Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

What needs to be in the lead

The lead in articles must perfectly summarize all relevant aspects of the article itself. This means that if a subsection exists then it is probably relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Here are somethings that MUST be mentioned in the lead to properly summarize this article:

• More details on how dilutions of homeopathy are contrary to the laws of chemistry and physics.
• Mention of Veterinary homeopathy.
• More details on provings and treatments.
• More elaboration on the statics of use and legal issues relating to homeopathy.

Unless these things are mentioned in the lead and properly summarized then this article isn't going to reach FA status. We can't just shorten the lead to it's bare minimum with an article this size and expect it to accurately summarize it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeating this enough doesn't make it true. The article's lead is an introduction to it, and need not be an absolutely comprehensive summary of all facts contained within. The assertion that the article isn't going to reach FA without such devotion to complete coverage is not backed up by evidence, and it's not like the parties disputing this haven't been involved in getting articles to FA themselves in the past. My primary concern is to make Wikipedia accessible and readable, rather than an unordered aggregation of facts.

The perfect example is the veterinary thing. This kind of trivia barely belongs in the article in the first place because it should be obvious to literally any reader that this is transferrable from any medical practice; a single paragraph noting it is worth including if it's well-written, but the lead cannot be expected to devote a line of summary to every single paragraph in the article if it is to stay on message. Chris Cunningham 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Please see WP:LEAD. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article, this means a complete summary. A lead must be able to stand alone and still give a comprehensive overview of the entire subject. For instance if someone were to read JUST the lead and not the article as a whole, they should be able to get a summary of the entire article just by reading the lead and know the most relevant information about the topic in question. Veterinary medicine actually isn't transferable from any medical practice and it's quite relevant to the topic of homeopathy, this means that it needs to be mentioned somewhat in the lead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read WP:LEAD. Your absolutism is not backed up by anything in it, and indeed the use of the word "important" in the following excerpt contradicts it:

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article

"Accessible" is just as important as "summary" in the lead guidelines.

While "Veterinary medicine actually isn't transferable from any medical practice", the banal statement that "when homoeopathy is applied to animals, it is known as veterinary homoeopathy" does not reveal to the reader any more than a dictionary definition of the word "veterinary" does. Chris Cunningham 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to explain some details about animal homeopathy in the lead. When nominated for FA, this article will be opposed by people saying that the lead doesn't accurately summarize the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A basic misunderstanding is that "the article's lead is an introduction to it." It is far more. Normal articles (elsewhere) may have an introduction, but here at Wikipedia we use a WP:LEAD, which substitutes for an introduction, but isn't identical to it. In fact the use of a subheading called "Introduction" is eschewed here. We just don't use it. The lead functions as a comprehensive summary making reading of the article (in a certain sense) superfluous except for those who wish to get the full details and references. Otherwise a reading of the lead should tell them all the salient points of the article, but not the finer details. -- Fyslee / talk 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And the lead has the same relative WP:WEIGHT and tone, as the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be telling us what homeopathy is from a neutral point of view. Does anyone disagree with this? How can the phrase "Homepaths contend...." be considered neutral? It's a repetitive theme in the intro of this article, and makes it a boring narrative to read, typical of all controversial article on wikipedia. Basically, it reads from the very beginning like an attack article (yawn). As a reader I want to know what homeopaths claim without an inserted criticism after each one. I want to see a coherent criticism as a separate narrative. I see no reason why the first paragraph cannot be about homeopathy and the second paragraph an outline of the controversies. More detailed rebuttals are appropriate in the body of the article but not in the opening paragraphs, unless you want to call the article criticisms of homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The neutral point of view includes criticism. All views must be represented with their due weight. You seem to confuse NPOV with sympathetic point of view, which wikipedia consciously rejected early in its history. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did i ever suggest removing all criticism? On the other hand, ALL criticism is not neutral. Also, I have never suggested we need to be sympathetic to homeopathy, but to have a critcism after each point and to write "homeopaths contend..." for each claim is not neutral. Why can't controversial articles be written in a way that is interesting? Why are critics afraid to allow a simple description of homoepathic concepts without inserting rebuttals after each claim? David D. (Talk) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but what criticisms here are undue weight? What significant pro-homeopathy views are we omitting? Is this a point of style rather than substance? Keep in mind that the criticisms should not be segregated to critical sections lest we create itra-article content forks.Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It nothing to do with undue weight. Put as many critcisim in as you like. I'm arguing the article is unbalanced. To counter every sentence describing homeopathic claims makes the article look like a hatchet job. Why not just have a bullet list of claims with the rebuttals indented. That is how it currently reads. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would different words be more neutral than "contend"? We necessarily do this when talking about the views of a minority. For example, the article on Joseph Smith, Jr. is not unbalanced because is says that "Smith's records indicate" and "it is believed" that he saw angels, talked to God, ect. These are equally necessary qualifications here when talking about the views of those who believe, essentially, that water has memory. You're right that "contend" is a very adversarial word and has the wrong tone. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word contend used once. But it is used in every other sentence. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time I've read a lead that comes across as a heavily researched criticism section. Honestly, there is way too much bashing going on in there, and it sounds like it has been written by someone with a vendetta against all homeopathists. Short of writing 'DEATH TO HOMEOPATHY', it puts off all interest to read the article, which is one of the most important functions of a lead in the first place.

Wikidudeman has a point in saying that the lead needs to present a stand-alone introduction to all the important points raised in the article. But IMHO there is definately a line that can be crossed, and this lead is way over the top. Instead of giving us so much detailed criticism, it is perfectly fine to give a summary of the kinds of critique homeopathy has recieved - without going into the details of that critque. Save that kind of stuff for the article itself. That's my take on the WP:LEAD guideline. Peace. Aryaman (☼) 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what i have been trying to articulate. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We take an approach in the lead that is little different than that of other comparable pages on pseudoscience - take a look at the lead of intelligent design, for example. There are certainly stylistic things (e.g. contend vs. other synonyms of claim or believe) that can be compromised on, but criticism should not be moved out of the lead. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a strawman. At no point have i said there should be no criticism in the lead. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion #1

With regards to this sentence in the lead:

Homeopaths contend that this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...

What if we rewrote it as such?:

According to homeopathic theory, this process of serial dilutions, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, removes any negative side-effects of the treatment and retains therapeutic powers...

That gets rid of at least one use of "contend" anyhow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word theory is ambiguous and only correct if you mean to use it in the loosest sense of the word, I'd suggest "homeopathic ideas" or just "according to homeopaths". Tim Vickers 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if I agree or understand what you mean by the use of theory being ambiguous. My thought is that regardless of Homeopathy being science or pseudoscience, that the usage of the word theory is correct. Despite that feeling, I am okay with your suggest of just "according to homeopaths". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm fine with that option. Read the article on theories to see what I meant - the word has several meanings. Tim Vickers 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By replacing "contends" with "according to homeopathic theory", I think Levine is going in the right direction. The use of the word theory can be misunderstood, but Tim's suggestions should help. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion #2

My widely unpopular edit was changing the following sentence:

Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy, which homeopaths contend acts by treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "

to:

Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy aimed at treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. "

But I guess that was regard as not critical enough at it was reverted back. David D. (Talk) 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is much better but I never like the word "aimed" used in that sense. It's a personal feeling, but it sounds kind of country bumpkin-ish to me. However, that being said, your idea is right on. It takes out the contentiousness but leaves in the theoretical ambiguity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My main point is to remove the negative homeopaths contend. Anything suitable that substitutes for aimed and keep the meaning intact is fine with me. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I get your point, I agree that it's superfluous. The word is overused throughout, and has a negative tone. I think the substance is good, but the language is excessive. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we're on the same wavelength. Articles should be enjoyable to read, even if you are an opponent of the theories discussed. David D. (Talk) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article in the British Homeopathic journal

Just a quote from H Walach's "Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy" in the British Homoeopathic journal Volume 89, Issue 3, July 2000, Pages 127-140. doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0413

...With this story the eminent scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem ends his work `The Jewish mysticism'.1 It describes the fading of the Chassidic tradition and introduces the image of dilution, in this case the dilution of magic rituals: although the original ritual is diluted and only the story of it remains, it is effective. The same is true for homeopathy, as those believe who have their own experience. Although the original substance is diluted, it is still in some way `present' and effective. This presence, I will contend in this paper, is a magical, not a causal presence, like the one described in the text by Scholem. Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not by causes. In this sense, homeopathy is effective in a non-local way: it acts by magically activating connectedness. It uses a system of signs to bring about this action. I propose to use Jung's model of synchronicity, or, in more general terms, a general model of acausal effects, in order to understand this action. I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word `magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way. Then Jung's concept of synchronicity will be elucidated and set into a wider frame of a possible general class of acausal effects. At last homeopathy will be exemplified as one phenomenon falling under this category. Before I set out, I will make plausible why such an approach is called for by interpreting the empirical database for homeopathy. I will use some concepts at the beginning loosely and clarify them in due course.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the point people are trying to make is that there isn't any need to be afraid of Homeopathy- and that's what the extreme negativity indicates. The reader knows this. The reader will be much more sympathetic to Homeopathy if we keep on bashing it. And the harder we bash it, but more sympathetic the reader will be. Because guess what? Most people are turned off by allopathic medicine. That's why alternatives are so popular. Adam, you and the other bashers here are doing more to promote Homeopathy than any promoter of the therapy. You are promoting Homeopathy. Learn the psychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, ye cannae be serious. Tim Vickers 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I swear. I'll send you the PDF if you want. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet its one of these hoax papers like the Sokal affair. Tim Vickers 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We cite the author 4 times in the article on the pro-homeopathy side. If it is, it's one the Faculty of Homeopaths like. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice editing, Adam. You're making it much more neutral. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't cite this guy, this is just gibberish. Tim Vickers 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's one of the people that did studies that showed homeopathy has an effect. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But come on, this is just crazy - the text makes no sense whatsoever. We can't cite this junk to show anything apart from saying that the man's ideas are insane. Tim Vickers 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This says something about the so-called "reliability" (in the normal, non-wiki sense) of the sources that find positive results. Could we use it as an example of what types of sources find positive results? (A whole new section with several examples.) That might involve some details about what kinds of zany ideas he holds.... Nope. That would get us too far afield into (truthful) OR and POV editorializing. We shouldn't do that here, but it could be tempting on a website...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Sorry if I was a bit obstinate before: I didn't like the lead much, I just disliked most of the suggested changes more. However, like a lot of things on Wikipedia, once all the dead wood started to be trimmed out, a lot of bluntness that seemed necessary turned out to just be props used to try and balance a faulty structure.

Basically, this is an article written by committee. We should be able to smooth out the flow a lot better than it is. But what I think we're looking at is a rather cackhanded attempt - of which I was no doubt part - to balance out sections that poor writing made too supportive of homeopathy by simply injecting criticism. So, we need to improve the writing as a whole.

Of course, there's a lot of notable criticism, and this should still be included in appropriate sections, not just in the criticism section. But - though we have to play it by ear - if we improve the tone, the criticism'll probably simplify and come together into short, coherent paragraphs summing up thoughts on the homeopathic belief, instead of forcing itself into the middle of the explanation of the homeopathic belief. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good principles (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The revised lead is crap. In no way does it neutrally describe this article. It is still far too heavily critical. IMO what do you expect from an anti-homeopath? Peter morrell 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The current lead doesn't summarize the article properly. It's missing relevant information that the article dedicates entire paragraphs and sections to. This is unacceptable. The "Prevalence and legal trends" (Very relevant material) is totally missing from the lead. The mention of Veterinary homeopathy is totally missing from the lead. There is no elaboration of the history in the lead. No real mention of the history at all actually. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it is much worse than that; it is the worst hatchet job I have seen on WP conducted by 2 folks who should know better one of whom wants to become an arb com admin,[1] which beggars belief with such puny and prejudicial editorial "skills" apology for misusing the word skills. Peter morrell 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing a decent lead for this article should not be so hard for so many intelligent people. It has 6 major sections, as far as I can tell. Whoever is in charge of each those sections (if you guys have your editing team worked out at all) needs to write a 1-2 sentence summary on their respective section. Pool them together here on the talk page, discuss them to make sure that folks agree on the content of and weighting in each, and then stitch them together in a NPOV narrative, polishing as seen necessary. If the content in the article itself is good, the lead should pretty much follow of its own accord. Aryaman (☼) 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on rewriting the lead over and over just to have my information removed. I've explained what the lead needs and until we come to agreement that a "lead" is a "summary" as WP:Lead states then I won't bother adding new info the lead over and over. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the participants in this discussion to remember our goal here is to produce a thorough, detailed, neutrally-presented article. Constructive, specific criticism is welcomed, and is the best route to our shared goal. I applaud and thank the editors who are engaging in calm, polite debate about the merits of this article.

Any editors who might consider attacking other editors' views or integrity – instead of discussing the merits of their contributions – are strongly cautioned that such an approach is both unhelpful and unwelcome, and may be met with a suspension of editing privileges. If tempted to make such remarks, I recommend stepping back and having a nice cup of tea, instead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, Will you fix the lead for us? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting anyone's skills here, but I don't think giving the lead to any one person is going to solve the problem. Properly organized collaboration is the key, IMHO. Aryaman (☼) 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve. I have this talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed that things were getting a bit heated. I've asked a few editors specifically to tone down their rhetoric (and backed that request with my admin powers, in the unfortunate event the use of those powers becomes necessary), but I've no intention of imposing content decisions from on high. I think there's productive discussion going on, and I'd much prefer to nurture that discussion than make any sort of attempt to short-circuit it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't exclude you from being able to improve content of articles. From an outside editor it might seem like productive discussion is going on but this is just a never ending cycle and little actually gets permanently done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with this new version of the lead as well, it fails to summarise the article. However, Adam's idea of removing repetition and condensing sections of the article are a good one. Tim Vickers 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely glad to see the repetition gone. Now we need a descritpion of homeopathy that is not sprinkled with critiques. Preferably a section that introduces the history and concepts (this does not mean no criticism at all in the lead). David D. (Talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

We need to summarise the article. How about three paragraphs following the sections of the article.

1. History and General Philosophy

   Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of complementary and alternative medicine first used in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Building on this work, later homeopaths such as James Tyler Kent expanded the practices of homeopathy: although Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art remains in wide use today. The legal status of homeopathy varies from country to country, but homeopathic remedies are not tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs. Usage is also variable and ranges from only 2% of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[4][5] to India, where homeopathy now forms part of traditional medicine and is used by approximately 15% of the population.[PMID 16177471]

2. Development of remedies and Treatments

   Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are then diluted in a process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage, that homeopaths believe removes side-effects but retains therapeutic powers - even past the point where no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[3] Hahnemann proposed that this process aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers held within a drug".[4] Sets of remedies used in homeopathy are recorded in homeopathic materia medica, with practitioners selecting treatments according to consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient.

3. Medical and scientific analysis and criticism

   The ideas of homeopathy seem scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[5][6] Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[9][10][11][12] Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[14][15][16][17] This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[13] Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, with a few homeopaths even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures such as vaccination and anti-malarial drugs.[18][19][20][21][22]

Please comment below. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any further comments and suggestions for improvement, or are people generally happy with this current draft? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK everybody, I've compacted the resolved issues, this consensus version of the lead has now been placed in the article. Further feedback is welcome and please continue to suggest improvements below. I have to say how impressed I have been with this successful co-operation, it is the most productive and focussed discussion I have seen on this talk page. Thank you all very much. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on section 1

This section needs to give a little more detail on the history. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Expanded. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What (prejudicial?) purpose does the 2% thing have? why just confine this to Britain and the US, when homeopathy is much more prevalent in France, Germany, India and Pakistan? needs fresh cites anyway, thanks Peter morrell 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added note on number of homeopaths in India, but if you have a reliable source on actual prevalence of use in the Indian population that would be better. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding India...two new news articles of possible interest:[2] [3] might contain data or useful material. Peter morrell 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Found a 2005 article dealing with homeopathy as part of Indian traditional medicine that gave a percentage prevalence. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you say Organon still in use. What purpose does this statement serve? just to show that homeopathy has 'stood still?' Not so, many things happened after the Organon (which you do not state) and also which Organon? 1810 Organon 1 or 1833 Organon 5? which one? The statement is in fact another hatchet job, a hopeless oversimplification, which is of course what you guys want. The tone of the rewrite throughout is still anti through and through. It still lacks neutrality and balance. IMO Peter morrell 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Write a better one-sentence summary of the post-Hahnemann history of homeopathy and we can substitute it in. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Despite being one of the better-known forms of alternative medicine, the legal status of homeopathy varies from country to country." doesn't seem to actually say anything. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It says that although it's well known, It's usage and legal status are varied. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit woolly, how is the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence has been bugging me a bit:

"The ideas and practice of homeopathy have not undergone any radical changes over the past two hundred years, with Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art remaining in wide use today. "

I'm not sure why, possibly because it is stating the obvious. How about the following change?

"Even today Hahnemann's most famous textbook The Organon of the Healing Art is widely used as a reference for homeopathic treatment. "

This seems a little more neutral. IMO. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read Peter's comment abve re: this sentence. i have to say i didn't see this as a hatchet job, more a testement to Hahnemann's influence and impact on homeopathic treatments. Nevertheless, given Peter's worries, the second sentence could possibly read as:

"Even today, many of the ideas layed out in Hahnemann most famous textbook, The Organon of the Healing Art, are widely used for homeopathic treatment."

Peter, if you hate this sentence now is your chance to get what you'd prefer. David D. (Talk) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, it depends on the motivation behind the inclusion of this sentence...what function does it serve? It sounds OK as it is but it stops short of saying very much about the core issue. In the late 19th century, for example, one of the critiques levelled against homeopathy was that it was fossilised, had stood still, resisted all change and had turned inwards (see W G Rothstein: American Physicians in the 19th Century - From Sects to Science; and H L Coulter Divided Legacy, 4 vols; who address this point as also does Kaufman, Homeopathy: the Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy) but from the homeopathic side this was a big misapprehension. In their view Hahnemann had found the absolute therapeutic truth, a new method and a new materia medica and the tools to treat all sickness, so why look elsehwere? why use other books when the Organon contains everything, an entire distillation of all homeopathic knowledge? That is why they appeared to resist change, to look inwards and not to use microscopes or require laboratories, etc. Thus, this brief comment seems redolent with that same dismissive & contemptuous attitude towards a system of medicine that regards itself, as it still does even today, as a complete medical system that does not need allopathy, that has cut itself free from mixed drugs in strong doses. Do you follow? that was my point. How you encapsulate that in this hopeless diatribe of an article I know not. Personal attack removed Forsure, it is a hatchet job, the whole goddam article. Peter morrell 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Peter, what do you think of the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'new version' of what, Tim? where is this new version, this Babylon, to which you refer? thanks Peter morrell 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Babylon is presently in the first paragraph of the draft above. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK; however, it is not true that homeopathic drugs are not regulated; they are regulated in Germany and France, Belgium too, I believe, and so are controlled drugs like Opium, LSD and Cannabis sativa in the UK, even when used in potency. Such drugs can only be prescribed by a physician or a registered homeopath. I have no cites for that but maybe you can find some. Peter morrell 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! What I was trying to say is that homeopathic remedies are not regulated as drugs i.e. they don't have to undergo the same clinical trials as conventional drugs. I tried for a better phrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is only true up to a point. You would have to consult a homeopathic pharmacist. Aconite, Belladonna and Nux vomica are deadly poisons in their origianl state and are certainly regulated as controlled drugs, likewise Opium tincture (Laudanum) and Cannabis tincture. Such tinctures are deadly in their pristine state and are certainly controlled in law. Many drugs as herbal extracts are controlled in most countries if they are lethal. Homeopathic pharmacies have to be licensed in the UK as manufacturers and/or dealers in homeopathic stock. Many of them start off as tinctures or as stock solutions which are then potentised over time. No country is that legally lax to allow such drugs to be collected and prepared by just anybody! I don't know what the lwas are but they certainly exist. Peter morrell 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but the remedies are not required by law to be put through clinical trials and are not regulated in the same way as conventional drugs. The regulation of mother tinctures is a separate issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, that is correct! except for potencies of 'controlled drugs' like Opium and Cannabis, etc as mentioned before. You should check that all allopathic drugs are subjected to clinical trials; I'm not sure that is strictly true. There are many drugs in use I think which have not been subjected to trials, mainly because they have been in use for 30-40 years already. Aspirin and Paracetamol are good exmaples. There must be many such drugs in common use which are just not questioned. So, if your point is to show that homeopathy 'lags behind' conventional medicine in its quality controls, for example, then you had better get the facts even tighter. Peter morrell 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All drugs must be proved safe and effective, PubMed contains 137 clinical trials on aspirin and analgesia and 434 on the same topic with paracetamol eg 1977 review. The same laws are not applied to homeopathic remedies - clinical and toxicological trials are not required by law before a remedy can be sold to the public. Those are the facts, but how you interpret them depends on your POV. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes OK, but no, I think you missed the point. New drugs now are indeed trialled but it is simply untrue to claim that all drugs in common were trialled BEFORE they were introduced. This is a relatively recent procedure. Paracetamol and Aspirin were in use for decades before they were trialled and I am sure there are many other examples. It is no use citing drugs that were trialled AFTER their general use in medicine as that does not show the POV you seem so keen to push. In any case, clinical trials are not just to show efficacy but also to identify possible harmful side-effects, so this dual function of trials is not transferrable to homeopathic drugs, although some homeopaths (e.g. Vithoulkas) reckon provings should be done against placebo, which other homeopaths regard as daft. Does this clarify? thanks Peter morrell 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly, clear. You think it would be incorrect to say "have not been tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs." but that it is correct to say "are not tested and regulated under the same laws as conventional drugs." since this second statement refers to current legal requirements, rather than the much looser laws on drugs that applied in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Stating the facts is not POV Peter and saying that homeopathic remedies are not regulated in the same way as conventional drugs is a plain statement of fact. If you are still unhappy with this, how would you describe the regulation of homeopathic remedies in one sentence? Make a suggestion and let's consider it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes the latter sentence seems fine to me. cheers Peter morrell 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the last part of this statement about the prevalence of use, doesn't this violate some Wikipedia standard. Does it matter if 97% of people believe in Homeopathy? Does that make it any more or less valid? I think this violates NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think simply noting prevalence has any implication that the thing itself is correct, after all, we note the murder rate in various places without this being seen as an act of approval towards murderers, or an article on Catholicism could note what percentage of various nationalities believes, without making any judgement or implication on whether the tenets of this religion are correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And comparing it to how many people "believe" in Catholicism makes me feel better. User:Filll once looked up a bunch of polls on what Americans believe--like 50% believed in Alien abduction and the such. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of lead paragraph 1

Please comment here: suggestion

Researsh on the memory of water has found no or very little evidence to explain how homeopathy might work. Add more references

[4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on section 2

Not happy with the non-neutral term 'homeopathic belief;' we did have contend before, which is MUCH more NPOV. can we restore that? thank you. Not happy with the phrase 'Hahnemann wrote' maybe he proposed or documented a belief? just a few ideas. Peter morrell 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adopted suggestions, replaced "contend" with "believe" as per discussion in section above. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What discussion above? No explanation is given for this change. Believe is POV contend is more NPOV. Please explain this change. Peter morrell 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, diff it was removed because people thought it was pejorative and carried a negative implication! Tim Vickers (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I'm surprised you'd think contend is more NPOV. That sounds like a very defensive word in that context. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Some parts seem to unduly accept homeopathic beliefs as fact. e.g. "Homeopathy aims to treat disease..." - The words "aims to treat" seems to imply that it works at least some of the time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I could say that Margaret Thatcher aimed to fly to the moon on a broomstick, but that would not imply that it could happen. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this seems to suggest hope rather than fact. Besides, it could be considered to work some of the time due to placebo effect. It all depends on your definition of work. This is vague enough that it should suit all. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• "These substances are administered in heavily diluted formulations" - this sentence spends a lot of words to say something that could be said in a couple adjectives. Should be recombined with the previous sentence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit wordy, I've condensed it a bit.

• "Hahnemann proposed" - why not just "said"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We could say "wrote", but proposed seems to describe it more succinctly than "hypothesised" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed is better than said. Although I could go with wrote. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Homeopathy employs substances that cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are diluted in a process of serial dilution..." How about "Homeopathic remedies are based on substances that in undiluted form cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat. These substances are then diluted in a ......"? This shows the progression of developing remedies. -- Fyslee / talk 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is better than my wording. Added Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion of lead paragraph 2

Please comment here:

Discussion on section 3

• Tim, this is much more along the lines of what i was thinking. Section one and two give a nice introduction that flows and is interesting. It comments that this is controversial but does not belabor the point. The last section is a fair rebutal that brings balance to the article for any reader who was unaware there was controversy. David D. (Talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• We need a section on the Legal status and statistics. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added to first paragraph. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to commend Tim Vickers and others here for this big step forward towards real collaboration. If you guys (and gals?) keep it up, I'm sure a lead will emerge which will (a) tie in with the structure of the article, (b) present a balanced summary of the contents of the article, and (c) reflect a true consensus among the contributing editors. Good work, everyone. =) Aryaman (☼) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, well done Tim good work; so far so good. Peter morrell 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the statistics really so important that they must be in the second sentence? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well they could go in the second paragraph, but that seemed the logical place for them. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good, Tim. Hal peridol (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like almost everything, but this statement "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" has always offended my understanding of science. I just don't know how something can be "opposed" to scientific knowledge. I've tried rewording, which stayed, until someone rewords it, then it gets weaseled. As it is here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a direct quote of the second source link we decided last time we discussed this that simply paraphrasing the sources was the best way to approach this, since that gives the least possibility of introducing bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's a direct quote can actually make it more POV. This language ("The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge, and have been characterised as a form of magical thinking") is simply not neutral, not the kind of language that a neutral-type source would use to speak of a system that still has serious followers. It is more POV than the language of the source itself! (see source). Friarslantern (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're falling into the "some say the earth is round; others say it is flat" misperception of NPOV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not. The number of serious, educated people to whom homeopathy is plausible, including MD's, is small, but significant. The number of serious educated people who believe the earth is flat is almost imperceptible.

We're not discussing the current lead, but the draft above. See section 3 of the draft. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The one above that says "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" ? OK, well, the same problem. With issues of controversy, it is not WP that should be telling me that a given controversial topic is scientifically implausible. It is WP's job to tell me that (ie the consensus among scientists is that...., or some such language). You would not read this in a serious journal, newspaper, or encyclopedia. Indeed, even the souce cited, in its abstract, uses the language "many pharmacists feel that the homeopathic system of medicine is based on unscientific theories that lack supporting evidence" -- and this is directed toward pharmacists (who are presumably more science-minded than the general WP-reading public)! The first mention of a topic's controversy sets the tone for the whole article. Friarslantern (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You would indeed read these comments in serious journals since these are the sources the phrases were taken from:

• "This is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." link
• "Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use." link

The phrasing in this part of the article tries to stay as closely as possible to reliable sources such as these. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine -- so put it in quotes. Note the MORE neutral tone of the very article you cite, however. Friarslantern (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a bit more neutral with seems scientifically implausible rather than the definitive are scientifically implausible. And both note the widespread use despite Homeopathy's scientific shortcomings. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you're a basic science researcher, so you know better than I. It just sounds weird. BTW, it is precisely neutral. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence is discussed in the first paragraph, but I'm fine with "seems" rather than "are", which was how I originally phrased it, before it was "edited ruthlessly" Tim Vickers (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual vs. pscyhological

Not happy with the word spiritual in the bit about consultation. Maybe 'psychological or psycho-social condition of the patient' would be more accurate. Spiritual is too woolly and New Age for a start and also what does it refer to? it is inaccurate. Homeopaths have no more idea than the rest of us what this term means. It has no intrinsic meaning within homeopathy. It kind of suggest religious belief which plays no part in homeopathy or in homeopathic consultation. just a few thoughts. thanks Peter morrell 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do homeopaths do a spiritual consult, or is it just psychological? If so, that's the word for what it is. It's not the same as psychological or psycho-social, which look at functioning of the psyche but not at, let's say, one's meta-analysis of the psyche: perceived meaning of life, role of one's ethics, and metaphysical beliefs, if any. If homeopaths give a spiritual evaluation, then that's the word for what they give, I'd say. Friarslantern (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They talk to the patient and LISTEN to a complete overview of their medical conditions and their likes and dislikes, and their mental habits, inclinations and moods, sleep pattern, menstrual patterns if any, personality...quite frankly this is NOT spiritual. How does that sound? It's quite simply the wrong word. Peter morrell 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that what you describe isn't exactly the spiritual. They might call it constitutional, which could be the most fitting word here, I dunno, but it's meaning is obscure to many.... Friarslantern (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Psychological" seems fine, good suggestion Peter. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you make a psychological assessment without being a psychologist or psychiatrist? They're based on science. I'd accept something like "holistic" assessment, which fits with the whole pseudoscience of this practice, while accurately describing what this practice thinks it's doing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "try to assess" rather than just "assess", they certainly attempt to do this, but whether it is achieved is debatable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

you don't get it yet; NO assessment is made at all, no judgement, no evaluation, no comment! just collect the symptoms of every aspect build a full picture mental and physical, and find the most similar remedy. I would suggest you might study the subject a litle first? I don't edit articles on biochemistry because they're slightly beyond my specialism. Same applies. thank you Peter morrell 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you collect data on something, you are still assessing its state and evaluating it. If you give remedy X to people with blonde hair and remedy Y to people with red hair, looking at a person and deciding on the colour of their hair is an assessment of hair colour. This seems a perfectly accurate way of expressing what happens, what would you suggest instead? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very hard to give examples of how this works in practice; it really is non-evaluative. Homeopaths take shortcuts such as Belladonna is no use unless there is a red face and high fever, they are usually delirious; the Pulsatilla child cries and laughs easily, they are clingy and insecure; the Natrum mur is averse to criticism, cannot urinate in company; no Nux vomica patient has a mild disposition, they are almost invariably angry dynamic people; Arsenicum has a fear of death and they know it is coming, they adjust pictures until they are hanging right; Aconite is for anything affected by strong dry cold winds; Lachesis types are always jealous and bleed/bruise easily; Lycopodium and Silica fear failure and speaking in public but once they get started make excellent speakers; Mercury is for very odd people with very odd habits; etc etc; these are not evaluations they are merely observations of associations between remedy symptoms and people symptoms. The 'pscyhology' in homeopathy means the type of person in front of you, what they are like, mild, angry, sad, whatever. Does this clarify? I do think psychological is a better word than spiritual but it is not used in any deep technical sense as Orangemarlin suggested. I hope this makes it clearer. thanks Peter morrell 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, what to you think the rewording "...consultations that try to produce a picture of both the physical and psychological state of the patient."? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Tim, this is a much more suitable re-phrasing. thanks Peter morrell 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

or "...consultations that try to produce a picture of the patient's character and constitution." Well, at least these contain the meaning of what we're getting at.... don't know if they're colloquial enough not to disrupt the style & flow here. Friarslantern (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "character" since that always carries the implication of "moral character" - ie he is a man of character. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...a picture of the patient's personality and physical makeup." Friarslantern (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Personality doesn't include important aspects such as how they are feeling - stress, anxiety etc. "Physical makeup" is a little strange as well, to the chemist in me it recalls elemental analysis, but also sounds like you might be counting limbs and measuring BMI. What exactly is your concern about how it it currently phrased? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with it :-) .... I was working from Peter's problems with it. And there should be no problem with using "psychological" -- the legal distinction that homeopaths are not licensed to evaluate psychology is just that, a legal distinction, not a relevant distinction for an encyclopedia that (I hope) aims to be colloquial. Friarslantern (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the user Tim Vickers that paraphrasing “the sources is the best way …since that gives the least possibility of introducing bias”. I think this could be added in the 3rd paragraph. This is exactly what the studies say:

One of the six meta analysis concluded that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” not without its own critisim from homeopaths. [6] [7] Another meta-analyses concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence. [8] Four metanalyses have shown that homeopathy is more effective than placebo or that the evidence of clinical trials is positive but they found insufficent and/ or unconvining evidence that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single condition because of the unknwon role of publication bias and the low methodological quality of the trials. [9] [10] [11] [12]

Proposing that we give equal weight to a publication in "The Lancet" versus a publication in the obscure Swiss alternative medicine journal "Forschende Komplementärmedizin" is simply absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

|}

Further discussion of lead paragraph 3

Please comment here:

This is a basic homeopathic objection, which was not included before.

Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology. [13]

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Compare the credibility of the already in use “Your Skeptical Guide to Homeopathic History, Theories, and Current Practices Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D” website with this study [15] which ….was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’ Peter F. Matthiessen, (Chair of Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke (Germany).

But lets not argue about that now.

Even without this source I think what I suggested ( look above again ) could be used since it gives the least possibility of introducing bias as you said. I think it is very neutral and no one would object. "Meta-analyses of many clinical trials have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design" is not what the studies say.

This is more neutral" One of the six meta analysis concluded that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” not without its own critisim from homeopaths. [16] [17] Four metanalyses have shown that homeopathy is more effective than placebo or that the evidence of clinical trials is positive but they found insufficent and/ or unconvining evidence that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single condition because of the unknwon role of publication bias and the low methodological quality of the trials. [18]

[19] [20] [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.247.46 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian article

[22]

Refers to this Lancet article:

[23] helpfully copied byt the author here

Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy articles in the news

While Ezine Articles is not a RS (and blacklisted as a source here), there still may be some interesting stuff here:

• Chiropractic is Responsible for the Rebirth of Homeopathy in America

The history of homeopathy begins with the discoveries of its founder Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician. Hahnemann's first comments about the general applicability of the law of similars came in ...

http://Ezine Articles.com/?Chiropractic-is-Responsible-for-the-Rebirth-of-Homeopathy-in-America&id=346168 (space in hyperlink needs to be removed for it to function)

Other sources (HIV/AIDS and homeopathy):

• Homeopathy under attack

InTheNews.co.uk - London,UK

The decision to host a symposium about homeopathy's role in the treatmentof HIV/Aids has provoked a fierce attack from a leading academic. ...

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/finance/pharmaceutical/homeopathy-under-attack-$1167450.htm

• Homeopathy to treat HIV/AIDS criticised by British doctors

Newstrack India - Delhi,India By NI Wire Nov 17:

A proposed Homeopathy's function in the treatment ofHIV/AIDS has become an object of remonstration. The seminar was to beorganised by ...

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/1527

The last one includes statements made by Indian doctors which should result in delicensure and criminal prosecution for endangering lives. They are dangerous deceptions and untrue. Any research that supports their claims must be seriously flawed. -- Fyslee / talk 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... is the preponderance of evidence really that great, or are you going with your scientific instinct here? This article can't be too bad -- note the text of the final paragraph!!! Look a little familiar? Friarslantern (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that does show that what we are doing is important. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NIH / NCCAM

Ok, I make no claim to be a great writer, so please tweak what I just added, but this article absolutely does not have NPOV. The NIH has on their site a list of studies that did show that some homeopathic remedies have statistically significant difference--Yet the very page that shows that at the NIH was referenced in this article as *only* showing that some studies are not valid. True, the NIH site has those invalidations...but it lists the ones that showed significance as well. That should be reflected in the opening paragraphs of this article. So, again, my lame attempt to point that out obviously needs rewording, but at least some balance of that fact makes it a bit more NPOV I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewherepurple (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment is in relation to this edit and this link. NCCAM is itself said to be less-than-neutral, but putting that aside I still think the edit's language goes too far. Most studies show no statistically-significant link. Even NCCAM is unafraid to say homeopathy is controversial "largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics)." (emphasis added) Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Such studies MUST be included rather than removed purely for the sake of balance. I see the addition made in the night has been rvtd can we please discuss the inclusion of these positive studies? to ensure NPOV they must be included... thank you Peter morrell 12:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if it's not a good-quality metaanalysis, it shouldn't go in. Random crap from complementary medicine journals is no good. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What you call 'random crap' from alt med jnls is not OK but random crap from skeptic websites is OK, is that it? is that your policy? if so then this article, solely controlled by folks like you, will never reach NPOV. Take your pick. You cannot seriosuly have a policy of excluding refs solely because they might be positive studies, which is what you seem keen to do in every edit you do to this article. thank you Peter morrell 13:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to use altmed journals to say that science supports homeopathy. That's not the same as using a skeptical site to say "Homeopathy has been criticised for..." Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In my own field of medicine, reputable journals - such as the British Medical Journal - have often printed articles which have been heavily criticised for unbalanced statistics, unacceptable conclusions, and biased study conditions. Statisticians regularly slate the medical community for publishing poor quality. But as these are allopathic and accepted, it hardly merits attention. Because they are "normal", these studies stand. Think of the "butter is good - no! Butter is bad" debates etc etc. When you then discount journals because you do not like their stance, then you compound the errors. I would reconsider your basic premise, if I were you, Adam. docboat (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

However, there are reputable journals and unreputable journals, and, combined with the nature of the statistical test used to check whether something is better than placebo, there's bound to be some studies that say it's better than placebo. Combine this with publication bias, and there really is no call for using single studies that show very small effects to try and claim that homeopathy is supported. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that there are studies which show an effect, and it is simply not on that these are discounted on the basis of your personal bias. Can you agree on that point? docboat (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While we editors should keep factors like statistics and publication bias in mind, we are in no position to quantitatively evaluate them to conclude whether the sum of the studies is inconsistent with a homeopathic effect, inconsistent with only a placebo effect, or consistent with both (i.e. undecided). That's what the metastudies are for, and we should only report their conclusions, sticking as closely as possible to their language. Since there are several metastudies published, we can try to sort them according to reputability of the journals. If we can't come to a consensus on that point we could use impact factors. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC):

Agreed, but Peter is arguing that non-metaanalysis single studies should be given equal weight... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that at all. In fact, all I am saying is that SOME mention should be made of positive studies. They exist. Anyone reading this article would think there are NONE. That is POV. hope that clarifies. Yes they should be mentioned but I did not say they should be given equal weight. I will give you some quotes from one later and then you can see what you think. cheers Peter morrell 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get started quoting from individual studies, there are just too many of them. Can't we instead use the summaries from the metastudies, which describe the studies as a whole? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

magical thinking

This is one of the most common criticisms of homeopathy, so surely it should appear in the article? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

References:

Walach, H (July 2000). "Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy". British Homoeopathic journal. 89 (3): 127–140. doi:10.1054/homp.1999.0413.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

[24]

[25]

[26]

However, none of these are very prominent or reliable sources, compared with the high-impact peer-reviewed journals used to source the other statements in this section of the lead. Surely if we just confine ourselves to reporting what the best journals in the scientific mainstream say about homeopathy, we make the statements in the lead more authoritative? Tim Vickers 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If we did, yes, but we don't: All that statistical information about usage isn't from major journals, and we also use a university source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? I simply don't understand the objection in the edit summary, since notability is far from always a requirement for references, while verifiability and reliability are. Those happen to be good sources and are a good addition to that part of the lead. (Keep in mind that Adam's edit summary isn't part of the edit.) The edit itself is quite dry and a matter of fact statement about existing skeptical opinions, backed up by references. I just don't get it, and I haven't even been enjoying a glass of wine! -- Fyslee / talk 06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The notability requirement is not on the reference, it is on the statement. If there's reason to believe that homeopathy is commonly seen as being magic then I'm fine with the refs, but I don't think there is. To my knowledge it is generally portrayed as being (pseudo)scientific in nature. Furthermore, the statement in question is mentioned only in passing in the article body. No need to stuff it into the intro too. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a criticism I have seen in the mainstream scientific literature. Has this statement been made in any papers that have been published in reputable scientific journals? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are raising the bar for inclusion of this type of information to an unreasonable level. Scientific information should preferably be backed up with good scientific references, while critical opinions are more commonly found in skeptical literature, newspaper articles, journal aricles (like "Time Magazine"), V & RS websites, etc.. The sources must still be from V & RS, but don't necessarily have to meet the notability requirements for other types of information or the quality requirements for the nitty gritty details involved in specific scientific claims. Let's keep these distinctions in mind, otherwise we are creating a straw man situation. -- Fyslee / talk 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If critical information in the lead is restricted to the scientific mainstream, then this also excludes the stranger publications in fringe journals on such topics as quantum entanglement of people and water memory. There can be no justification in insisting on good-quality sources for scientific discussion of possible mechanisms of such topics unless we are equally stringent on other scientific topics, such as if homopathy is magical thinking. However, if this is indeed a common criticism, then it should be noted in the meta-analyses and academic reviews that we cite in the reminder of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. don't believe this was intended to be raising the bar so much as an innocent inquiry. That said, the bar for inclusion in an article seeking FA status should certainly be higher than "this was mentioned in an acceptable resource", insofar as it pertains to non-notable information. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I guess I'm not expressing myself very well, but I strongly disagree with you on this one. You are using an apples and oranges situation here which has often been used as a straw man argument by fringe editors to shoot down perfectly good opinions from good sources, opinions which are rarely if ever uttered in actual scientific research articles. They do what you are doing, and requiring that such statements (even in articles unrelated to science) be sourced only from double blind research, which is an obvious fallacy and generally nearly impossible. Research is research, and opinion is opinion. They still require backing from V & RS, just different types of sources. I am still nonplussed to see you using an argument that fringe editors often use. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the case. Why not try explaining what the problem is, rather than trying to tar an editor by association with unspecified "fringe editors"? Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim is far from fringe. He is a scientist and I was just surprised to see him using an argument I have seen used by fringe editors. That's all. This plays into their hands and they can use it as justification for more attempts to use invalid arguments to demand sourcing that is clearly not of the right type for subjects not to be found in such literature, i.e. skeptical opinions and dialogue in scientific research studies where the facts discussed are more likely to be about the molecular composition of whatever, rather than the personal opinions of the researcher regarding the wars in the trenches between science and nonsense. Such opinions are found coming from scientists who are writing in skeptical journals, interviews in the press, and on various skeptical websites. Two different types of information coming from two different types of sources, all from scientists who consider homeopathy to be nonsense and highly improbable, and all from sources that in their own right are considered to be V & RS. We use apple judges to judge apples, and orange judges to judge oranges, and the two don't always meet very often. -- Fyslee / talk 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to this criticism being included, but I haven't seen enough evidence that this is a notable enough criticism for it to be included in the lead. We have a good number of reliable, reputable sources on this topic, if they do not mention "magical thinking" as one of the major criticisms, then it probably isn't something we need to put in the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems to me that if we're gonna be all academic here that it is not mainstream medicine or physical science that covers the area of "magic". Nor should newspaper editors or skeptic websites be the source (unless they have degrees suited for it).... wouldn't anthropology be the appropriate field? Science, seems to me, can say "This is not scientific". But to comment on the metaphysical nature of homeopathy or not, one should turn to the experts in metaphysics, not science. Thinking of changing my name to "FringeEditor", Friarslantern (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference stuffing in intro

Para 3 of the intro is massively over-referenced. There's no requirement to add inline refs to the summary as well as to the article body statements. We certainly don't need twenty-three references in the lead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. My personal preference - and it's just mine! - is that WP:LEAD's contain no references at all, keeping them clean and easier to read. Since the lead must reflect well-referenced article content, there is no requirement at present that the lead include a single reference, since the lead refers to article content that is already referenced. If anything in the lead doesn't do that, then it should be removed (preferably to the talk page), the article brought into conformity with that information, and then the item may possibly be added back into the lead. This is all a matter of taste since there is no rule against having references in the lead. I just think it makes the lead look cluttered. IMHO. If editors here (preferably a significant number) decide to follow a reference-free-lead format, then we can do it and in the future refer new editors to that decision as binding. Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia being what it is, if a new consensus at a later time changes that decision, it will all have been a waste of time, but then 90% of what happens here is wasted time because there is not attempt to protect good content or even Featured Articles. If you want to start an RfC here proposing a "Reference-free-lead" format, you will have my vote. -- Fyslee / talk 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly agree with removing all the intro ref tags (they should all be duplicated in-article anyway). As for consensus changing: this seems to work in general on Wikipedia. It's much less effort to defend an existing, well-discussed position than to change it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vast majority

Wow – still heady from my first edit on this main page. Orange, I reverted your reverts to this original sentence which began The ideas of homeopathy appear to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge., changed back to The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. and which I changed to The vast majority of scientists regard the ideas of homeopathy as scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge.

Now then, let us look closely at the facts. Do 100% of scientists regards homeopathy as scientifically implausible? No. 100% of scientists do not regard homeopathy as scientifically implausible, but the vast majority do. So my change is accurate. Can you accept that? But you justified your revert on this statement: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. Now it may not be to your taste, but reverting an accurate statement requires more than just a sense of “it has been said too often”, don't you agree?

You went on to say: This "vast majority" thing shows up way too often. It's not like scientists take votes. And they don't have "opinions." If you, like me, have been to medical and scientific meetings, you would hear plenty of opinions – science thrives on opinions – and as for voting, well there are plenty of examples where votes are taken and a consensus looked for. Statistical reference volumes will tell you precisely why the opinions and prejudices of the observer will confuse and confound a statistical analysis. But again, I assume you know all this.

What I find confusing is how you can call the wording I chose “POV”? The wording I chose is IMHO both NPOV and accurate – certainly more accurate that imputing to all scientists an opinion that not all scientists hold true. Can you agree on that? docboat (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references on what percentage of scientists regard homeopathy as implausible? If not, we can't make any statement on this in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not - but how many % would constitute "vast" in the first place? 1%? 25%? Both would fit. Your wording is also good. docboat (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to say 'vast majority,' 'most' would suffice. Most scientists do believe homeopathy is implausible. However, implausibility in itself is not that strong a thing. For example, it is implausible, on the basis of experiental knowledge and expectation, that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. 'Most scientists' is a better phrasing than 'vast majority' IMHO. thanks Peter morrell 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, actually your use of steel ships and aeroplanes not flying as "implausible" scientifically is just not correct. Though I am not an physicist, I do understand the physics that allow a steel boat to float (simply, it displaces water that weighs more than the steel), and a plane flies, because of the differential air pressure above and below the wing. Neither are implausible, except to non-scientists. Not only do I believe most or a vast majority of scientists find Homeopathy implausible, I would bet pretty much 100% do (similar to the number of scientists who accept that the theory of Evolution describes how human beings have an opposable thumb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vast majority is correct in this situation. I can see why some would not want the term to be used though. Homeopathy is often dressed up in white coats to give a sensible impression. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real doubt among any of us that by far the vast majority find homeopathy implausible. If I am not mistaken, the problem that Tim is getting at is more one of making claims without firm backing. That is sometimes more difficult than we would like, especially with matters of common knowledge. It can be hard to find modern scientific research devoted to proving the earth is round. It is common knowledge and thus the question of proof is ignored as being a common fact. We can avoid this problem (until scientific academies feel it necessary to say "You're kidding! Are there still people who believe that crap? Maybe we should take a vote and speak up, just to clear the air." Until then we can ignore counting votes and just stick to the plain use of the falsifiable statement: "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge." That's an obvious fact without any serious textbooks which contradict it. If anyone can come up with some serious scientific works on basic science that contradict it, then we can discuss it. Until then we can't use OR or a crystal ball. -- Fyslee / talk 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you read what I said: For example, it is implausible, on the basis of experiential knowledge and expectation, that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. This has nothing directly to do with science theory, it is about experience and expectation which is not quite the same thing. I repeat: on the basis of experiential knowledge and expectation, it is indeed implausible that steel ships could float or that aeroplanes can fly, but they do. It is nothing to do with physics. It is to do with expectation based on everyday experience. On that basis it was indeed felt implausible, indeed laughable, that steel ships would ever float or that aeroplanes could ever fly. Check the history you will find that is exactly what folks thought. Why did they think that? because of expectation based upon their previous experience. Peter morrell 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this god of the gaps kinda stuff is all nice and philosophical, but there is nothing even remotely controversial about the fact that the vast majority of scientists reject the purported mechanism of homeopathy. I like how NCCAM put it: homeopathy's "key concepts do not follow the laws of science." Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how we're talking specifically about homeopathy being scientifically implausible, but Peter insists on interpreting the matter with regard to "experiential knowledge and expectation," whatever that means. Anyway I don't see how it's implausible that steel ships could float. Some old Greek guy even figured out the quantitative principle a couple thousand years or so ago. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not very complicated or abstract. What I started out to say was that based upon the experience and expectation of SCIENTISTS homeopathy looks pretty improbable, BUT based on the direct experience of folks with little or no prior expectation, homeopathy is just like any other thing. If you bring to the experience no a priori theoretical baggage at all then there is no special expectation of success or of failure. The analogy with ships and planes is again simply the basis of prior experience. An alleged mechanism only comes into it because that is what science deals in. Homeopathy does not deal in mechanisms, it deals in direct experience of empirical facts: the remedy works or it does not, the patient gets better or not as the case may be. Homeopathy is not primarily a theoretical system of knowledge, which is what you seem to assume, it is primarily a medical method, an empirical system, period. I still think most scientists is neater than vast majority, but its not such a big deal. Peter morrell 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What utter anti-scientific garbage. Electricity is "implausible" from "the direct experience of folks with little or no prior expectation". This is an encyclopaedia, not a guidebook for the 21st Century written for people thawed out from the last ice age. In a medical article, the term "implausible" should be taken to mean "considered implausible by the contemporary academic mainstream" in all cases. The sentence should read "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible", and even the "scientifically" qualifier is of disputable importance. Pulling punches is counterproductive here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get offensive it was just a perfectly genial discussion. What makes your POV so special? Peter morrell 08:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that anti-scientific would be accurate in this situation. Garbage is a reasonable label if it were to describe whether something should be included in or excluded from a science category. It would probably sound offensive to someone who believed in homeopathy though. I think it would be sensible to avoid such language as homeopathy is within a belief field rather than an evidence or reality field. I think this should be a guideline for communicating with all proponents of any religion or belief based following. Phloem (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, thank you Phloem, well said! Friarslantern (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and as such gives much more WP:WEIGHT to the contemporary experts in the fields of medicine and science who are fairly clear in their disputes with this pseudoscience. There is no reason to pussyfoot around this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. WP is a mainstream encyclopedia: not an encyclopedia strictly from a scientific point of view. Part of homeopathic theory is metaphysical (vitalism - the magical part), and part of it claims scientific backing. Just so we're clear about the pussyfooting going on here. Friarslantern (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The source says: seems scientifically implausible; thus I changed it back to say that. We can only say what the sources say - no more, no less. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks from "scientifically implausible." My thinking is there are two good reasons for this: 1) It's such a small, generic juxtaposition of words that it doesn't have to be marked as a quote and wouldn't be considered as plagiarism otherwise. 2) Putting quotation marks around the terms may lead the reader to infer a bias - that the author does not take scientific plausibility seriously. — NRen2k5 14:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)