Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

Another approach to the pseudoscience category issue

The following post was made at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal:

A principled scientist should learn how to explain science. It would be just as wrong to withdraw from editing WP as to withdraw from teaching science courses to nonscientists. There is no need to "label" pseudoscience, just to explain it. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to give an object description of even the most absurd theory. an objective description will make it plain to everyone but the convinced anti-science POV. There is no need to resort to labels to explain things to a unprejudiced reader. (and no hope at all that a label convince the prejudiced to look at things more scientifically). Homeopathy (for example), explained in any straightforward way, is obvious nonsense, and I do not see what is gained by trying to say it is pseudoscience--it will only give the impression that the scientist is the bigot. Those who resort to opprobrium always give an impression that it is they who are prejudiced. The thing to do with the ignorant is to teach them, and those who want to defend science have the obligation to learn how to do it patiently. DGG (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above, we also know the following statements of fact:

• There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
• In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
• Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
• The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
• Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
• Most homeopathic organisations, despite claims of science, also talk about 'healing energies', 'disharmony' and other, less-scientific and more spiritual concepts (NB: discovered to be more correctly 'some' than 'most'. This point may be disputed/ignored)
• Homeopathy does work as a placebo and this is a good thing
• Homeopathy exists as a CAM, has a strong and interesting history, and has a place in modern culture
• Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths

For references for some of the above statements, please see Society of Homoepaths and Ben Goldcare, Lancet author, journalist and medical doctor, and the various references throughout this talk page and its archives. From the above, I suggest the following means to go forward:

1. No pseudoscience category or infobox DGG's comment included above is a sound one, and explains why these are not needed. Also, see the next point.
2. Mention in the lead of critics calling homeopathy pseudoscience We have plenty of references for this, and so a mention at least in passing is warranted.
3. Lead focuses on the history, cultural and ethical issues These are the least controversial issues and arguably the most interesting.
4. Lead should mention some of the 'spiritual' elements The 'disharmony' approach and similar are common enough to form an important part of understanding homeopathy.
5. Lead should mention but downplay the method of homoepathic preparation It is this preparation that is the direct cause of all the fuss. Various homeopaths seem to have differed on the 'strengths' advised. There is not really much to state on this topic anyway.
6. Lead should mention, following homeopathic preparation, that science cannot justify it The logical place to criticise the method of action is where the method of action is forced via the preparation process.
7. Lead should mention briefly the positive studies There has been positive studies, we should acknowledge this fact.
8. Lead should then strongly highlight the weight of evidence against any effect The weight of evidence is against any effect, this is clear.
9. Lead should clearly highlight the major ethical issues A lot of sceptics highlight the ethical problems as their major concern
10. Article should concentrate upon the history and cultural aspects of homeopathy since these are the least controversial, the least changing, and the easiest for an encyclopaedia to document
11. Article should detail clearly the 'spiritual' aspects As stated previously, it appears that 'disharmony', 'life energy' and other terms actually seem quite common. The more clearly we detail these, the less homeopathy in general appears like a science (which means the pseudoscience tag is harder to apply, and science-based sceptics will care more about the ethics than the methods).
12. (something here about preparation, method of action, efficacy and lack of evidence) This point has yet to be formed fully. Aside from the detail in preparation needed to explain the modern process of homeopathy, this should not be focused upon in detail. Similarly to the lead, positive studies must be detailed, however the vast weight of evidence against any efficacy over and above placebo must then be made explicitly clear.
13. Article should discuss the non-disputed benefits of homeopathy Believe it or not, there are some non-disputed benefits of homeopathy which even sceptics will agree with. Increased patient contact time, greater communication and strengthened placebo response are all well documented. These factors allow alternative medicine to provide excellent support for chronic conditions and diseases.
14. Article should go into detail regarding the current ethical controversies surrounding homeopathy There are homeopaths out there who advocate homeopathy alone as a defence against malaria and discourage their clients from seeing doctors and taking regular medication. Other homeopaths argue that AIDS can be treated effectively with homeopathy alone and discourage the use of highly effective anti-retroviral treatements. Less serious issues include discouraging the use of regular medication, not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints, and so on.

I am certain that some pro-science people will prefer that a harder stance is taken on the scientific claims, but for those I offer the olive branch of the increased 'belief' aspects and the downplay of homeopathy's own claims to 'science', coupled with the focus upon the ethical aspects. I am equally certain that some pro-homeopathy-is-science people will disapprove, but equally they receive less prominent criticism based off the weight of scientific evidence, and I remind them that most sources at least mention a spiritual connection if not focus upon one [1] [2] (mentions 'vital life force', but otherwise tries to be scientific in style). In reading around to support my previous paragraphs, I encountered numerous homeopathic organisations that claimed to be a 'science' and did not document beyond passing mentions any form of spiritual aspect. As such, I am not likely to support again the suggestions I am making here. If desired, the 'science' aspect may be detailed more, but this will have to be coupled with the scientific community's responses and patently obvious flaws being noted. If you do not agree to all the article and lead suggestions, please discuss this so that we may sensibly move forward. Most importantly, can we please get agreement on all the above statements of fact aside from the 'spiritual' aspects. All the rest of the statements are strongly supported by all the evidence. LinaMishima (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some who have called it a "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion.

• As for the use of the term "disharmony" - this is simply another way of saying that the physiological systems are not in a state of "homeostasis".
• Regarding the criticism of "not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints" - that implies that those utilizing homeopathy are not doctors. Medical doctors and licensed health professionals utilize homeopathy in conjuction with other modalities, including prescription drugs. (Even some of the homepathic medicines, both oral and injectable, are prescription only.) Of course, there are non-physician homeopaths, and all (that I know of) seek to work with their client's treating physician in a cooperative team effort for the greatest benefit possible.
• As for extreme positions, such as advising against vaccinations, those are maintained by only some homeopaths. Making this a major issue in this article would be inappropriate, since there are medical doctors and other health professionals - who do not use homeopathy - that hold such opinions also, and the articles on their professions do not criticize the entire profession for the actions of a few. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you will notice that I was advocating not using the pseudoscience category. It's right up there in bold, plain for everyone to see. So why you decided to act as if I was suggesting the category be used is completely beyond me.

Most homeopaths are not medical doctors. Those with the biggest practices may be, but the common existance of homeopathy courses which do not have a requirement of being a medical doctor to enter makes it clear that more people are likely to qualify without being doctors than those who are. Doctor is a term bestowed for a certain level of academic achievement, and most homeopathic courses seem to be of bachelor level at most.

The problem with what you are saying is that it is simply not documented by the evidence that homeopaths are in general playing ball and acting ethically. Within the UK, there has been investigations which have shown homeopaths to routinely not refer patients to medical doctors for matters such as malaria protection. As stated, it is these ethical matters that fuel sceptics the most.

As mentioned, the statement of fact regarding spiritual aspects may be discarded as being wrong, and you will note that within these statements, the ethics issue refers to 'certain' homeopaths (a limited, not absolute, group). Given these two points, do you agree with the statement of facts? LinaMishima (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that homeopathy is valid science is ALSO a value judgment. Instead of saying that Wikipedia should strive for a false middle ground on a black-and-white issue, we should obey the stated policies of Wikipedia and report on what the scientific community believes, rather than worrying about Wikipedia itself concluding anything (a violation of WP:OR). The scientific community unambiguously believes homeopathy to be pseudoscientific and false, and any article must reflect that. The talk page is not a forum to argue about this; we are only to report, with citations, what the actual authorities in the field have decided. And there is no lack of clarity there.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore Arion's baseless baiting and clear COI. Thankfully I don't recall suggesting that we ever call homeopathy a valid science. Do you agree with the statement of facts as written (free choice regarding the spiritual nature 'fact' that doesn't have much basis any more)? What about the suggestions on how to proceed with the article? LinaMishima (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I was just about to thank you for your well researched and reasonable suggestions, and then I read the unhelpful personal attack upon me: "baseless baiting and clear COI"!

• I know you were arguing against maintaining the "pseudoscience" category. I merely brought it up because the category is still there at this very moment, and that was the title of this section.
• Skeptics have used the tactic of questioning the ethics of homeopaths for years. That is no different than their other attacks upon health professionals in other specialties of complementary medicine. Placing this in the lead would be as wrong as placing it in the lead of articles on other health professions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I appologise, that was not the most diplomatic of wordings. Hopefully you can see how I reached the assumption of baiting, and the COI is an issue in this debate. But that does not excuse my wording. I appologise.

Given the wording of the statements of facts (that certain, meaning specific, homeopaths, are unethical), can I get a plain statement of agreement?

I shall go and find references for you regarding the ethics issue. I am afraid that calling the claims 'attacks' does not negate their documented nature. The sources I will no doubt find may seem biased, but judge the actions detailed, not the way those are presented. LinaMishima (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Less biased, highly reliable sources: BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, Letter to BMJ detailing brief study, Article in Nature (see the part regarding difficulty getting details of what is taught on homeopathy BSc courses)

Ben Goldcare's writings: Published in The Guardian, Published in The Guardian (legal threats to hosting company before rebuttals, corrections, dealing with author directly, etc), Published in The Guardian, Transcripts of the Malaria & homeopathy investigation

Other blogs (not fully RS, but worth noting in talk for the record): Homeopath turns to internet regarding cancer, More coverage of AIDS & Malaria issue, More on homeopathy and AIDS, Immunisations and disagreement between homeopathy organisations

I will agree that most of these document a single pair of recent cases, however this is what you would expect - it is always easier to source information for current events than those long past. The involvement with the MMR scandal is however a good example of a different ethical issue. The fact that homeopathic organisations cannot agree and fail to enforce their own rules is another key element that points to serious lapses in ethical judgements (Professional organisations should always enforce their rules). Perhaps the controversy is less outside of the UK, but here it is regularly reported. LinaMishima (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But which one of these would you consider a RS for saying "Ethical problems in Homeopathy ..." Anthon01 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding you comments, "Most homeopaths are not medical doctors." Is there any sourced data that confirms the percentage? We should consider not only if they are medical doctors but also other healthcare practitioners. IOW, what percentage of homeopaths are exclusively homeopaths. Also, "The problem with what you are saying is that it is simply not documented by the evidence that homeopaths are in general playing ball and acting ethically." The prevalence of this issue is important to determine also. We need sources to confirm the scope of the problem. Statements by homeopathic organizations should be considered as well. For instance a statement of standards published by a major homeopathic org that says we support the use of prep X as a sole therapeutic agent for malaria should be considered for inclusion; the converse should be considered as well.

One of the aspects missing in this discussion is lower vs. higher (>12c or 24x) dilutions. We need to address this issues separately. The science and plausibility of lower dilutions would be easier to accept than the higher dilutions. Homeopathy is in the process of evolving. Using RS, that should be reflected in the article as well. Their attempts to 'clean up' the practice, especially as more healthcare professionals add homeopathy to their therapeutic armament, should also be reflected in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept LinaMishima's apology, but I disagree that COI is an issue. You would want (but probably not get) someone that has experience in cardiovascular surgery to add imput in editing an article on Cardiovascular surgery. I would never try adding or changing the content of an article about Numismatics or Netherlands Antilles - about which I know very little. (I might do some simple editing to correct grammar or typos if I came across the article.) This article, as with all articles, should also have input from those who know something about the subject!

I disagree with bringing up the ethics issue in the lead. As I mentioned earlier, placing this in the lead would be as wrong as placing it in the lead of articles on other health professions.

Other than the ethics issue, I endorse the spirit of LinaMishima's suggestions. The specific details need to be worked out, such as my contention that research supporting homeopathy should not restricted to the point that positive results appear to be a fluke or due to laboratory mistakes. Of course, all research results, both postive and negative in all fields of science, can be affected by poor research design or procedural mistakes, or a host of others variables.

I hope to address the issues that are unique to homeopathy that need to be dealt with in the article. Unfortunately time constraints do not allow me to do that right now.

In response to Anthon01, I do not have percentage data you asked about. I believe that homeopathic organizations may be able to provide that information. As for potency levels, some homeopaths restrict themselves to only using the lower potencies, others use both lower and higher dilution levels. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that in regards to the potential COI issue, I've put up a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy. We can redirect all discussion of that there and try to clear up whether this presents any problem. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Seems to me that Lina's ideas are fine and would be a good goal to shoot for. If COI is an issue (seems to be) it needs to be addressed. Also denseness should be checked at the door. •Jim62sch• 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable removing the category. Homeopaths present themselves as science. Science doesn't support their claims, yet, they still make them. Removal of the category would seem to be a sort of prescribed back room editor compromise on Wikipedia to make us (meaning every contributor pro & con, to this talk page) but is not in the interest of the reader. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In return for removing the category, we reduce the prominence given to homeopathy's claims of being a science, so it's not all that bad. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, being pseudoscience is determined (in part) by how they present themselves out in the real world, not how we present them on this wiki. In a perfect world, these things should work independantly. However, compromise might have to be made here. I'm just not sure what the best compromise is. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I have a real problem with compromise solutions that are based in conflict reduction for Wikipedia, and not based on the reliable sources, the real world, good writing and the interests of the reader. Second, I don't see a support for this compromise from the pro-homeopath side. They want the category gone, but don't seem to be flocking to a compromise solution. If we remove the category all we've done is betray our Wikipedian principles to lessen the shouting from a vocal fringe minority. Yuck. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment for SchmuckyTheCat: You do grok that WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience sets a specific threshold for categorization? With or without the category, all the scientific arguments and criticisms will stay. --Jim Butler^(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse User:LinaMishima's proposal. I too would prefer to retain the pseudoscience category, but there does need to be some give and take, and all removing the category does is make Wikipedia slightly more difficult to navigate; it doesn't fundamentally compromise WP:NPOV, unlike some of what some editors have been seeking. I agree with Schmucky, though, that we shouldn't proceed with this compromise until we've gotten some signal that it will be respected by a majority of editors on all sides. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified endorse: Clearly quite a bit of consideration went into this, and it's a winner. I can't see any flaws here, at least nothing of significance (speaking as a generally science- and CAM-literate editor, and not as a homeopathy expert). Lina's proposal is one of the best I've read in a long time, clear on the details, appropriately broad in scope, and very much based in NPOV and VER. It never ceases to amaze me how much fine work people are willing to do for free on WP, and I encourage others here to recognize this window of opportunity for what it is. I've seen a few rounds of CAM article edits, and IMO, it's not going to get better than this: the article can only get more POVishly hyperskeptical or more POVishly advocate-y, either of which will induce a pendulum swing and more edit warring. Lina, hat's off to you! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: It's simple to cut through this. If someone struck a match in front of people 400 years ago, it would be seen as un-scientific. Science is too narrow a field to attempt to understand homeopathy in. Those who can, just do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.67.154 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to improve things

I think before this becomes any worse, we need to come up with some rules of engagement, considered widely by the entire community interested in these things. Adam Cuerden proposed an Arbcomm ruling, which might not happen at this writing, by all appearances. As an alternative, I suggest that we consider convening a mediation and work on forging a Memorandum of Understanding or comparable document that all can sign on to, and then display as evidence of community consensus on homeopathically related article talk pages. Editors arguing tendentitiously and disruptively against the MoU would then be subject to normal administrative penalties. Hopefully we could come to some agreement and compromise about how to handle this situation so we can all be productive instead of fighting each other.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was trying for when I proposed that people all find in agreement of the following statements of fact:

• There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
• In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
• Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
• The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
• Regardless of how homeopathic remedies may or may not work, extended patient contact combined with a strong placebo effect (on top of or in place of any actual effect) are good things that have real benefit to a patient
• Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
• A few organisations also talk about more spiritual aspects of homeopathy and how it can cause spiritual healing as well as physical
• Homeopathy exists as a CAM
• Homeopathy has a strong and interesting history
• Homeopathy exists within modern culture and does benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)
• Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths

At the time I considered these a fair mix of scientifically accurate points and those which respected the value that homeopathy does have within the modern world and understanding of the history of medicine. You will note that this list is a little refined compared to the previous posting. I think the above list may serve as a basis for an agreement of shared understanding. LinaMishima (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to sign that list, but I don't see what good it's going to do. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By everyone agreeing to a list of facts, we gain a common ground to work from and hopefully we can stop debating the contents of the list (which we do a lot) and focus the debate upon the article itself. Plus, having us all agree on something, anything would be a nice change :P LinaMishima (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd sign up to it. I do have a reservation about the "extended contact" point though. I don't think it's good to lie to or mislead patients, even if it makes them feel better. Professional medical doctors in the UK certainly aren't aloud too. But this is a pedantic point, as your point doesn't mention claiming it will help for any reason other than positive belief. So, in a roundabout way, yes I agree to all the points. Misleading patients is probably under ethics anyway, and left out of other sections to get most support - and that's probably a good thing. A mention of the significant body of evidence showing no effect beyond placebo is probably going to cause pro-homs to not sign, despite it being true (Edit Conflict) --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that you are saying, but that can be dealt with elsewhere, it really is an ethical issue. It is my hope that the acknowledgement of some positive results will help them feel included within these statements of fact. LinaMishima (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, this should be "*Homeopathy ... appears to benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)" -- this would include perceived or inferred psychological benefits. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychology is the basis, as I understand it, of the patient placebo effect (rather than the reviewer placebo effect, the expectation in a reviewer of data of good results), and the placebo effect does cause measurable changes. That is why I selected that wording, since it is basically/generally/effectively true, and it is more likely to win the support of the pro-homeopaths in this form. LinaMishima (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, but that's OR. There's no such thing as spiritual healing, so if you want that POV in there, it's back to arguing. CAM doesn't exist, that's just terminology non-scientists use to insist that it is medicine and science (kind of like Creation Science. So all that is being proposed is how to get Homeopathy promoter's POV placed in the article. Thanks, but really, we've been down that path. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BUT, everything else you propose is outstanding. Delete the garbage about faith, CAM and placebo effects, and I'm on board. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything spiritual. I was referring to nothing more than the Placebo effect and Counseling with the line regarding those benefits (and as you know, those are real and do make a difference). The other line regarding homeopathy's spiritual claims are claims that some organisations actually make (and are obviously not medical claims). CAM has to be mentioned because that is homeopathy's official designation, however much some people may prefer 'Quackery' for all such things. We cannot declare them otherwise, sadly, without being OR, but we can point out the claims of pseudoscience. LinaMishima (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>As I stated below, I accept some of these, agree wholeheartedly with others, and am doubtful about some. For example, my biggest concern is that homeopathy can do harm in that it can stop some people from seeking appropriate medical treatment in a timely way for some time-critical problems. I have other misgivings about this list as well, as it is worded, in a "take it all or leave it all" approach. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, when I read it benefiting "some people" I immediately think of the homeopath who is prospering from prescribing a medication that is essentially water.--Filll (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The harm you talk about is an ethical issue, not one with respect to homeopathic practice done in accordance to most homeopathic organisation's guidelines. So your worry will be covered, however as part of the ethical problems present. LinaMishima (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure that it is a matter of ethics, but more a matter of ignorance. They think they are doing something good for the patient, but maybe in some cases they are not.--Filll (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should clarify this statement "There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience," as Art, Jim Butler, myself and others or as per someone else. We all agree that it fits under Questionable science based on RS. Please clarify this statement. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree. We still haven't seen a source which satisfies WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience in terms of calling Homeopathy a "pseudoscience". This term can and is too easily misused for us to treat it any lighter than the criteria which the ArbCom has laid out for us. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How would something like "Critics of homeopathy commonly refer to it as a pseudoscience", coupled with a "Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best" and "Some researchers into homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods" work for you two? We have strong evidence for all three of these. LinaMishima (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some critics of homeopathy" and "Researchers in homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods" sounds fine. I would have to see references for "Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best" Anthon01 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources of criticism we have detailed here also go into at least passing detail of the failings of homeopathy, and some certainly go much further. It should be noted that for those who know the scientific method well (and hence best able to judge this), it is a trivial act to notice homeopathy's failings, and as such they are rarely published in depth. Such a statement is non-negotiable, as there is plenty of evidence. Rather than dispute this here (as that would only antagonise), let other editors who support this view attempt to find the evidence first. LinaMishima (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am well versed in the scientific method and recognize areas where the research falls short, but still insisting that no OR is included in the list. If it's not in the source we can't make it up. Additionally, the references on ethics you cited before do not use the word ethics. If we can't find that explicitly stated the word ethics should not be used. If a RS is found for either of these and no OR is required then I am in support of its inclusion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Falls short" is a massive understatement. Ethics is also the appropriate grouping title for all those sources, for it is obviously the common combining factor between them. And I know for certain that some of those documents distinctly did talk of ethics and ethical problems. The below link certainly does. LinaMishima (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hoping other editors will trawl through sources to help out here, but I have one detailed listing so far by the respected Ben Goldcare [3] "[P]ushing their product relentlessly with this scientific flim-flam" (flim-flam, literally deception). Please do not take this quote at face value, read the article and how he carefully details before this point the practices of homeopaths in comparison to clinical doctors. LinaMishima (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your or my estimation of Homeopathy's research shortfalls doesn't count. If the sources say it then we are fine. I also went through the BBC links and didn't find one mention of the word ethic. Anthon01 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sources are documenting the research shortfalls well, and similarly [4] "most scientists scoff at current homeopathic practices" (scoff, "Treat with contemptuous disregard"). What would you call what the BBC articles document , then? LinaMishima (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From the talk archives we have [5] (which calls homeopathy a pseudoscience, which means questionable claim to being a science), [6] "from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws", [7] "The deviation from basic scientific principles, which is implicit in homeopathy and therapeutic touch, for example, is decried." (A highly respected journal), [8] "homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable". I really could go on and on and on, this matter has been extremely well documented now on the talk page. LinaMishima (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic question here, as in so much of this talk page, is whether something should be stated as opinion or fact. No one has expressed a problem with "Critics of homeopathy commonly refer to it as a pseudoscience". This is certainly true and can be documented. "Some researchers into homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods" has not been discussed here but must be equally uncontroversial. "Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best" is a very different type of statement. It doesn't say some people call its claim questionable, which can be easily documented. It says its claims are questionable. Whatever our personal judgements on the fact, this is hotly contested. The rules say we can only state something as fact if we can document that it is generally considered so by the scientific community. No one has been able to do that yet for claims that homeopathy is pseudoscience or non-science. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a mediator

Well we need a mediator and we need to collect input from all sides. We can use this list as a start, and our statements at the RfAr as input material. We need comparable lists from the homeopathy proponents. Then we need to have a neutral party sit down and help us work through all the material and forge some sort of Memorandum.

• For example, how many homeopathy paragraphs incorporated into biographies, and articles on plants, and minerals and chemicals and animals are appropriate?

• What exactly does NPOV mean and how should it be applied?

• What exactly does LEAD mean?

• What sort of sources are reliable sources? How should they be weighted?

We need all these sorts of things answered and agreed to, or else this will be an infinite argument.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have split this off into a subsection, as I would like to gain agreement to the above list and I don't think having this as a direct part of that discussion helps. With respect to your points, the first one is irrelevant here entirely, as it relates to other articles. The second and third relate to all the dispute we have been having, but we might be able to avoid deep debate over these things as long as everyone remains calm, understanding and accepting (I don't think they are actually being debated, but rather often it is the facts at hand that are the subject of discussion). Similarly with the last point, we can agree on how to use reliable sources by using the most appropriate ones for the subject at hand.

Let's see were we can get to without getting bogged down with these sorts of issues again, shall we? LinaMishima (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And along those lines, lets set up a voting structure for the points you list so we can see who signs on and who does not, with a simple 'Accept or Reject if at all possible, and then separate the discussion into another area.--Filll (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

File me in the accept column (not that I've been the most active of editors on this page, mind you). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We should note that Fill is suggesting indivual votes on each point, rather than the set as a whole. However I shall keep in mind your opinion of the statements. LinaMishima (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's give it some time for a few more responses first. Additionally, requiring acceptance as a group or as a set of groups would be better than individual approval or disapproval of each one. The set was designed to be approved a set, with certain points being paired with others, and other points being present to reduce the perceived impact of the list for certain people. If there is any individual point you disagree with, please let me know. LinaMishima (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry by the time you posted this I had already completed the strawpoll. The problem is, I agree with some of your points, and not so much with others. So it is a bit problematic. I expect for homeopathy proponents it will be even tougher to accept the whole thing.--Filll (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why it is a collection of points that work together to form the whole. I see your problems were with the existance of some evidence, and with the benefits of the placebo effect. The claims of evidence are mostly with respect to the animal studies Arion 3x3 posted earlier, and I had to accept these in general. In contrast to this point, however, is the stronger statement regarding the weight of evidence being against any effect. I believe that pairing to be an accurate reading of NPOV and WEIGHT, and neither side has their evidence ignored or discounted. As for the benefits of the placebo effect, those are actually matters that some critics like Ben Goldcare stress - that homeopathy is wonderful for having longer patient appointments and causes a good placebo effect. The evidence is there for these points, so we should concede them. It's a good method when negotiating to find such common ground. I agree, of course, that I don't know if the homeopathy supporters will actually accept this list, but I have tried to accommodate them and praise appropriately. We can but hope. LinaMishima (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is moving dangerously toward an editorial method in which consensus is replaced by voting. Naturezak (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's moving towards a system in which we

1. evaluate the possibility of achieving consensus on a set of starting points, and

2. achieve a consolidated and succinct list of where editors are coming from at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As Sarcasticidealist states, this is not about voting on the article, but agreeing on a common ground to work from. If someone disagreed with a point and was not happy at compromising via having the other points also present, I would work with them to try and find another acceptable wording for everyone. LinaMishima (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no common ground, unfortunately. As long a there are the promoters who "believe" or attempt to convince us that anything based on faith can be "proved", then we aren't going to get anywhere. According to every section and subjection about NPOV, we can put about 300KB of data about how Homeopathy is junk medicine, and maybe a couple of kb on the history. That would be neutral and not give undue weight to Homeopathy promoters. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you support the list, though? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have specifically avoided voting on anything here. Verifiability, notability, NPOV, undue weight, fringe theories, all can be confirmed with verification. No vote is necessary. This is a bit of pushing us into something that isn't going to work. We'll still argue about what is science, what is faith, etc. So, no I don't support the 1RR above, I don't support arbitration or mediation, etc. I support verifiability, NPOV, etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The list needs to define specific things of disagreement with the current text. Those are the points we can work on, and may not be very long. I mean, there are pretty obviously two camps here. What problems with the article do the anti-homeopaths see? Or is it just a bulwark defense of what is there now? What specific criticisms do the homeopaths provide? Looking backwards, I see lots of words but nothing specific except "MAN THE WHOLE THINGS IS BIASED!!" We can't answer that and it's not constructive. If the list amounts to "don't put in a pseudoscience category, and can we do XX verbiage in this location" then we can move forward. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with OrangeMarlin: there isn't any need for voting here. The problem with the editing of this article, in the six months I have been monitoring it, is that sensible edits are reverted by individuals with COI, and that attempts to secure consensus for those edits afterwards are drowned in discussion by individuals with COI. Naturezak (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's your solution? By which I mean "what should good faith editors and admins do to fix these problems?" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea of getting an agreed statement of facts was so that once people had agreed to it, discussions could not be drowned out with disagreements which are covered in the statement of facts. I cannot predict how well it would work, but it does give greater leverage over disruptive members, as their disruption is clearer. LinaMishima (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have my doubts, but Lina has made an admirable effort to concisely review and summarize objective data and various POV. Those of you who expressing doubt, do you agree to the list she has made? If not please specify the specific item(s) you have a problem with. Otherwise, even if we could get most editors to agree on some basics, it would provide common ground to work from. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We could take a cue from the Evolution, Intelligent Design (both are FA's) and their assorted articles and just immediatly remove all nonsense. Seems to work very well over there, for the most part. Baegis (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you assert that adherents and practitioners of homeopathy are no more rational than the nuts who reject evolution or who promote intelligent design. The trouble is, homeopathy really does have a significant following, including a fairly large minority of doctors who practice it, legally, and with a somewhat satisfied clientelle, in the US and other countries. No matter how much the established medical community doesn't like them, and no matter how much scientists deride their theories as being unsupportable by controlled scientific experiments, they still do find reason to believe in and respect the methods of homeopathy. This article should be first about their beliefs and methods, and only secondarily about how science and medicine criticise it. I'm not a believer or adherent myself, but I know people who are, and they are not the kind of nuts you are saying they are. In addition, they do have a credible case in their claims that their methods are not being given a fair test at the hands of their opponents (see for example the opening article of this journal: http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/acm/11/5). I think a more logical approach here would be to treat the topic more like the way religions are treated; we don't put scientific debunking into the leads of Islam and Christianity; we describe them more or less in their own terms, and then discuss their relationships to other parts of the world of ideas, beliefs, poliitcs, etc. The fact that they are not scientifically sensible, even when their adherents believe them to be totally true, is not very relevant, since they don't really connect very well to the methods of scientific inquiry. I know homeopathy is trying to view themselves as more scientific, and that's worth commenting on, but not a reason to treat them as total nuts. Let's make it more like an article on homeopathy in any other encyclopedia, and focus on what it is before getting off on what it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

not only that but i and the toher adherents to homeoopaty on this page have repeatedly agreed to withdraw some ouf our main points of ocntention (the psuedoscience tag and the psuedoscience box) to the allopaths in a bid to normalize relationships and i have noticed that our attempts at reconciliation have been repeatedly mocked and ignored. it is very hard to achieve consensus when everyone here is intent on prolonging the negatigve debate as long as humanly possible. Smith Jones (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, "Allopaths" presumably this means "All editors here who believe in NPOV"? Shot info (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use made-up derogatory terms like "allopaths" in an attempt to delegitimize rational, pro-science people.03:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Blackamoor (talk • contribs)

It is not derogatory.[9] Anthon01 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that in this entire discussion section the supporters of evidence-based science have been entirely accommodating and generally willing to show compromise by agreeing to the points listed, whilst those who prefer their flim-flam (to quote Ben Goldcare) have mostly attempted to pick further holes in their favour. LinaMishima (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Flim-Flam is derogatory. You should consider refactoring. Focus on EBM is largely a new phenomenon even in medicine. Next, I don't see how advocates of homeopathy have attempted to pick further holes in their favor. Additionally I think dicklyon is making some very good points as to the tone and content of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Firstly, I never compared the people who practice homeopathy to any intelligent design or creation proponents. I was merely suggesting that we take an approach that has clearly worked and apply it here. And with regards to the following of homeopathy, I would stake a large wager as to the fact that more people believe in creationism or intelligent design than practice or follow homeopathy. Have you ever seen a poll about the number of people that believe in creationism or intelligent design? I bet you that homeopathy doesn't have anywhere near these numbers. Secondly, it doesn't matter how the general public feels about the article. We don't tailor articles to what the general public believes. We make articles so that they fall within policies. The applicable policies here are WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. And yes, it is relevent that they are not scientifically sensible and that their theories do not connect to science. It is claimed to be a science (or a type of medicine) and must be evaluated from that standpoint, least undue weight is placed upon it. I take great offense that you would compare this to a religion and say it should be covered as such. How far out of left field did that come from? Baegis (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when you said "We could take a cue from the Evolution, Intelligent Design (both are FA's) and their assorted articles and just immediatly remove all nonsense" it was pretty transparent that you meant any statement implying a belief in the reality of homeopathy was analogous to a belief in things like creationism. I think that betrays a very clear POV, and that's why this article has such a hard time converging. You want the article to reflect primarily the POV of the detractors from the topic, rather than just describing the topic on its own terms. I think NPOV calls for a different balance. Look at the comment by User:Shot info above, for example; he thinks it's NPOV versus homeopathy; that's just stupid. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if he's not willing to say it, I will. Any believe in the reality of homeopathy is exactly equivalent to a belief in creationism, with all the dishonesty, disconnect from reality, and completely malevolent influence on society that holding such a belief implies. People who believe in either creationism or homeopathy are WRONG, by definition cannot be acting in good faith or be intelligent, and have no place editing any encyclopedia which purports to be a compendium of facts. If you think being told that your obviously incorrect beliefs are incorrect constitutes a "personal attack," then you need to get new beliefs.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem at all that you feel that way; many people do. What's a problem is when you edit wikipedia articles from that POV. There's no balance there, and no respect for the topic you're writing about. So leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Thats a LOOOOOOOOOOGN stretch and completely wrong. Shot info (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You would be best served by rereading the policies pages. And perhaps trying to read statements before jumping to conclusions. But you are right, we totally shouldn't adopt a policy that has lead to two extremely contentious (even more so than this) topics to be promotted to featured article status. Lets keep up this mess! Baegis (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, it doesn't help when you write things like "homeopathy really does have a significant following" and "fairly large minority of doctors". That absolutely does not find favor with real life data. In the US, homeopaths reported almost five million visits from patients in a year, versus over one billion patient visits for normal medicine, less than half a percent. Other data says homeopathic treatments were sought out by about 2% of the public (that is - all treatments, like OTC treatments on the store shelf). Those are not significant nor large minority. We have here a few very vocal believers. The makeup of belief on this talk page is not at all representative of the real world. 2% is a smaller number than believe the moon landings were hoaxed! Please don't misrepresent how fringe this is, or, if you're new to looking at this issue, don't be taken in by uncollaborated statements like "homeopathy really does have a significant following". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you want to consider 5 million patient visits insignificant, that's your trip. I realize it's not big, though at one time in America it was close to 1 doctor in 6 that was a homeopath, according to some books I've consulted; in India it's still about there. I don't think I believe your numbers about people who believe the moon landings were faked; at least, I've never met one of those. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Five million is insignificant compared to one billion. "A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided." That's referenced data according to our own article. Those are the numbers. Claiming homeopathy has more support, or calling it significant, is sympathetic bias on your own behalf - not what we base Wikipedia articles on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Goodbye

For what feels like an eternity I have been attempting to help make some progress here. Some people in support of science have acted foolishly, never willing to move towards a compromise, believing in evidence-only articles, and have been wound up and baited no end into acting in a less-than-friendly manner. Others in support of science have been willing to debate, discuss and reach a compromise. Whilst those in support of homeopathy, something that claims to be a science, can only really be described as often acting like fundamentalists, attempting to tear-down any counter-point and hammer hard on anyone who dares to mention the impossibility of the technique. When they hit a statement that they cannot manage to construct a solid defence to, they then turn to literal interpretation of policies rather than the spirit of them, or far more commonly they simply ignore or change the subject. Rarely have I ever seen them willing to openly concede a point. This extremely hard line approach has actually given me bad dreams, for I am a rational person who is quite frankly disturbed when people act so irrationally.

This subject has spilled over into far too many places, and that is everyone's fault. Why people are debating the efficacy of homeopathy on an article about plants is beyond me. Source it, consider the relative weights and be done. A massive discussion has emerged on the user talk page of a homeopathic writer, and even though they are allowing it, it seems to be not entirely fair on them for both sides to have appropriated his talk page like that. My own talk page then became involved, with a suggestion that I watch some Richard Feynman lectures on Quantum Electrodynamics as someone thought these would somehow make a possible origin of homeopathy's workings clear. When I did as they suggested and pointed out how crazy they were to see anything usable there (as someone who has studied physics at UK first year undergrad levels, and electrical engineering to full bachelor level, including Fourier analysis, both at Russell Group institutions), they made it clear that their hope was only to convert, not to discuss the actual science. And now I have a discussion about how we can't call a clear and obvious spade a spade and a demand for sources for trivial observations.

In the previous discussion of my attempt to find some common ground, those who are in favour the scientific method generally would agree to the compromise, albeit with some reservations. The supporters of homeopathy, however, were quick to decide that they could do without certain lines being present, and requested change. This was accommodated, but once again the bar was then either nudged up, or the attempt to meet the new bar ignored or taken elsewhere in an attempt to avoid the evidence. Other supporters decided now would be a great time again to both state that they are not like religious nuts at all but want to be treated like a religious or spiritual subject. That would be wonderful and a brilliant route I would approve of, if only so many various homeopathic organisations and training courses did not claim to be scientific and implicitly not spiritual.

I present to you my final attempt at wording a statement of fact. The evidence is scattered throughout the talk page and the archives for all these points, and is generally strong and clear. I am afraid that the wording of some has became more harsh, but still within the evidence we have. I am not willing to be so compromising any more, you have had your chance and wasted it:

• Critics of homeopathy commonly refer to it as a pseudoscience
• Homeopathy is regularly claimed to be a science and scientific, including by most notable homeopathic organisations
• A few organisations also talk about more spiritual aspects of homeopathy and how it can cause spiritual healing as well as physical
• Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best and fraudulent at worst
• Homeopathy is widely based off research conducted without the proper scientific method being followed
• Some researchers into homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods
• In general, the vast weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
• Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
• The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not remotely plausible within the current understanding of science
• Regardless of how homeopathic remedies may or may not work, extended patient contact combined with a strong placebo effect (on top of or in place of any actual effect) are good things that have real measurable benefits to a patient
• Homeopathy exists as a Complementary and alternative medicine
• Homeopathy has a strong and interesting history
• Homeopathy exists within modern culture and does benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)
• Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths

It is possible that some of these points could be toned down, but that will not be through me. I have had it with this subject that has been causing me bad dreams. I doubt this discussion has been much fun for anyone. I realised tonight that life is not about what is not fun, and so I am leaving this discussion. My continuing presence on wikipedia will only be for the sake of the episodes and fictional works discussions, which must be resolved suitably before I will feel comfortable editing any articles here again. I do not care for debate over what I have written here. I understand that you may not like the 'accusations', but they are documented and evident in the previous discussions on the page. Any back-peddling, denial or criticism of these observations will simply be ignored by myself. It should be apparent that I believe that the evidence here shows that no serious discussion is ever actually intended. You may get the last word, but I will still win - for I will be elsewhere, actually enjoying myself and making things of real value happen. I do not wish to be contacted or bothered about this discussion again. I apologise for doing this to those who have acted reasonably and with knowledge of science, especially to Sarcasticidealist and RDOlivaw and doubly so for what I am about to request. If any of my points within any part of this discussion need clarification, I ask that Sarcasticidealist and RDOlivaw be allowed to do so. I trust their views, and their collective opinion is to be my final word. If desired, they may offer a more neutral toned version of the above list, for it was edited in the heat of the moment. They may contact me regarding this, but I request that no-one does. This subject has caused me too much harm as it is, and I wish to withdraw now before further damage is done to well-being that no amount of shaken water could ever fix. LinaMishima (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only say that similar frustrations have limited my interest in trying to continue my relatively short-lived and ultimately rendered-ineffectual attempts at brokering compromise and improvement on this page. Thank you, Lina, for putting a lot of effort into this. — Scientizzle 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think we should accept her latest list unmodified. Someone should simply expand it into an adequately sized article using the material already there. and then we sensible people can join in trying to keep it. Strange. Before i came to WP , I had quite a lot of experience arguing with bigots about science. They were defenders of such ideas as homeopathy, creationism, psychic phenomena, and related follies. I could at least understand why they were unable to resort to rational argument, as the views were in fact not rationally defensible. But it was interesting figuring it out from a sociological point of view why people would believe such things. I know many people who have various delusions and it does not affect their moral worth as people. But I came here, and i found the worst bigots were the ones of the rational side of the arguments. They were arguing as if nobody would believe scientific evidence if it were fairly presented, as if the only way to show ignorance for what it is was to suppress it, or at least give it only a little space and then paste labels over it. Everything I know about the world convinces me of the correctness of the scientific world view and the validity of its methods of argument. Everything I know about people convinces me that the least effective way to support a good cause is to act as if it needed to be imposed on an unwilling audience by force. The reason I avoid this argument (except for brief forays) is like Lisa's. I cannot tolerate watching good people who know science and who want to defend it making fools of themselves. There must be something about WP which causes people to take extreme positions--perhaps it's BRD. It brings out the worst in uncooperative editing. An approach at giving a reasonable approach to writing an article on a subject like this collectively seems to generally get rejected. those who care about rational medicine should try to write this article as Lina suggested, because such an article, being the plain truth, is what will persuade people. The believers in homeopathy will believe as they do regardless. Those who come here for information will get accurate information, and will be able to see how weak the non-scientific arguments are even when they are optimally presented. That's what will convince people if they're rational. If they aren't, nothing can help them -- except having the arguments calmly set out here if they ever want to actually listen. DGG (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If we could write an article like that, it would be ideal. If we could write an article like that. The rigid mentality of some science-oriented writers is an understandable human reaction to constant baiting and naysaying from some of their opposite numbers. But the fact that it's understandable doesn't make it a good thing. Ultimately, it hurts our attempt to write a balanced, dispassionate article that sets forward the plain facts -- and the plain facts are devastating to homeopathy. But getting the plain facts into the article is more of a challenge than it ought to be, mostly because of the efforts of homeopathy supporters though also partly because of self-inflicted wounds by the rationalists. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly everything has to do with cool phrasing, and also the mis-apprehension of some that in an article on, say, Homeopathy, WEIGHT says that conventional science should get most of the room and discussion, rather than merely offering an adequate critique and contrast. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly correct: WP:WEIGHT does state that maainstream science should get most of the room in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a minority topic. what policy says mainstream science should get most of the room in the article? Anthon01 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was an interesting addition to Lina's list:

• Homeopathy is widely based off research conducted without the proper scientific method being followed

It addresses the concern of those who see homeopathy as a pseudoscience, but it is formulated as an invitation to document in what way that is true. When asked why they believe homeopathy works, people tend to answer that they have seen or experienced it working, not that they are convinced by the RCTs. The article could report this, and also briefly explain why science discounts anecdotal evidence. Those supporters who do look at the studies tend to place more weight on positive studies than negative. After all, lots of things might go wrong and wash out a real effect, but it only takes one good experiment to prove something. We could report this argument, followed by a brief discussion of false positives, through statistics but also other effects, and publication bias. There are other points that could be brought up, like the reliance on provings that are almost never done double blind. Is there any chance of getting both sides to accept a concept like this? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Another thing that is not reflected well in the text is the the current evolution that the science is undergoing. We should consider discussing how the sci methodology of how to study homeopathy is evolving. I read a study published in 2005, where over 80 subjects were treated, in a screening-phase (not blinded), with various combinations of homeopathic remedies from a list of nine. The treatment phase took ~5 months. Those that responded were then included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trail. The combination of remedies that each child responded to was known prior to the start of the RCT. During the RCT participants were given either placebo or the combination of remedies in a blinded fashion. That was to my knowledge the first time that methodology was ever used and represents IMO, an improvement in the study of homeopathy. Anthon01 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Lancet 2005 (MA) - (Quote begins) "The meta-analysis may be statistically correct. But its validity and practical significance can be seen at a glance: not one single qualified homoeopath would ever treat one single patient in clinical practice as presented in any of the 110 analysed trials! The study cannot give the slightest evidence against homoeopathy because it does not measure real individual (classical) homoeopathy. It confounds real homoeopathic practice with distorted study forms violating even basic homeopathic rules. The correct selection of the homoeopathic remedy almost entirely depends upon the totality of individual symptoms and signs whereas most homoeopathic RCT's use standardized interventions with hardly any practical value and a great inherent chance of producing false negative effects. Even the very few classical studies analysed are distorted by lack of proper follow-up and durations in the narrow frame of RCT's." (quote end) Shouldn't this also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the contention that homeopathy is not practiced as tested in the trials. You can argue your way out by the definition you choose of "qualified homeopath" and "real ... homoeopathy", but the fact is that a lot of practitioners and patients are doing something they call homeopathy that would make Hahnemann turn over in his grave. This diversity is hardly presented in the article but should be. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I made it sound like we diametrically disagree, which we don't. Adding information on diversity also makes it easier to explain why most (not all) existing RCTs do not falsify some forms of homeopathy (i.e. classical/individualized homeopathy), which is what you are after. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is more than a simple black or white issue. We should present a broad view of the issues involved and let the reader decide. Anthon01 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in the days before most of you were born, the article had a section on Diversity that went like this:

There is, and always has been, considerable diversity in the theory and practice of homeopathy. The major distinction may be between what can be called the pragmatic and the mystical approach, but it should be remembered that there are not two distinct groups, but a spectrum of attitudes and practices. An early advocate of pragmatism was Richard Hughes, while the most influential mystic was James Tyler Kent. The pragmatists tend to be open to "whatever works", whereas the mystics tend to rely on the research of one or more authorities. There is still considerable diversity in both camps because the pragmatists usually define "working" based on personal experience and the mystics use various sources as authorities. The pragmatists tend to see homeopathy as complementary medicine and are more willing to co-exist with conventional doctors. Many in fact are conventional doctors. The mystics, some of whom are also conventional doctors, see homeopathy as alternative medicine and have more confidence that homeopathy can be used effectively against all diseases, with the caveat that many potential remedies have not yet been proven. The pragmatists are more likely to be interested in proving homeopathy in the framework of mainstream science. They will talk about the "memory of water" and stimulation of the immune system. The mystics see less need to justify their methods with conventional criteria. For them, homeopathy acts on a vital force that is, so far, not accessible to science. The pragmatists are more likely to prescribe (relatively) low dilutions in multiple doses, and sometimes use more than one remedy at a time. The mystics often use higher dilutions, but generally prefer a single remedy and sometimes a single dose. In the extreme form, pragmatists will even accept over-the-counter homeopathic remedies, but the mystics will always insist on an individual prescription. The mystics may see themselves as "classical" homeopaths, although the historical accuracy of the term may be questionable. The pragmatists see themselves as "scientific", even though they are not accepted by the scientific establishment.

This section was not without its flaws and controversy, but it is the sort of thing I think could be added to improve the current version. Actually, there are a number of points in this old version that I have a fondness for but have gotten lost along the way. What's the word from Peter Morrell? Is this close enough to being accurate that it can be fixed up? --Art Carlson (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is helpful to the article. Anthon01 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view

I respectfully suggest that all who want this Homeopathy article to be an "anti-homeopathy article" written to convince the reader that a particular view is the correct one read: Explanation of the neutral point of view. Arion 3x3 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that you click on the link you gave everyone and scroll down a bit to the section entitled Undue Weight. That might help you better understand how this article should be constructed. Baegis (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been debating with myself for a while as to whether people really believe that WEIGHT says such a thing about articles on Fringe subjects, and I'm still not entirly convinced they do. However, it is an interpretation which is messing up NPOV in articles, and needs to be dealt with, forcefully. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. On such pages, a view may be explicated in great detail, even though it must make sufficient reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not mis-represent the majority viewpoint. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Gnixon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a anti-homeopathic article. It should be an article that describes homeopathy in detail with the inclusion of the current scientific POV(s) regarding it. Martin I am not sure what you mean. Baegis: Please explain what you mean; quoting from the text of the section you describe. Anthon01 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested before that (1) homeopathy proponents should explain to me exactly what they believe NPOV means, in detail so we can discuss it and try to come to some mutual understanding and/or (2) homeopathy proponents should be left to their own devices and all nonproponents should let them edit unfettered and unopposed for a solid period of several weeks or even several months. At the end, their product should be evaluated to see how well it satisfies the needs and requirements and policies of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Anthon01 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the policy on "fairness of tone" and then being committed to following it in this homeopathy article would go a long way towards successfully editing this article into a neutral article - as required by the core Wikipedia policy of neutrality. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairness of tone does not seem to be a problem. Other POV aspects, such as emphasing the (few) studies that show (any) effect of the treatment(s) over the many studies that show no effect over placebo, are more of a problem. And WP:WEIGHT does imply that we should emphasize the majority view (that it's scientifically implausible and unproved by any standard), not the view of the majority of practitioners. Minority views can receive expanded treatment in alternative articles, but should not be emphazied in the principle article on a fringe subject. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording used in WP:WEIGHT is not "emphasize the majority view", but "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint", whereas the minority view itself "may be spelled out in great detail". --Art Carlson (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a key difference between Arthur Rubin's interpretation and the policy as quoted by Art. Arthur you mentioned in the previous section that WP:WEIGHT does state that mainstream science should get most of the room in the article, which seems to conflict with the policy. Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arion, you are confusing neutrality with factuality. Being neutral does not mean one must abandon all tests for truth, or be tolerant of misrepresentations of fact. And I shall repeat once again that you should absolutely NOT be editing this article, since as a homeopath you are clearly an interested party. That's COI. Naturezak (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in principle that homeopaths should be forbidden from editing this article. WP:COI can be extended too far. This has nothing to do with the question of whether Arion 3x3 should be forbidden from editing this article under WP:COI or just general inability to respect WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Practising homeopaths should be aware of their POV and careful to edit with NPOV, as should we all. WP:COI is a warning and not a prohibition for anyone. To quote, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." This article needs the knowledge of professional homeopaths. (Just keep an eye on them.) --Art Carlson (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with what Arion says on this talk page. However; I'm offended the COI claim is being brought up to discourage him. That's not what COI is about. His interest is in his own practice, and he's not inserting that anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I can clarify my assertion. I believe Arion should not be editing this page, since he has shown himself willing to misrepresent the body of research on this subject in order to enable the appearance in this article that his profession -- homeopathy -- on less shaky ground than is actually the case. His COI is inducing a NPOV, as well 1) his willingness to elude direct questions that seem to criticize his unsubstantiated interpretations of published research, and 2) his effective method of deflecting critical voices on the discussion page by burying productive and incisice comments in large quantities of precipitate "summarization", prestige- and support- enhancing compliments to other editors; and redundant, evasive discussion. I think these observations are supported by any serious review of this discussion page, as well as by the complaints made by other editors whose objectivitity has been labeled "anti-homeopathy hostility" by Arion. Naturezak (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Arion is highly problematic for the reasons you stated and others. But I think it does not fall under COI. He will do or say anything to subert the policies and procedures of Wikipedia to get his own way; that much is true. But since he is fairly civil, he has not been burned yet. What has shielded him is the simultaneous presence several others on the page with similar modes of operation and similar views, so no rational discussion can take place and the pages are buried in cruft. The system is just overwhelmed at this point and cannot move forward unless someone wants to devote a huge amount of effort to mounting administrative actions against one or all of them.--Filll (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well. That's something else then. The problem you see is his discussion style. You interpret that to result from a COI. Just criticize his behavior, then. Don't worry about the depths of his psychology, and don't try to chase away all homeopaths just because they are homeopaths. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Homoeopathy

Um, this has started adding Category:Homeopathy everywhere it is used. That probably isn't a good thing: It means that sub-categories like Category:Homeopaths get all their contents duplicated, and lot of user-space temp pages were getting categorised (I've commented it out of those for now; it can be readded if/when they jump to article space. - I also nominated a couple ancient userspace temp pages for deletion - fair notice.) I'm inclined to delete the category from the template, but am worried this might de-categorise articles we want categorised.

Thoughts? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. Both articles that should be in subcategories, and articles in related categories, such as Alternative Medicine, would be placed in the category by this template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've made this change, and then I saw your "this might de-categorise articles we want categorised" comment. I'll leave it up to you what to do, but I think putting it back isn't a good option. Manually cat'ing them seems to be the only option (using what links here, and finding relevant articles?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking "What links here" for the box should get all the ones that should be catted but ain't. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

COI is irrelevant here, for the most part

I disagree with WP:COI being deployed in this situation. Probably our most valuable asset here is User: Peter morrell, who was a practicing homeopath for many years and now writes, does research and lectures about homeopathy. Without him, we would be in much worse shape on many issues. Except the difference is, Peter knows and understands and works within NPOV and other WP restrictions. And that is the difference. We can have homeopaths here, they just have to play by the same rules as everyone else.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being a homeopath doesn't preclude you working on this talk page or this article, unless the section is about you or you want to add refs to yourself (ie, normal CoI rules should apply). --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Peter's take on the world of Homeopathy, but he is smart, and understands the history of this field better than anyone on here. As with most experts, they still need to follow the rules of NPOV, etc., which he does. Whoever brought this up, it is silly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy, so we can centralize any discussion there. As it stands, I don't believe there really is a COI issue in this case. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition from NCCAM

I noticed this at the Citizendium article on homeopathy, and suggest adding it here:

In the USA, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, funds research into homeopathy. According to its statement on homeopathy[10], controlled clinical trials of homeopathy had produced mixed results; in some, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo, but in others, more benefits were seen than expected from a placebo. Despite the lack of clear empirical support for homeopathy, the statement concluded that "Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary."

That last sentence, while provocative, is a significant view from a reliable source, so it looks like it should go in. I think the whole para is well-written, and of course OK to use under free license.

The paragraph in CZ is from a section called "Medical organizations' attitudes towards homeopathy". That might be a good one to add here too. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What? You want a sentence that says that NCCAM reliably reports that some people believe that scientific explanations of homeopathy are not necessary? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so dismissive. I thought the statement was self-evident, but maybe it isn't. In particular it speaks to the question raised repeatedly here, of whether homeopathy claims to be science (and can therefore be pseudoscience). According to this statement, at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science (and don't care). --Art Carlson (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it now ... Art's irony-frisbee sailed right past what's left of my brain... --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't see where it says at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science. Some people don't believe that science is all-knowing, therefore they try harmless remedies even though the scientific proof is lacking. If it 'works,' that all the proof they need. There is a whole lot in conventional medicine, that has yet to be proven via RCTs. Medicine goes forward anyway. Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i would refrian from inserting that informaiton into the article until we have clear consensus on how the artilce shoudl be structured. Smith Jones (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Art: As you probably know that is true. Many people don't care about or for that matter trust science. Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

for Art: Sure, I'd think it's fine to exactly quote and attribute to NCCAM the statement: "Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary.". There are people who have that view, and NCCAM is without question fine to quote for the viewpoints of proponents of homeopathy. Actually, all the bullet points in this section are reasonably-stated. They cut more slack to homeopathy than a lot of people do, but it's not over the top... not like they are saying "some people feel that the earth is flat, but concede the evidence suggests it might be shaped more like a frisbee". cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the NCCAM a reliable source, personally, but it certainly is notable. As for this particular quote, I think what's novel here isn't that they're saying people don't care about science, but that they (the NCCAM) don't. Basically, they've tested it, failed to find sufficient positive evidence to meet the burden of proof for a claim as implausible as homeopathy, so they go back and say that the science isn't relevant anyways because it's safe and people think it helps. Of course, I have no doubts they wouldn't be saying this if the science had come out in Homeopathy's favor. They're simply trying to put a positive spin on a null outcome. It's not our place to source spin here; we should stick to the more solid facts. Now, such a claim that scientific proof is irrelevant might be notable if it's consistently made in cases independent of attempting to spin a lack of finding such proof.

Sorry if I got a bit convoluted there. You follow what I'm saying? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Infophile - yes, I think I do follow, but I don't think I'd go quite as far as to say NCCAM endorses the statement quoted (note the others in that same section). I do concede some bias on their part, but they're leaning toward cutting slack ("might be placebo"), not ridiculously distorting evidence. They are reliable for representing a range of views that some people do hold, even if they are minority ones. Although few scientists would go as far as to endorse the view that evidence for efficacy doesn't matter, there are certainly some (probably more clinicians than researchers) who hold this view:

"There is a point of view that homeopathy does work, but that modern scientific methods have not yet explained why. The failure of science to provide full explanations for all treatments is not unique to homeopathy."[11]

I think we should include that quote as well. NCCAM is a great V RS for saying such views exist. But I agree that for stuff much beyond that, like weighting various views or accurately depicting the depth and breadth of critical views of CAM, they are not a V RS. Does that make sense?

The NCCAM quotes may raise hackles, but it's all within the scope of describing debates fairly. The rebuttals to such points raise hackles as well, and we cite those too, like Goldacre, who is quite lucid. This was a good sarcastic zinger, in response to arguments that observed efficacy is such that it must exceed placebo: "The mysteries of the interaction between body and mind are far more complex than can ever be permitted in the crude, mechanistic and reductionist world of the alternative therapist, where pills do all the work." cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it, so my interpretation there was off. However, the way it is, it comes with another problem: the "Some people say" part. I seem to remember some guideline somewhere to avoid it because it's essentially meaningless: You can get some people to say anything. Now, it is a step removed from us here, with the NCCAM saying that some people say that. Frankly, I'm sure some people do say that, but it's meaningless in the end unless we know who's saying it. I'll also retract what I said about not considering them a reliable source. As long as we keep their POV in mind, they're likely one of the most reliable pro-Homeopathy sources, so I'm not going to fault using them in principle.

Anyways, other comments on the paragraph: It calls this page a "statement," though I'm not sure if that's the best term for it. The other points about the results of miscellaneous studies are already stated within our article; we don't really gain much by saying the NCCAM agrees that this is the case. The last quote could be useful if it were a bit more specific, though it might be worth including anyways. Perhaps what we could do would be to put a sentence at the end of our section on scientific appraisal of Homeopathy saying that this a counter to the lack of scientific evidence. After that, we might be able to source a counter-claim that there is indeed a harm if people use Homeopathy instead of proven treatments (and then any response to this, if present). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:WEASEL. It tells us not to do that, but I don't think it addresses other sources doing that. Anthon01 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit unclear on that point. Eh, I wouldn't worry about it too much. We just have to properly source the statement to the NCCAM and it shouldn't be a big deal. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that works ok. Not sure how to weight them, but common sense wise, some folks do hold views in the ballpark of what NCCAM is citing, or else homeopathy wouldn't retain the following it has (and it is bigger outside the US). regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction, Jim, it is smaller in the US than practically everywhere else on this planet. Take Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba even, all 'on your doorstep' and all with big homeopathic presence. Great masses of seriously deluded folks. Peter morrell 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) ... yes, agree, bigger outside the US. Quite big in India, isn't it? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the main point: As I recall, there used to be a section dealing with the NCCAM in extreme detail - though it may have been another article - but it was very cherry-picking, quoting only the positive statements, leaving out the others. In any case, such a wishy-washy document doesn't seem all that useful, particularly as, reading around the NCCAM pages, one gets the feeling that parts of it are really formulaic - e.g. they seem to be phrased in very similar ways for very different therapies. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, Appendix II is interesting - the only unambiguously positive metaanalysis is the Linde 1995 one which the authors later disavowed the results of. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam -- yes, it's not so much important to quote NCCAM per se as to somehow fairly represent the minority views they depict (as represented by the last two bullets here). NCCAM is a good source that such views exist, and that they're more than tiny-minority; not suggesting more than that. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on RSN for NSF source

In archived talk, I posted:

I've posted at the Noticeboard for Reliable Sources, here, requesting clarification on the reliability of the NSF paper for the assertion that NSF regards homeopathy as pseudoscience. Summary: When X source quotes Y as saying "foobar", can we cite it as "X says foobar"?

Please feel free to have a look at comments there, and add your views. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you can't say NSF says foo if the NSF says merely that someone else (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) says foo. You can say who says it, and cite the NSF paper as source. Why are you asking? Did someone think that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look more at the previous discussion, however, I must point out that you seem to have slightly misrepresented the question. The statement in question seems to have been "The NSF classifies homeopathy as pseudoscience," not "The NSF says XXX". That could be correct, if the document shows that they have adopted someone else's classification. However, as I read it, there's no explicit support for that, either. All three of the mentions of "homeopathy" in that report chapter are in attributed quotes or attributed paraphrases of their cited sources; if they've said that the NSF has concluded that homeopathy is pseudoscience, I haven't found that bit yet. Their broad definition "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" is broad enough to argue for almost any topic to be included, since it's not about the topic but about how unspecified agents present the topic; there's no way to have an NPOV application of that definition, since from some points of view homeopathy is in, and from others it's out. So, it would be much better to be explicit about who classfies homeopathy as pseudoscience; the present statement in the lead is weasel worded, as it doesn't say who, but lists a bunch of refs that are not necessarily the answer to that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is always best to attribute the source of a controversial statement. In this case, quoting a statement and then citing its source is the best solution. Otherwise you get the impression that Wikipedia is officially proclaiming something in a particular POV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewind a bit to where this was first raised as an issue: It has to do with the presence or absence of the Pseudoscience category on this article. That's one case where we can't simply note according to whom it's pseudoscience. There was an agreement that if some organization on the scale of the NSF were to declare Homeopathy (or any subject) pseudoscience, then the category would be merited. So the question was, could this instance qualify for that situation? Now, even if not, it's still a matter of debate whether the word of a lesser organization would be sufficient, and what minimum we do set. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very unusual for NSF itself to take a formal position on anything. Even when reporting uncontroversial research that they've sponsored, they couch it in terms like "A recent paper by A.B. Smith and C.D. Jones finds..." A better place to look would be the National Academies of Science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, placing a quotation of an individual of some notoriety stating his opinion that homeopathy is a "pseudoscience" can and should be included in the article within a criticisms section (not in the lead), with proper citing. However, placing a "Category:Pseudoscience" on this article is not acceptable, since it makes it appear to be a value judgement by Wikipedia. The slippery slope aspect of this issue cannot be underestimated. Just yesterday, there was a "Pseudoscientist" category on the article about a cancer researcher [[12]]. What's next, a campaign to place "Pseudoreligion", "Pseudoauthor", "Pseudoactor", etc. on articles? Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily in favor of describing homeopathy as a pseudoscience or using the pseudoscience category. However, if we decide to do so, I am pretty sure a large number of reliable sources of major bodies and notable figures branding it as such can be found.

The category is just to assist in navigation. It is not to give some official stamp of approval to this label by Wikipedia. The current system does not allow for citing and footnotes in the categories, so for controversial categories it is less than ideal. What has to happen is a fundamental rethinking of how we categorize things in controvesial categories.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Filll that we should rethink how we categorize things in controvesial categories. The "Pseudoscientist" category placed on Stanisław Burzyński's article points out the inherent problems that could soon spiral out of control everywhere on Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Filll and Arion 3x3. What I think we need is to combine the good parts of both categories and lists. Categories help navigation because they automatically add the topic to a master category page; lists are annotated and thus allow for qualification and NPOV. We would need to tweak the wiki software to do this. Either make it possible to annotate entries on the category page, or tweak lists so that adding items to them shows up somehow on the topic's page: maybe a "lists that link here" under "what links here" in the toolbox at left. Something like that, along with judicious naming of lists/categories ("alleged crappiness", "disputed wonderfulness" etc.), could work okay. --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• At #Proposal to improve things it says, "Various homeopathic organisations claim to be scientific". As far as I can tell, the current version of the article does not provide any systematic coverage of "homeopathic organisations"; a few are mentioned in various contexts in the article, but I do not see any basis upon which a reader could judge what the statement: "Various homeopathic organisations claim to be scientific," actually means. The term "various" is vague. Maybe it would be possible to have a section of the article that systematically describes existing "homeopathic organisations" such as medical schools that teach homeopathy and organizations that attempt to represent professional and commercial interests related to homeopathy. In such a page section, it would be possible to state the positions of the organizations with respect to the scientific elements of homeopathy. As an example, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine is a medical school where homeopathy is taught and it has this page which links to the National Center for Homeopathy as a source for learning about homeopathy. The website for the National Center for Homeopathy has statements such as, "There is plenty of solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy." In the end, I think it would be possible to document that homeopathic organizations include both scientific and non-scientific claims/approaches to homeopathy. In particular, I doubt that it makes sense to try to define homeopathy as a scientific discipline. At best, I think it would be possible to try to document the existing balance between the extent to which homeopaths and homeopathic organizations self-identify as scientific and the extent to which they do not adopt a scientific approach. I suspect we would end up being able to say that there are some claims made about the scientific nature of homeopathy by homeopaths and homeopathic organizations and then it would be possible to document the counter claims about pseudoscience in the context of a reaction to specific existing assertions about the scientific nature of homeopathy that have been made by specific homeopaths and homeopathic organizations. Any less rigorous approach to dealing with the "homeopathy as pseudoscience" issue seems doomed to endless argument. Let's try to line up specific sources, citations and quotes that can be presented to Wikipedia readers and that would allow them to judge for themselves to what extent homeopathy tries to be scientific. I think doing so would help Wikipedia place the claims about "homeopathy as pseudoscience" in their correct context. --Memenen (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Explaining probation

It would be useful if someone explained carefully here what article probation actually means, if the article is under probation or soon will be.--Filll (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation is what everyone should read. — Scientizzle 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we have anti-science and non-science admins deciding how this works? Wow. Excellent. Wikipedia is going to be a laughingstock, except medical schools are adding Quackademic Medicine to their curriculum. Everyone head to Sedona to cure your cancer. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved admins cannot participate. Anybody who's been editing doesn't get to enforce. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please pass the poi. Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, let me clarificationalize the electrode. OM made a statement about "anti-science and non-science admins" and you responded with a remark about "involved" admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How would he know who is non- or anti- if they are uninvolved? What am I, for instance? Everybody is allowed to have a point of view, but those who are engaged in the content disputes will not be enforcing. If enforcement goes against Wikipedia policies, I imagine that those admins will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Science does not own Wikipedia, nor do the Alt.Med folks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And... and... when I start a sentence it ends with the wrong fusebox... serioushly, I think admins with expertise in science should deliberately refrain from editing certain topics, but follow them enough to intervene in an educated way where necessary. But WP's always gonna be a madhouse until it adopts some sort of non-wikiality "gentle expert oversight", as at Citizendium. And if not, let it be a resource for popular culture, and leave more academic topics to the grownups at CZ. Only reason I'm still editing here is that I know people read WP, but in some sense that's just "enabling" a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler^(talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think different wikis have different organizing principles for good reasons. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be anything but what it has always been, but Citizendium may be a better place for some people and Wikinfo for others. Personally I find the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be a strong point and this is the only encyclopedia project I've found worth my participation. —Whig (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation means that there is a reduced tolerance for violations of Wikipedia's core policies and other policies. Editors who are disruptive can be banned from editing any articles or group of articles where they may be disruptive, or they can be put on revert limitation (e.g. 1RR instead of 3RR), to reduce edit warring. See Wikipedia:General sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Activity seems to have reduced somewhat since the probation started. A good thing? Probably --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly amazing. De profundis clamavi ad vos scientia prudentiaque! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Google dosen't do Latin yet: (roughly?) "About to pour forth secretly to you knowledge practical judgement!" --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"From the depths I have called to you, O Science, O Reason!" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Throwing in the towel

Well, I've had enough. The last straw was rewarding barnstars to pro-homeopathy editors for not being entirely in the wrong in their harassment and vexatious complaints.[13] This article is off my watchlist. The "probation" nonsense is an utter sham. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, to paraphrase an editor above, "it must be working". ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was not attempting to vex anyone. Anti or pro-homeopathy, what difference does it make? Please AGF. Anthon01 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My assumption was that the probation was placed to curb disruption form editors on both sides or extremes of the discussion. Am I mistaken? Are anti-homeopathy editors favored over pro-homeopathy editors? Anthon01 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line here, and this is likely not your fault, is that if the barnstar were seen by all as merited, there'd be no dispute: as it is, it has cost us one good editor. Perception can, and often does, outweigh "reality". The same is true regarding the purpose of the probation. Did you know that the Charles Darwin article is now on probation? Unreal, yes?

Well, it can get worse. Obviously, we all need to rein ourselves in a bit, but this probation may have some very unintended consequences for WP.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So tell me what probation intentions were? Don't you see everyone is jumping the gun? My assumption was that content disputes don't give a anti-homeopathy editor rights over a pro-homeopathy editor. Since the probation warning yesterday I have not touched the Deadly Nightshade article. However an anti-homeopathy editor has reverted twice in the span of a few hours without any consensus. He has ignored editors on the talk page that are trying to work towards an agreement. Before yesterday I would have reverted his edit at least once. But due to the warning I avoided the article page completely and focused my attention on the talk page. Instead of touching the talk page, I brought the issue to AN/I. What have I done wrong? Anthon01 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying you did anything wrong in this case.

As for jumping the gun, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_probation_for_Homeopathy &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read that section several times earlier today. Is there a particular part you would like me to read? Anthon01 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not about to drag this conversation out to extreme lengths. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. I just didn't get your point. Anthon01 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to end the conversation here. Anthon01 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to distill things

Very little of this talk page seems to have been devoted to actually trying to reach consensus on the article's content (this is probably partially because some editors don't believe a consensus is possible, and others have explicitly said that they're not really very interested in consensus). Because I'm foolish and naive, I'd like to try to bring discussion in that direction. To that end, could editors please elucidate what their problems are with the article as currently written? Please be as specific as possible. Also, in the interests of keeping this thread reasonably uncluttered and therefore readable, I'd suggest that people not respond to others' posts in this thread, but rather create additional threads to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article shows signs of POV pushing. Could we invite people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality to go over it and provide feedback? Often, when neutrality and citations are improved, the level of conflict can be reduced. I see references to an advocacy site, www.quackwatch.org. That does not look like a reliable source for anything except their own views. Could that reference be replaced with a reference to scholarly work that says essentially the same thing?

Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article seems too long. Can it be reduced through copy editing, or perhaps summary style? Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not looked at it recently, I believe the version we had right around going to GA was about right. I and ScienceApologist carefully divided the material into pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy pieces. We found that it was about 60% pro-homeopathy and about 40% skeptical. I think that this division is about right. I also think that the Beneviste affair, which was in some versions but might not be in presently, is important to have. I am not wild about discussing homeopathy around the world, but it is in there by consensus. My personal opinion is that it belongs in a daughter article, not this article. I am not sure about using "quackwatch.com". Surely there must be a better reference, unless quackwatch is just reprinting something from somewhere else?

In my view, the main problem that has roiled this page is several people who do not want there to be any negative material in the article, such as mainstream views, or do not want there to be negative material in the LEAD, or want to lump all the negative material in one section at the bottom. As far as I am concerned, none of these is acceptable if the article is to meet NPOV and LEAD requirements, and MOS guidelines.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick clarification on your last point: that is a problem with the process by which this article is being edited; I'm more wondering about problems with the article as it currently exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Just what is wrong with quackwatch.org? For what is it an "advocacy site" besides good science and true, verifiable facts? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch appears to be a website controlled by one person, effectively a blog. While the information might be accurate, I see no evidence of independent fact checking. The site is asking for donations. This is not the type of site that Wikipedia normal uses as a reliable source. If you would like a community discussion of Quackwatch, please feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jehochman^Talk 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One person who is a medical doctor and thus a reliable source on the topic of medicine. Is there a rule against "sites controlled by one person" in the reliable source guidelines that you can point me to? All I see is a note about self-publishing which specifically notes "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Quackwatch meets both of those requirements.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Verfiability. I am fairly sure that Quackwatch is not a suitable reference for this article. This is a controversial situation and better references are available. Why can't we find a peer reviewed, academic journal? Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying "no it's not" is not a worthwhile response to my explanation of why it is acceptable. What portion of the verifiability guidelines to you believe it violates?Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - WP:SPS Quackwatch has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking. Such sources are not used in controversial situations, especially when better sources can be found. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! In any case, I do not see anything on either the Reliable Sources page or the Verifiability page that instructs us to take into account whether a source "solicits contributions." Are you making up that rule or am I missing something? The world's pre-eminent source on medical quackery, written by a medical doctor, which has been sourced in numerous peer-reviewed publications, is the BEST source on a topic of medical quackery! How could it not be? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! Yes, and we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source Friarslantern (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch's mission statement makes clear that their job is advocacy, not neutral reportage. If they say something important, it will be picked up by independent media that we can cite as a reliable source. Additional opinions are available via the Reliable sources noticeboard. Please go there and start a discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sites are not bound by Wikipedia's interpretation of what NPOV is. Wikipedia editors are bound to using sites which meet the verifiability and reliable-source criterion, which Quackwatch does in every respect.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked a bit. This essay has been cited by universities and used as a resource for coursework. It appears to be reprinted in at least one newsletter. I think that this, given with the WP:SPS material probably makes it ok. We might change the citation to the newsletter or some other place where it was reprinted however.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the advocacy and fundraising question: And how is this different than the Homeopathy sources?--Filll (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! If you have time, you could make a list of all the suspect references, then editors can review and replace them as appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you suggesting that only sources that do not have a POV ("advocacy") be quoted, and/or that no non-profit organizations may be quoted, since they all, quite openly and legitimately, request donations. They can't survive if they don't do that. If so, this is a radical reinterpretation of NPOV. This matter has been discussed so many times now that it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Only the enemies of Quackwatch and the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience here have been making these arguments. I am not making an accusation against you, but I'm just stating the history of this issue. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an uninvolved editor, Jehochman, using WP policies to provide a fresh look of the issue of Quackwatch. Although, I agree that donations doesn't preclude the use of a site, Quackwatch is clearly a partisan site and should be used judiciously. It is obvious that not only the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience make these claims as Jehochman is neither of those. I suggest that a influx of experienced non-involved editors onto this page will help this page move forward. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How many edits can someone make to this page before they can no longer claim to be an "uninvolved editor"? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread got off track a bit...Jehochman, did you see this Quackwatch#Usefulness_as_a_source? Quackwatch may be an advocacy site with a format like a blog, but it's not your average livejournal or blogspot. It's more like citing The Huffington Post. — Scientizzle 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a little different then the Huffington Post as Quackwatch is mostly one editor vs. a multitude at the Huffington Post. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, yes, it's clearly different from HuffPo in several ways. My blindingly obvious point was that though it may be "effectively a blog" it's not a bad source to use. Perhaps it's not the best to use for sourcing certain claims, particularly if there happens to be a peer-reviewed secondary source that says the same thing, but it's in no way inappropriate per WP:RS. There are multitudinous examples of "effectively a blog"-type sites that can be used as reliable sources in many fields on many articles. — Scientizzle 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Quackwatch as a one man show, doesn't have the benefit of contrasting input, from many different sources, and is therefore subject to editorial bias. Many blogs have comments which help to moderate their content. Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said for many Alt-Med journals, even those that claim to be peer-reviewed. I haven't checked the alt-med references in THIS article, but if QW is inappropriate, than so are the others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My take on Quackwatch is: go ahead and cite it as a balance to vanity claims on fringe, tiny-minority topics, if good secondary-source V RS's don't exist. Is there anything in particular at Quackwatch re homeopathy that hasn't been said by a better (e.g., secondary, cf. Jehochman) source? Goldacre pretty much nailed the critical state of the art, and he's secondary, so what exactly does Quackwatch provide here? --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch can potentially be used as primary source to support a statement of the form, "Critics of homeopathy, such as Quackwatch, say that homeopathy is quackery because..." The nature of the source needs to be identified so biases are clearly. I think it would be preferable to use peer reviewed academic journals. I have used blogs as reliable sources in a featured article, search engine optimization, because this is an unusual topic that is not covered by academic sources. That article was the subject of edit wars until the sourcing was improved. Since then, it has been extremely stable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I hope you realize that if we go down this path we will lose most of our pro-homeopathy sources as well. Therefore, I would ask you not to encourage this. I want this article well-sourced, and I am loathe to lose our marginal sources for homeopathy, both pro and contra. Get it? This will not be one-sided like you hope if it picks up steam. Most of the homeopathy sources I want to use for my new article in the sandbox will get flushed if you do this. I probably would no be able to use many of Peter morrell's excellent writings on the subject as sources if you do this. And so please, please please let us not go there. Our articles on homeopathy will suffer badly if we remove these marginal sources or unconventional sources.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Take out the rubbish, and focus on verifiable facts. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, with an occasional primary source used to fill in the gaps or provide additional context. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree with Jehochman. I think the rules are too often ignored. Are there many pro-homeopathy sources? Give me an example of what you think would go in such a purge? Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: You misunderstand my intentions. I hope to improve the project. Lets go where the sources take us. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New quote from authoritative source and V & RS

I would like to add the following to the end of the following section: Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness

• Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics." He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."

BTW, this happens to be yet another of myriad mainstream sources that quote Stephen Barrett as a reliable source of criticism of off beat practices, quackery, and pseudoscience. Fyslee / talk 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the last sentence? Are you promoting or elevating Quackwatch? Anthon01 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that as an afterthought because of the ongoing discussion above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Quackwatch It is literally one of hundreds of quotings of Barrett and Quackwatch made by mainstream and press sources in a positive manner, which shows that mainstream sources, governmental and university sources, and the media often quote Barrett since he is the world's leading authority on quackery. -- Fyslee / talk 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, Barrett is not being quoted in the suggested addition. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What! And give the pro-alternative-medicine-quackery advocates yet one more chance to speak out on this page -- NO WAY! ;-) Friarslantern (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) strike that... this is too sensitive a discussion to joke around :-( ....-the pro-quackery user Friarslantern (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment by Friarslantern is highlighting the underlying problem which remains: We have a large body of people who do not know what NPOV is, or do not know how to interpret NPOV, or do not intend to stay within NPOV, FRINGE. LEAD etc. Until you correct this underlying problem, there will be terrible trouble here.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. It seems there are editors from both POV that don't understand NPOV & NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this would probably be a good addition, but I don't think it meets the criteria for a protected edit. That is, I suspect there's going to be controversy about it. ;) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...you could be right considering the types of disruptive controversy against policy we have experienced. I have always interpreted the wording "If....a desired change warrants advance discussion" as referring to "legitimate" controversy. Attempting to keep out sources that are in harmony with policy because one "doesn't like it" isn't legitimate controversy, but disruption, and the article probation should hopefully keep that to a minimum, for the first time in ages. Any "advance discussion" (controversy) should legitimately apply policies as a means of showing how the addition would be improper. Lacking such argumentation, disruption is likely a logical interpretation. The author, the source, and the quote are impeccable. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to determine consensus - who has been proposing this edit? Sandstein (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the proposer. It is a notable quote, from a notable person, published in a very V & RS (Newsweek). It's about as impeccable as they come and I'm proposing that it be placed in an appropriate section of the article. I believe all polices are being followed. It's an encyclopedic addition that enriches the article. You can try it out and see how it looks. It's a bit hard for me to do at the moment....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some months ago it was decided that quackwatch and Barrett were not acceptable as RS for this article. Check the archives. Peter morrell 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not entirely true, and Barrett is not the source. (He just happens to be quoted as a reliable source by mainstream sources, for the umpteenth time.) Read the quote above. -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, at what point do my predictions (above) of ensuing disruption (already fulfilled above) get recognized and a warning handed out? -- Fyslee / talk 07:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see a disruption? Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a useful quote. But I don't think it's so urgent as to need an immediate edit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. I just want to see legitimate editing attempts that should be uncontroversial to reasonable minds continue. A page protection is not intended to prevent that from happening. This happens to be a very significant quote from a very significant source, Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee / talk 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be good. V and RS, and adds the views of a high-up homeopath. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You said, adds the views of a high-up homeopath. How so? Is Killen a homeopath? Anthon01 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: Your source seems RS and V, although I haven't seen it yet, since the link is not working. I am curious to see it though before making a recommendation. Keep in mind that we already have, on a quick count, 12 citation saying homeopathy is placebo or ineffective so I am not sure if we need to add another. Kinda like beating a dead horse. Finally, it seems that you are using this to prove a point. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 seems to be not understanding the point here. Take a look at intelligent design. How many references are there that it is not science or junk science or pseudoscience? Intelligent design is an FA. --Filll (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd expect a quote like this to be included -- the statements of more "authorized" commentators usually being preferable, and therefore replacing those of less-prominent sources -- it should at the least be given as a reference to any statement asserting that the efficacy of homeopathy is undemonstrated. Naturezak (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The link is in ref format, IOW you need to look in the refs section at the bottom. It is probably collapsed, so just open it and then you'll see it. I am indeed trying to make a point, but I am not making a point that involves disruption. Look at WP:POINT. POINT disruptions are an entirely different matter than attempting to use logic and follow policies. -- Fyslee / talk 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

<re-indent> Is this gov't agency a "pro-alternative-medicine" agency, or an agency whose main job is to watchdog the alternative health industry (I dont' know - I'm asking) ?

... I'd say, if it's a watchdog agency, then the quote's notability in this article is low (because of course the head of a watchdog agency is going to want to say things like this).

But if the general mission of the agency is supportive or optimistic about alternative medicine, then I'd say the quote is important (and more significant than a quote from a dogmatically scientific skeptical organization), but, if this is the case, for transparency's sake, we should put it in context. My sense is that there is a significant portion of the alt. med. sector (though certainly not a majority) that's skeptical about homeopathy, and if that is the case, can we say that (we might need other references besides this quote to establish that) first, ie "Even a portion of the alternative medicine community itself is skeptical about the usefulness of homeopathy [some reference here]. {then your quote here}"....

[Please note: for the record, I myself am a bit more skeptical than optimistic that homeopathy works, but in general am alt-medicine friendly, and am opposed to what I feel is too much of a POV against homeopathy in this article. If I were coming to WP to read about Homeopathy, though, this is the kind of thing I'd want to know about -- that the head of a pro-alt-med agency (?) criticizes homeopathy -- much more meaningful than, for example, that some skeptical organization criticizes it (duh, that's their job)] Friarslantern (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The quackery question in light of anti-immunization

I remain astonished at the lack of willingness to call homeopathy quackery; please help me understand. The article currently states:

Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination,^{[126][127][128]} and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs.^{[129][130][131]}

Given that the efficacy is barely detectable in the small minority of studies which are able to discern any difference from placebo, why is a field whose practitioners regularly try to dissuade people from life-saving vaccines not considered quackery? Did any of the purveyors of snake oil, the epitome of quackery, ever try to keep people from any kind of other medical care known to be effective? MilesAgain (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is considered quackery by all reliable sources on quackery. What we have is some people with an agenda trying to invent new rules on sources, argue over the subject of an article on a talk page, bully people into quitting the page, and generally abuse the process in order to get a fringe, irrational view promoted via Wikipedia. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to make value judgments. We can list the notable people who say that homeopathy is quackery and cite a sources, such as Quackwatch, to substatiate those statements. Why is homeopathy quackery? That conclusion must be based on facts? We can present those facts in an NPOV way, citing reliable sources, and let the reader decide. This is actually more effective and more educational. Telling somebody that homeopathy is quackery is not as good as showing them why homeopathy is quackery.

On the other hand, if homeopathy is not quackery, there must also be reasons based on facts that can be cited to reliable sources. Rather than arguing "homeopathy is not quackery", we should be able to substantiate the benefits of homeopathy by citing reliable sources. Once again, it is up to the reader to decide what they want to believe. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:NPOV mentioning value judgments; to what are you referring? Peer-reviewed sources say it's quackery and none deny it, so it should be stated and cited. MilesAgain (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the same rule applies to "quackery" as "pseudoscience": A flat-out statement requires a reliable source stating that it is generally considered so in the scientific establishment. Notable critics that call it quackery can be cited by name, and information (e.g. on vaccination recommendations) that might lead the reader to conclude it is quackery can also be reported. That should be enough. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccinations comment unsupported by sources

The statement Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination as far as I can tell is not supported by the sources. One article has no abstract. The other two don't support the text. Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, they indeed do support the text: "CAM also lends support to the "anti-vaccination movement". In particular, sections of the chiropractors, the (non-medically trained) homoeopaths and naturopaths tend to advise their clients against immunisation" -- PMID 11587822. One "with no abstract" is entitled "The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine." -- PMID 9243229. The other one is entitled "Homoeopathy and immunization" (PMID 8554846) and I doubt it says anything different. The two news reports on malaria specifically state that homeopathy is risking lives. How could it be any more quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get many from that abstract? I think WP:NOR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source. It states that out of 23 homeopaths, 16 didn't believe in vaccinations.[14] I don't have access to the other two references. One has an abstract but it doesn't support the text either. Perhaps the full text might support it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does that not support the text? It's not just "many," it's "most"! MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and 9 out of 10 dentists use crest ... Anthon01 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In peer reviewed medical journal articles? MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the evidence presented doesn't justify many, because a survey of 23 can't possible speak for the probable tens of thousands of homeopaths practicing in the world. The 9 out of 10 comment is a common advertising trick used in the US, where they interview 10 individuals of whom 9 agree with X, and attempt to give the impression the 90% of all individuals believe X. Anthon01 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, there are all sorts of BBC sources about homeopaths disparaging the MMR vaccine, the malaria vaccine, and so on. This, for example. You are being willfully obtuse about this. You are a problem editor on this article, who has obviously abandoned all pretense of good faith or proper procedure, and are just throwing up nonsensical smokescreens to defend a discredited viewpoint. Go away. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Using a poll of 23 homeopaths as to their personal beliefs does not constitute evidence of ethical allegations such as the seriously POV unsupported statement: "Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination." I propose that this be removed from the article since it is obvious editorializing on the part of the person who placed it there.

Many other health professionals question the use of vaccinations, yet there is no implied questioning of their ethics on the pages dedicated to their professions. Stating that they "advise against standard medical procedures" implies that they reject modern medical procedures and are a quaint throwback to some previous era. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot constantly assert that the single poll is the only evidence for the assertion, when there is all sorts of other evidence available through reliable sources such as the BBC just by Googling, and I even presented you above with a direct link to a completely different article about a completely different investigation into the the homeopathic attitude towards vaccination. You are acting in bad faith here by ignoring all the contrary evidence to your position and wildly misrepresenting your opponents' position.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

At what point does this cross into tendentitious argumentation? Can someone answer that for me?--Filll (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it crossed that line long ago, but I'm so confused by people who are arguing for pseudoscience and not for quackery that I don't know if my opinion is relevant. MilesAgain (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is apply policy. Perhaps you are too close to this to do that objectively, but I don't know. If I presented a study that said 16 out 23 responded favorable to Homeopathic X, would you agree with my statement that many people respond well to X? I don't think so. So the rules,WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH in this case, apply both ways, for the sake of the project. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Sources that indicate vaccine/homeopathy issues of import:

• Schmidt K, Ernst E, Andrews (2002). "Aspects of MMR. Survey shows that some homoeopaths and chiropractors advise against MMR". BMJ. 325 (7364): 597. PMID 12228144.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "These data suggest that some providers of complementary medicine are advising people against government policy."
    • Response letter: Crump SC, Oxley M (2003). "Society of Homeopaths does not advise against vaccination". BMJ. 326 (7381): 164. PMID 12531857.
• Cassell JA, Leach M, Poltorak MS, Mercer CH, Iversen A, Fairhead JR (2006). "Is the cultural context of MMR rejection a key to an effective public health discourse?". Public Health. 120 (9): 783–94. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2006.03.011. PMID 16828492.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "Of the non-compliant mothers [in vaccinating children], 32.6% had consulted a homeopath, by contrast with 10.1% of compliers (P=0.001)...The data show that only use of a homeopath was independently associated with non-compliance....The relevance of a belief that immunizations harm the immune system has been noted elsewhere, and our study quantifies a striking influence of homeopathy in this respect."
• Schmidt K, Ernst E (2003). "MMR vaccination advice over the Internet". Vaccine. 21 (11–12): 1044–7. PMID 12559777.
  • "No homeopath...advised in favour of the MMR vaccination...our study has confirmed previous investigations, suggesting that some CAM providers have a negative attitude towards immunisation, specifically MMR."
• Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine. 20 Suppl 1: S90–3, discussion S89. PMID 11587822.
  • "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health."
• [15]: "two homeopathic doctors who oppose the MMR vaccine are being blamed for a measles epidemic in a small German town"
• [16]"homeopathy...has nurtured irrational anti-vaccine notions such as the idea that immunisation compromises natural immunity and may cause autoimmune disorders, which have spread from a bohemian fringe to acquire mainstream influence in society."

et., etc., etc. There's enough meat on these bones to fill in missing references for a claim like:

some homeopathic providers have negative view of vaccination,^[refs] and parents that consult with homeopaths have a lower rate of vaccination compliance for their children.^[refs] In a few high-profile examples, homeopathic providers have actively discouraged vaccination^[refs] and proper prophylactic treatment for malaria.^[refs]

— Scientizzle 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. Anthon01 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all - over a quarter of the homeopaths in a local area, and half of those who responded, are not a "few high-profile examples" (Ernst reference). It misrepresents the reality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's 16 out of 23 respondents. And you expect that to be the final word on the practice style of tens of thousands of homeopaths? How about a large study or survey with several hundred participants? Just one study? Small studies are notoriously inaccurate.;-) Anthon01 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for article probation and use of template

In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV pushers (and anyone who is disruptive in that connection). In short it makes it easier for admins to stop fires and keep them from spreading. Here is a list of where the template is currently being used.

Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers to insert homeopathy into all kinds of (often unrelated) articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get admin input on this statement, that the probation is designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV pushers. Although Fyslee mentions anyone who is disruptive in that connection this statement clearly implies community bias towards a particular side of a content dispute. Is it true that anti-inclusion editors are favored over pro-inclusion editors? The experience I had yesterday with being blocked, unblocked, and then threatened again has made me wonder whether this is the case.[17][18]

Although I have never advocated the widespread inclusion of (thousands of) homeopathy remedies on plant pages and am unaware of such an attempt, the inclusion of a one line statement,

Thuja is used in making homeopathic thuja.

based on RS, in the 'uses' section, on the most significant homeopathic remedies (greatest hits) seems justified, especially if we believe that WP is an inclusive encyclopedia and if RS are available to support the inclusion. Does that make me a POV-pusher and deserving of the treatment I received here yesterday? How about the editors who are fighting the inclusion of homeopathy on any plant page, in other word want homeopathy on zero plant pages? Are they consider POV-pushers also or protectors of the project? Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I took "homeopathic POV" to mean either pro or anti. Is this the right place for this discussion? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Do you know of a better place? Anthon01 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR Lawrence § t/e 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As part of the core principles on WP, we have WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Some or all of those involved in these discussions seem not to accept or understand or properly interpret these principles. Therefore, we all have to be vigilant and try to make sure we do not violate these sorts of things by our actions.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the possible role of homeopathy in asthma + dementia

The following sentence in the article should change. Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma.

This is the text of the study. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were conflicting results in terms of lung function between the studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a 'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualised homeopathic practice). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. This will help to establish to what extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the homeopathic intervention alone. [19]

It seems to me that the source does not support the sentence since : There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is not equal to found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma. The sentence currently being used in the article implies that the data shows negative results for homeopathy which is inaccurate .The study is inconclusive and the sentence must change. I think everybody can see that. --Dana4 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this seems to me to be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of scientific processes and writing. A negative result, and finding of no evidence, is still that, no matter how it is worded.--Filll (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Filll.

- There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is a negative result? Please everybody feel free to comment. --Dana4 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A direct quotation could be used in order to eliminate controversy. Perhaps a better source can be found. Filll, your solution does not work. We are not here to interpret what things mean. We quote, paraphrase, or summarize. We do not synthesize. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I had not meant to violate WP:SYN. Maybe the signs and portents are correct. Go to it.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So if we agree , an administrator should change the sentence unless there is another source about asthma.--Dana4 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have found a number of these they we corrected, prior the PP. I suspect there are more. I believe WP:OR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The input of more uninvolved editors would be welcome. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to dementia [20]--Dana4 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the statement "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma." be changed to Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that the misrepresentation of homeopathic treatment for dementia needs to be changed. The study that is referenced actually states: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia." That is very different than what the homeopathy article currently asserts: "found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree and I suspect few others do as well, but we are not allowed to say so.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not allowed to have this conversation of course. Spamming the page, a common tactic, is not helpful. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, "no evidence" is also an accurate interpretation of what the article says, as well. There's an implication that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, but we are not entitled to make that implication, whether or not the source did. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy" not equal to find no evidence. --Dana4 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed text leaves no room for interpretation. The current version does. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something. Could you point me to the evidence that they found?--Filll (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is spamming? Anthon01 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dementia" abstract goes on to say "absence of evidence". As to exactly what there is "absence of evidence" of, that would be unclear, but it would certainly be inappropriate to leave that out of the article content. The "asthma" abstract states "No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales." Seems like no evidence to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the statements can be reworded in such a way as to satisfy everybody, but I also think they are accurate and clear as they stand. Did the reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration find any evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma? No. That much is clear, even if they did not find any evidence that homeopathy does not work (whatever that would mean), and in particular they did not find any evidence that the particular form of individualized homeopathy does not work. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Art that they could to be reworded. The way the text currently reads implies that there was a definitive conclusion that homeopathy was not beneficial. Precision wording can eliminate any problems with violating the neutral tone of the article that Wikipedia rules demand. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the current wording sounds like a claim that it's been disproven, when in fact no conclusion was made. Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Systematic reviews have determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of waving a chicken over your head in asthma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.207.53 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I missing here? If the study's writeup itself concedes that it was unable to make any definitive conclusion, yea or nay, due to, in a sense, not measuring what actually needed to be measured ("unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice"), then even mentioning the study at all seems pointless, except as perhaps a subtle and weaselly jab at the credibility of the Cochrane Collaboration. To make the point, one could purportedly say in complete truthfulness "A study that was doomed to fail found no evidence..." Just don't use it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reviews determination of insufficient evidence is noteworthy as it is informative about the status of the project on the issue and has the potential of directing area of further research. Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right... problem is, Wikipedia's goal isn't to tell Homeopaths what they should be researching. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Then it is informative about the status of the project on Asthma and has the potential of directing the parent of an asthmatic child ... I have no problem with leaving it out. Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Something like that. This info may be useful somewhere as you say, but my point was, not here it would seem. Since this article is on a short fuse, I would think it be better just to not use the statement at all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... how about: "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration failed to find evidence that would affirm homeopathy's effectiveness for treating asthma..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How about using the exact phrase the study used. They concluded that In view of the absence of evidence it was not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating ....and or asthma dementia.Fair?--Dana4 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

or According to the researchers There was not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia" more than fair. --Dana4 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or as I suggested above, a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia. Anthon01 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Is the Cochrane Collaboration speaking for their study, or all studies and all science? Did they find any evidence? Or are they making the statement that their study was flawed? Or are they making the statement that all studies in this area are flawed?--Filll (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this is a long list, of which I presume that the others can be presumed accurately portrayed, or someone would have objected by now. The sensible thing would seem to be a rider, "and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend..." Or we could leave them out, which may be best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor.

Besides being grammatically sub-par, the citations for these three all end the same way: there's a paucity of good trials from which to draw final conclusions.

• Asthma: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma."
• Dementia: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia."
• Induction of labour: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction"

The most balanced way to present this is simply:

The Cochrane Library found insufficient clinical evidence to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for asthma^[ref] or dementia,^[ref] or recommend the use of homeopathy in induction of labor.^[ref]

I believe this is similar to the suggestions above. The current text improperly overstates the review conclusions, and this version is directly attributable to the text of the analyses. — Scientizzle 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects to my wording or content, I'll go fix it... — Scientizzle 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle has come up with a version - "The Cochrane Library found insufficient clinical evidence to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for asthma^[ref] or dementia,^[ref] or recommend the use of homeopathy in induction of labor."

Even though Anthon01 agrees with it, that's close to what the Cochrane reviews concluded - "Plain language summary Not enough evidence from trials to determine whether or not homeopathy can help improve asthma.", "There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia." and "Plain language summary There is not enough evidence to show the effect of homoeopathy for inducing labour"

Both the asthma and labor studies found no difference between results from homeopathy and placebo, but there's nowt to assess in the dementia study. That one also includes a link to the more general NHS Direct statement which states no results better than placebo. http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx? articleId=197&sectionId=27

In the context of the whole paragraph, the point's already made in the preceding sentence that "Newer randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using highly-diluted homeopathic preparations also fail to find clinical effects of the substances.[7]"--Filll (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental confusion

I suspect that we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is impossible to ever prove that homeopathy does not work, even if no evidence is ever found. There is no proof in science, and no truth, only in mathematics and logic. In science, all you can have is evidence, or no evidence. Period. --Filll (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the comments to the section above necessarily display a misunderstanding of this principle... explain. Friarslantern (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider that fact in all my edits and comments. Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion appeared to be in agreement with this Friarslantern. However, there are other suggestions which appear to be the result of some confusion on this point.--Filll (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will note that I have not examined the study in question in detail. It could have been a poorly designed study, and therefore irrelevant.--Filll (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite to unprotect the page. If that happens, no edit warring. Article probation is in effect. Jehochman ^Talk 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good idea. The whole talk page is in the grip of rather... questionable questioning of sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it will be an interesting experiment. I will decline to edit because it is just too dangerous.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)