my doctor's advice, it is neither poisonous nor nonsense. It contains several 1x, 2x and 3x potencies of various remedies none of which is toxic at the minimal doses given. —Whig (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "religious argument". It seems to be your code phrase for logically valid arguments to which you have no effective response and would like to ignore. Be that as it may and this is getting a bit off the point, but since you bring it up- If it works and it has active ingredients at pharmaceutically meaningful concentrations then it is potentially toxic.[29] [30]. Heck, the effects are probably trivial at the doses in that product, but that doesn't alter the basic point. You'll have to decide for yourself whether an over-the-counter, mixed-ingredient, low-potency remedy supplied without the taking of a full homeopathic history has anything to do with homeopathy or whether it is just a herbal remedy dressed up as homeopathy to exploit a marketing niche. Your advocacy of this product is to be noted if ever you try to assert that non-individualised trials of homeopathy (that overwhelmingly show negative results) should be discounted as not being 'proper' homeopathy. OffTheFence (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't advocated any product. I said my doctor recommended it, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to non-individualized treatment. And furthermore, this debate is not going anywhere, and certainly does not belong here. —Whig (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's over-the-counter, it would not be regarded as homoeopathic by many proponents of homoeopathy because it lacks the individualisation which is claimed to be an essential part of homoeopathy. As to whether a 1X potency is make-believe, even at that potency homoeopathy still relies on "like cures like", a piece of make-believe based on two hundred year old medical thinking, which has no real supporting evidence. Brunton (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Whig, I clearly misconstrued you. When you mentioned a product that you had bought for yourself and cited it in context to defend against a criticism of the make-believe philosophy of homeopathy I made the stupid mistake of thinking that you did so on the basis of a positive opinion of the product. I was clearly mistaken. I was clearly also mistaken in thinking that you regard individualised prescription as being an important part of homeopathic therapy. Clearly if individualised treatment mattered one iota then you would not have bought an over-the-counter remedy. It would be sheer foolishness to buy such a remedy if one thought that individualisation was an important aspect of homeopathy. Thank you for clearing that up, I shall emphasise this when I hear criticism from homeopaths of studies of homeopathy that have not been individualised. You have been most helpful. Well, that's all really. The fork ain't gonna happen and we've cleared up some controversial issues. OffTheFence (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also purchased 30C and 200C remedies over the counter. Individualization occurs when a doctor recommends a specific remedy for a specific patient for their specific symptoms. You are making false assertions to arrive at false conclusions. The fork isn't likely to happen, at least at the present time. I agree with you on that. —Whig (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The original meaning of the word "homeopathy" was anything that used the "method of similars". Therefore, many standard medical practices like prescribing ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and other treatments are really "homeopathy" by the original definition given by Hahnemann.

Proposed fork Criticism of homeopathy - break

However, in current usage, the word "homeopathy" has come to be associated with tiny doses, and in particular submolecular doses. Regular medicine gives things in tiny doses, and 1X is not tiny; neither is 2X or 3X, and all are concentrations you might find in regular medicine, but regular medicine does not administer submolecular doses (higher "potentency" than 24X). So, the one big distinction between regular medicine and homeopathic medicine is the use of submolecular doses.--Filll (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fairly stated, Filll. But not all homeopaths use submolecular doses, and since homeopathy is used without calling it homeopathy whenever "stimulants" are given for ADHD, etc., we should make the criticism more specific. —Whig (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So if you are frantic to create a fork, and you claim there is not enough material on "evidence for homeopathy", why not leave the current article as it is, and we will create a fork Evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. And you can describe at length all the positive studies that find evidence for homeopathy. And of course, for NPOV, we will have to also quote all the contrary evidence as well. How about that for a fork?--Filll (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Evidence pro and con should be included. The controversy of H research could be detailed in such a Fork. H article can contain a summary of that page. Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01. Such an article should include sourced criticism of that evidence. It would be a good fork to create. —Whig (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The current page is a summary and stays as it is.--Filll (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dad! ;-) --Anthon01 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the proponents of a fork serious? Well try some of Doc Carter's 100x Explumbinated Tonic -- why it is gar-un-teed to undo all the effects of ingesting paint chips. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The criticism which is contained mostly in the Medical and scientific analysis and Research on effects in other biological systems sections, IMO, violates the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV which states, Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. This H page is a minority view's page specifically devoted to H. There is not provision in WP:NPOV that requires a particular percentage split of non-critical vs. critical information. The points made in the criticism are valid as per V & RS, however, the level of detail in the criticism sections is excessive and can be summarized and take up considerable less space on the page. IMO, appropriate reference doesn't mean great detail, but referencing key points that convey the overall SPOV on H.

Separate from what I raise here, a separate article on "Homeopathy research" could easily go into even greater detail comparing pro, neutral and anti-H views, could be cooperatively written and much more informative in regards to the SPOV. Key point:I think this would end the constant fighting at this page. If a summary style article is the best, then let's do it that way. Anthon01 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See response at #Brief comments by involved editors below, to what appears to be a repeat by Anthon01 of the same post that s/he added above. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)