Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Citation needed here it is. One source is already cited in the article

"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." http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Area69 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rot --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a direct quote, but taken out of context it distorts Vithoulkas' position. In the last paragraph of his article he also says, "There is a need for at least one standardized protocol for clinical trials that will respect both: the double blind parameters but also some of the homeopathic principles." Obviously he thinks that double blind studies per se can be used to establish the efficacy of homeopathy, they just need to be carried out differently than most such studies have been done with conventional medicines. Also remember the discussion we had here on RCTs of individualized homeopathy. Unfortunately, the proposal to add a section on this topic, including reference to a meta-analysis, got shoved to the archives before any action was taken. I wish we would have less general discussion (noise) here and more consideration of concrete proposals. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont really mind I just used Vythoulkas because they asked for a specific source. You could change it to be more accurate. The important thing here is to accept that citing homepaths views on metanalyses in a article (and in the lead) about them it is basic task of this article. It is natural and within the wikirules to include the views of a minority in an article about this minority. --Area69 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war again?

fyslee : Why you revert without discussion? Please justify. And please stop calling other editors disruptive because you dont like their edits. This is a personal attack.--Area69 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to get tendentious. Your edit is not supported by anyone but yourself. And it is kind of disruptive too, not as a personal attack, but just as a description of what it appears you are doing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleae justify what do you mean. It is supported by the above sources.--Area69 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

I removed the reference to http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9 because it was poorly formatted, it is self published, George Vithoulkas is probably not a WP:RS. Please correct me here if I am wrong, and I can format the source. TableManners^C·U·T 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How can you add a liknk if it is a person website? I dont know. I assumed that since vythoulkas is included in the article as a reliable source its website could be used. Any other way?--Area69 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

do you see what I mean ? he is at the end of the page as a reputable homeopath. --Area69 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First, read WP:SPS, and then, based on that and what you know about the wikipedia article and the article you want to cite, let me know if you still think the source should go in. Then you could see Wikipedia:Citation templates for intstructions on formating the source. TableManners^C·U·T 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do. thanks. I think though that the inclusion of his views about the issue is justified since it exists in the article. But I will look again.thanks --Area69 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas has been known internationally for decades as the leading educator in the field of "Classical Homeopathy" and should not be excluded from the homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert without discussion

I dont that the 1rr works if there is no sincere effort or even discussion to agree to obvious things : for instance that the views of the minority being examined (homepaths) do qualify for inclusion in the lead using already cited sources. Therefore unless someone does revert the last edit I will not comply with the 1RR anymore. Thanks --76.226.106.40 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please sign in (IOW change your sig above). What "last edit" are you referring to? Please supply the diff. -- Fyslee / talk 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article

The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Voice-of-All 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the definition of pseudoscience perfectly fits, I'd like to hear or read any logic that disputes that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a pseudoscience. It is a theory and practice that has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance. That is far from being a "pseudoscience" - especially considering the large numbers of research trials that have indicated biological effects (even on mice) that can not be merely ascribed to "placebo" effects.

We have been over this issue endlessly. Since homeopathy is controversial, there are differing viewpoints. However, one viewpoint (POV) should not be stamped on the article over another viewpoint. This article should be presented without perjorative labels and without bias. It should not be pro-homeopathy - nor anti-homeopathy. We should be working together to reach a consensus on how to improve this article to NPOV standards.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "Homeopathy...has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance" is excessive in its understatement. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a comment on the "mice" studies - Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):171-86. Epub 2006 May 2. "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example why homeopathy should not be termed a "pseudoscience": a study showing biological effects from homeopathic arsenic on test animals (ruling out placebo effects):

A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat

Authors: Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C.

Journal: Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320

Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

Conclusion: The results lend further support to our earlier views that microdoses of potentized Arsenicum Album are capable of combating arsenic intoxication in mice, and thus are strong candidates for possible use in human subjects in arsenic contaminated areas under medical supervision.

You can read the details here. [1]

As you can see, there has been encouraging scientific research confirming biological effects from homeopathic remedies, where placebo is not a possible explanation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem Arion. Not a single article has been published in peer-reviewed journals confirming their study, and even in the less than reliable CAM journals, it's never been used in humans. You can't pick up a 20 year old study, and not search all the articles that refer to that article. Nice try however. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This defines Pseudoscience:

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4. Lack of progress
5. Personalization of issues
6. Use of misleading language

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you describe the results as "encouraging," it would stand to reason that there are numerous followups to this two-decades old study. How many other articles on this topic have been published in the refereed literature? According to the relevant citation index, has it become one of the landmark papers in its discipline? To what extent is this specific procedure used in practice? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Raymond Arritt, here is a more recent trial of homeopathic arsenic:

• Belon P, et al. "Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity?: Evidence-based findings from a randomized placebo-controlled double blind human trial." Sci Total Environ 2007 Oct 1;384(1-3):141-50. Epub 2007 Jul 12 [2]

In addition, in standard homeopathic practice world-wide, homeopathic arsenic is one of the more commonly used remedies, especially for neurological burning sensations (Homeopathic Materia Medica by William Boericke). Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A subjective study of 39 people published in a CAM journal. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was not a "subjective study" - - -

In a double blind placebo-controlled study, a potentized remedy of homeopathic Arsenicum Album-30 and its placebo (Succussed Alcohol-30) were given randomly to volunteers. Arsenic contents in urine and blood and several widely accepted toxicity biomarkers and pathological parameters in blood were analyzed before and after 2 months of administration of either verum or placebo. Elevated levels of ESR, creatinine and eosinophils and increased activities of AST, ALT, LPO and GGT were recorded in arsenic exposed subjects. Decreased levels of hemoglobin, PCV, neutrophil percentages, and GSH content and low G-6-PD activity were also observed in the arsenic exposed people. The administration of "verum" appeared to make positive modulations of these parameters, suggestive of its ameliorative potentials.

Objective markers were analyzed. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for use of such a label on Wikipedia is outlined here: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Proponents of keeping this label need to show that homeopathy is an obvious pseudoscience or is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Right now, I don't think we've met the threshold for obvious. There seems to be far more (though still not much) supporting scientific research for homeopathy than that of a clear and obvious pseudoscience such as Time Cube. Remember, this goes beyond our own personal opinions. This is not about it being obvious to me or you, this is about it being obvious to all. Therefore, the onus is to show that Homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Thus, we need to find a reliable source which verifies that the scientific community on the whole generally considers this topic to be pseudoscience. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need several different types of labels for science, such as conventional science, pseudoscience, controversial science, uncomfirmed science, established science, disputed science, mainstream science, nonmainstream science, unreproducible science, or whatever. Maybe 3 or 4 levels of science, or grades of science. Homeopathy might not be quite as "pseudo" as the Time Cube, but it is pretty damn close.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. A dichotomy like science←→pseudoscience is about as useful a descriptor as straight←→gay or conservative←→liberal. There's clearly a sliding scale on which any sort of "scientific" idea can fall. Time cube exists at the most extremesuperwhackonutjob end, and there are certainly CAMs that are more or less pseudoscientific than homeopathy, but I think homeopathy falls far enough away from "accepted modern science" to justify this tag...the lead and the body of the article pretty well establish that this subject fits a reasonable defintion of pseudoscience. And folks, don't misunderstand that pseudoscience=no real scientific inquiry. There are many, many labs out there that investigate ideas that fall outside the realm of accepted scientific theory; that one can point to research on magnet bracelets, bigfoot, UFOs, etc. doesn't mean they fall outside of "psedoscience" as an imprecise general category. — Scientizzle 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point regarding the "spectrum" idea applying here. Thank you! (I do agree with and recommend abiding by the sci-consensus threshold for categorization given in WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, FWIW.) --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely a pseudoscience, it's the archetypal example of a pseudoscience. If has it's own idiosyncratic jargon, a theoretical basis at utter odds with the material world, and it literally packages itself as science in drug store aisles. If homeopathy does not deserve this template, than no article does. If you really feel that way, please nominate it for deletion. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

have you read the Organon ? have you studied the homeoapthic provings conducted over the 200 year history of homeopathic sicence? Have you studied these works in as much detail and read all of the studies and conclusions that Arion 3x3 and I are have been referencing here for the past several months? if you have, you must understand homeopathy and if you understand the science then you must understand why it can hardly be cosnidered 'psuedoscience'? Homeopathy as devised by Dr. Hanhnemann and studied by DR. Benveniste has enjoyed wide popoular success throughout the entire world. event his article describes the large proportion of people who support homoeopathy. in the face of all that, how can you still want homoeopathy to be labelled a psuedoscience!?!?? Smith Jones (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Neither "homoeopathy" nor "homeoapthic provings" were "cosnidered" integral parts of my chemistry curriculum!?!?? I did, however, learn some nifty things about math and Avogadro's number.

Homeopathy flies in the face of science, although it likes to pretend its jargon. It's simply the best example of a pseudoscience extant. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How many professors of homeopathy are there are Harvard and Johns Hopkins? How many practioners of Homeopathy working for the Mayo Clinic? How much work does the NIH do on Homeopathy vs. Allopathy? Homeopathy satisfies almost every criteria imaginable for pseudoscience.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy has a much smaller following that pscyhoanalysis, and there is less research that demonstrates its efficacy.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simple. So rather than waxing on about your own personal opinions on homeopathy, might I suggest finding a definitive source which verifies that homeopathy is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. We don't need to see research which supports it as a science or correlates it to be pseudoscience. What we need is an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. If it is the archetypal example of a pseudoscience, then I don't imagine that a source such as this would be too difficult to find. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Found an interesting article here on attitudes of med students.[3] Two salient results: (1) "Five percent of respondents said that homeopathy is 'very scientific.'" (2) "Thirteen percent (16/124) of respondents said that astrology is 'very scientific.'" In other words, homeopathy is regarded as less of a science than astrology. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A scary fact about our future doctors. However, this is not an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience. The end. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately for you, unilteral declarations of fact are not considered prof according to WP:NOTABILITY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK. and since you dont have any sources that proof that homeopathy is an 'obvious psuedoscience' i am forced to wait for you to iether submit some of those provings. i really still recomend that you examine th e rich body of work that encompasses homeopathic and other medical theories. you will find that the scientific veracitty of them rival or even exceed that of main stream allopathic cures. therefore, homeopathy is not psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Black is white! Up is down! The sun rises in the west! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please calm down and continue to assume good faith. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we as editors are expected to follow the rules. Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't a controversial theory. It's an obvious pseudoscience. Read the other bits of demarcation. Or better yet, see the list! Note that homeopathy is categorized as pseudoscience and nobody is complaining about that. Giving it a little information box to explain the major features of this pseudoscience is perfectly fine. As I said before, "The end." Thanks for playing folks! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

are you really going to use somethign that you yourself wrote on tyour own user page as proof of anything? please reread WP:VERIFIABILITY. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. As an expert in pseudoscience (and particular, as an expert in pseudoscience on Wikipedia) I am qualified to write about what is and is not pseudoscience. You'll note that I'm not placing any citations to this in the article per WP:SELF so WP:V does not apply. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

as per goo d faith i believe that you are an expert in psuedoscience, but i strongly disagree with your position regaridng homeopathic science. however, the homeopathic vs. allopathic medicine debate is ultimately irelevent on wikipedia. we are focused on what is verifiable, not what it is true. one thing i want to remidn you is tha tany controversial changes to this article in either content or structure -- and judging by the fierce debate here the psuedoscience box is clearly controversial -- must be subject ot to the rule of consensus. and it is also clear that consensus indicates that the majority of people do not agree with your assumption that homoepathy is psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the vocal minority you're talking about. I wonder how many folks read their horroscopes? Does that mean astrology isn't a pseudoscience? •Jim62sch• 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

its not our place to judge astrology. if you want to judgastroloy, it has its own article here ==> (ASTROLOGY). we are talking about homeopath

Consensus does not trump NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

but it does trump the opinions of one editor, no matter hwo often he or she repeats himself. Smith Jones (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite what you may believe, ScienceApologist, you are an authoritative source who can verify (for our purposes at Wikipedia) that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. Please simply provide us with a source and we can then refer to homeopathy as such. I too am looking for one and am surprised at the difficulty I am having in finding such a source. Like you, I personally consider homeopathy pseudoscientific, but the truth is I am getting less sure of it being a true pseudoscience. Like the real scientific skeptic that I am, I require satisfactory scientific evidence of any claim. If I didn't and I went on my own gut or relied on my own opinion as fact, I would be guilty of being a pseudoskeptic. Right now, I have been unable to find satisfactory scientific evidence that homeopathy should be categorized as a pseudoscience. I am still looking though and I trust that you are doing the same. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Edits such as this are unhelpful. Clearly this issue is not resolved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education Science & Education Volume 3, Number 4 / October, 1994 - p359 "Pseudoscientific beliefs are also widespread. Consider the wide acceptance by the general public of astrology - a paradigm case of a pseudoscience s - as well as of pseudoscientific medical theories and techniques such as iridology, chiropractic, homeopathy 9 and also of Erich von Dgniken's ancient astronaut theory. 1°"

• The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine Ann Ital Med Int. 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84. "Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline."

• Complementary and Alternative Cancer Medicine J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11 Suppl):44-52. "Vigorous opposition to parts of CAM as ‘‘pseudo science’’ based on ‘‘absurd beliefs’’ has been voiced. The deviation from basic scientific principles, which is implicit in homeopathy and therapeutic touch, for example, is decried."

There are probably more, but this is enough to show that the term has been applied in the academic literature. Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Should homeopathy be described as quackery in the intro?

Should homeopathy be described as quackery unequivocally (not just by means of a quote as it stands now -- "...at worst quackery") in the introduction?

• Yes - The peer-reviewed articles at PMID 17719708, PMID 14676179, PMID 18080586 leave no question that homeopathy is pseudoscience "par excellence" which causes the death of untold multitudes who might otherwise seek legitimate treatment for their conditions. Although I requested them days ago, there have been no peer-reviewed publications brought forward which claim that it is not quackery. MilesAgain (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Two of these abstracts are written by a single Nigerian scientist, and the link in the middle didn't provide me with any information other than a title. As you've presented it, this does not show scientific consensus and thus does not show that homeopathy is unequivocally a pseudoscience (though I personally think it might very well be). DJLayton4 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ref 1 and ref 3 are the same. I striked it out to avoid confusing other editors. And the journal Nigerian Journal of Medicine is a no impact journal. The middle reference is pseudoskeptic Atwood at it again. Anthon01 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I accidentally omitted one of the numbers. I have replaced it: PMID 17719708. MilesAgain (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• no and *Yes because this is one POV. There is another point of view as you can see above in the cited sources. Both views should be included. --Area69 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources respond to the charge of quackery directly? Your sources below talk only of the results of trials, and say nothing about the fact that people from the U.K. to Nigeria are being denied proven medical care because they get caught up in homeopathic treatment. In order to present "both sides" per NPOV, there need to be reliable sources on both sides. MilesAgain (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak yes I believe other people have done most of the explaining for the 'yes' side, however I would like to suggest that we follow a similar line to that of a number of sceptic commentators - that whilst the mechanisms for remedies are clearly quackery, increased time with a health professional and the placebo effect are powerful tools and have their place. We should also detail how it is currently considered quackery, but because of public interest studies are taking place (which they do seem to be). I would also recommend a different term, personally. I reserve the right to find that what I have just written makes no sense, as I am writing it at 5am o.O LinaMishima (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unnecessary and counterproductive. a neutral description without labeling is sufficient to make it appear as the nonsense it truly is. a fight to attach a negative label is apt to make the observer thing that the logical arguments are not sufficient. Those who believe in scientific evidence should let it speak for itself. DGG (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But will falling short of describing it as quackery relate to the reader a neutral or biased summary of the damage homeopathy has done? For example, polywater may have scared some people, but it hasn't kept anyone from proper medical care. The same can not be said of homeopathy. Is summarizing the fact that practicing doctors from the U.K. to Nigeria see it as a real threat from quackery really unnecessary and counterproductive? It is certainly in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LEAD. MilesAgain (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional No - Despite my personal opinion that homeopathy is with all likelihood a pseudoscience, we need to show a majority of scientific studies demonstrating this. Based on the articles cited below, there seems to simply be no strong evidence either way. If someone can provide enough current and reliable references showing that homeopathy is unequivocally a pseudoscience (i.e. it has only a placebo effect for certain), I would change my opinion. If reliable references largely conflict (which seems to be the case), I think the best course of action would be to write something like, "A number of scientists consider homeopathy to be a psuedoscience, while others feel that the evidence is insufficient to either support or debunk the practise", or more or less as it is now. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand, at all, how you think the existing references don't claim it as pseudoscience. In fact, that most research simply ignores homeopathy speaks to itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm referring to the ones listed in the section immediately below this one. If you would care to point out some others that unequivocally brand homeopathy a pseudoscience, I would be happy to see them. Research that "ignores" homeopathy is not sufficient evidence to call it a pseudoscience. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It states as fact that it is pseudoscience. That should stay. It then quotes someone that it "is quackery at worst." That is an opinion, though derogatory. It should stay as well, because it is a mainstream opinion. Using it as a quotation is fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That most research ignores it speaks to many other things, like politics. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• No: these labels aren't helpful. Talk about substantive issues and let readers decide. At most, say "so and so says homeo is quackery", if the source's weight is really strong. But saying it is quackery, full stop? Come on. Sounds like we need a new guideline: "Wikipedia is not a bumper (so don't slap stickers on articles)." --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• No We should report that some critics (naming them would be better) consider it quackery, but just as homeopathy should not be generally characterized or categorized as pseudoscience (because no reliable sources have been found stating that it is generally thought to be), so should it not be generally characterized as quackery. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

the vast allopath conspiracy

Something repeatedly alluded to on this talk page, and something missing from the article, is: the vast conspiracy by allopathic medicine to ignore homeopathy. Bias by the FDA, no research money is granted to study homeopathy, big pharma makes sure homeopathic remedies can't be mainstream to protect their profits, doctors want to keep people sick to keep them returning, etc, etc.

There is a mindset here that isn't explained by the article, and it seems to be important to understanding the true believers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

At the risk of sounding like I am making a joke, what conspiracy?. Indeed, big pharma would love effective homeopathy, since huge chemical plants would no longer be needed to make their products. Certainly in the UK and other sensible countries with state-funded healthcare, doctors have a greater vested interest in keeping people well (and where payments are from insurance, the insurance companies also want steady regular payments and no payout). The lack of funding and FDA's 'bias' is simply the exact same bias they apply to regular pharmacology - results must be proven under stringent test regimes. The fact that funding bodies want to spend their money on things that have been widely shown to be the most effective solutions is not a conspiracy at all, it's good money management. However, of course, a section on the claims of a conspiracy and rebuttals of these would work well. LinaMishima (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a discussion fo the allopath conspiracy belongs on the allopathy page, or the pages of any of hte organizations alleged to be involved of with this conpsiracy. placing it here gives undue weight so something that only some homoeopaths believe and in to something that is not part of mainstream homeopathic technology. Smith Jones (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths invented the idea that there was anything called "allopathy"; any discussion belongs in the homeopathy article. - Nunh-huh 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you yourself have made claims about this.

please read my edits carefully. i neve rsaid that the allopathy conspiracy was false; i only said that this was something propogated mainly as a conspiracy theory and not asa part of homoeopathic doctrine itself. referring to it in the homoeopathy article would be akin to referring to homophobia in the creationism article just because somet creationists are homophobes. Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If homeopathic practictioners and true believers in homeopathy believe there is a persecution of their homeopathic faith, it is an important consideration to document. It is not something separate from homeopathy itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And yes, LinaMishima, what conspiracy? indeed, but the persecution complex is something that comes out in the comments here. I'm sure it's in the homeopathic literature. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

if there are no reference,s then it does not belong on wikiepdia. period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Oh, it will be easy to reference.

I am not sure it requires a huge discussion here. Maybe a sentence at most with good references. You might consider placing it on the conspiracy pages in one of the lists of conspiracy theories.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, anyone seen the Grassy knoll? Area 51? Et cetera. It's so sad when the intellectually blind mistake their blindness for inner knowledge. Of course, the resultant paranoia is a separate issue. •Jim62sch• 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal from Category:Pseudoscience

The edit summary for removal from the category Category:Pseudoscience said to see the discussion on the talk page. As there is no discussion specifically pertaining to the inclusion in this category, I will start one. Please see the criteria for inclusion in Category:Pseudoscience, specifically:

“ ...subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another ”

I think it is rather obvious from the references provided in the article, and the opinions of quite a significant number of editors here, that Homeopathy, if not actually being a pseudoscience, at the very least fits squarely within these parameters. I suggest that the category be restored. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely agree but too afraid that some admin will force me to pledge 1RR so I will let someone else do it. MilesAgain (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." This article should not be labeled "Pseudoscience". Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2% is not a substantial following. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Homeopathy fits the description of pseudoscience, hence should be in the category. The box is ugly though --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Millions world-wide qualifies as "a substantial following" by anyone's definition. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Millions of people use lead as a folk medicine curative. On a planet with 7 billion people a few million is chump change. 2% in the West (this is an American-European medical theory after all) are followers. That is not substantial. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How the term pseudoscience qualifies since almost all studies ( besides one ) and metanalyses write about promising studies and positive results? That means there is a controversy here - hence a POV problem in the article in case the category is restored.--Area69 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [4]

English please. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is this an answer ? --Area69 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant criterion for inclusion is the following:

“ fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects ”

A significant criticism by reliable sources is all that is needed for inclusion in the category. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Wrong. Many scientists have a different opinion as you see above; that means there is a controversy.--Area69 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A controversy is all that is needed. Please go and read Category:Pseudoscience. Then tell me how this article does not meet those criteria. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Labeling homeopathy "pseudoscience" is a perjorative biased POV that has no place in a NPOV article in an encyclopedia. There needs to be a consensus to add such a derisive label. That means reaching a consensus with other editors. All editors who sincerely desire to improve the article on homeopathy read "Reasonable consensus-building" at the Wikipedia policy page on consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

not only that, by your own admission homeopathy is practiced widely in India, up to 15% of the population, which for a coutnry as populous as India is enormous. ignoring all those people just because homeopathy is invented in europe/the US is something that wikipedia should not be a part of. Smith Jones (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what consensus has to do with it. The fact is that there are a significant number of reliable sources attesting that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. A prerequisite for inclusion in the category is not that the subject be a pseudoscience, merely that it has been called a pseudoscience. Is there a lack of consensus about whether homeopathy has ever been called pseudoscientific? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This BBC horizon television programme [5], cited in the main article, reported on tests coordinated by the vice-president of the Royal Society, involving other mainstream UK scientific institutions. The tests examined the claims of dilution and the memory of water: there was no statistically significant evidence of such a phenomenon. It seems that, with a lack of a scientific explanation and no other positive documented controlled tests, the phenomenon, like telepathy, must be labelled "pseudo-scientific" and "fringe". Likewise, the CNRS in France does not recognize homeopathy at present as having any scientific foundation [6]; it should be added that a large proportion of phamarcies in France – far more than in the UK – advertise themselves as being homeopathic. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience + NPOV issue

A prerequisite for inclusion in the category is not that the subject be a pseudoscience, merely that it has been called a pseudoscience. That is incorrect. Categorizing cannot be used to assert a specific viewpoint, in particular when there are disputes. If we do, we are asserting one viewpoint as true, which violates WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. Please see WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience and comments below. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe George W. Bush in many pejorative ways, but we do not categories Bush under any of these categories in Wikipedia. If the viewpoints are significant, we describe these in the article, but that's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Guidelines

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think we should be looking it less like, say, Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Alberta, in which an article needs to be about a Member of the Canadian House of Commons from Alberta, and more like, for example, Category:World War II. In that category, an article needs only to be related to the Second World War, and of interest to somebody seeking to learn more about it. Similarly, I don't think including Category:Pseudoscience on this page necessarily affirms that homeopathy is pseudoscience, just that it's relevant to the study of pseudoscience and that it's an article that would almost certainly be of interest to somebody browsing the category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. ArbCom states, when category issues come to them, that categories are a navigation aid, not part of the content itself. Being in the category isn't a statement - the statement exists in the text. Being in the category is an aid to readers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree. LinaMishima (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category is something more definitive I think. Jossi gave a good example. If there is a dispute is better to be avoided as the WK policy states above.--Area69 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP makes that example more complex, of course. LinaMishima (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the general population thinks is irrelevant when judging something to be pseudoscience or not. What matters is what scientists think. Even the courts recognize this.--Filll (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

if so many scientists agree with ytou, then why don't you link to one of them here? Smith Jones (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Physically or virtually? •Jim62sch• 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

a web link would be helpful for veirification peruposes. please just link to one of them ehre so that we can endthis pointless shoutingfest. Smith Jones (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You need the declaration by a major scientific body, like the National Academy of Sciences. I read the research on homeopathy, and not just the abstracts. I have never seen homeopathy called pseudoscience by any of those researchers. Anthon01 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: has the National Academy of Sciences ever labled Phrenology or Astrology or the Time cube pseudoscience? •Jim62sch• 01:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look here for your answer.[7] Anthon01 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically, here (search for the h-word) .[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hello... look at this quote! "pseudoscience topics include ... homeopathy," under "what is pseudoscience" - The National Science Foundation has spoken! LinaMishima (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Now go read the references listed after homeopathy. Anthon01 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit tendentiously much? Come on be reasonable or this will turn into a battleground. And you cannot win, believe me. This page will never be a promotional vehicle for the homeopathic profession. Never. I will see it deleted first and the page protected so it is never created again. So cooperate or deal with the consequences.--Filll (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I do have qualms about that NSF citation[9]. It's clear they're talking about pseudoscience, but not clear that they're endorsing, as opposed to citing, CSICOP. Scientific groups are a little bit conservative that way. Please take to heart that homeopathy is not ID. ID has approximately one peer-reviewed article, and that possibly by deceit. Homeopathy has hundreds. Minority view it is, but scientists are still looking at it. Different ballgame. Not in Kansas anymore. ;-) --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE assume good faith. this is not a battlefground, it is an article, and there is no reaosn for anyone here to treat their fellow editors like criminals just because they have a different veiwpoint than they do. no one here wants this article to be a promotional vehicle for homeopathy; that is not wikipedias purpose and no-one has ever claimed that it is. all any of us are interested in is maintianing WP:NPOV.Smith Jones (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir, tell me what NPOV means to you?--Filll (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're idea of maintaining NPOV is for homeopathy to be given "equal" treatment. That isn't how NPOV works. Equal is balanced by the prominence of the views. The pro-homeopathy view is a tiny minority. Being vocal on this talk page doesn't change that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Which references are you referring to? If you mean the origin of that quote used by the NSF, then it really matters not. The NSF, by their style of usage within a section on how to define pseudoscience, make it clear that they broadly agree with that form. In formal writing, one makes it explicitly clear when one intended to disagree. There is no following mention of "however some dispute this list". If you mean references elsewhere, they do not counteract this source. LinaMishima (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LinaMishima: The NSF article states

According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Gellar, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranorma)

You have been here a lot longer that I have. You know that this is not the NSF making a proclamation. Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The group used, it must be noted, is a significant group in this field. The clarification of "one group" is to specify that this list is the result of that group, not a collection of several group's lists. Again, in formal writing, this style of usage is perfectly acceptable. The NSF's intended meaning is quite clear, that they view this list as broadly representative, and agreeing with their previous definition of pseudoscience. The purpose of that section was to define what they would consider pseudoscience. One certainly does not include references on a whim, and one is clear when writing such a formal document when you intend for something to be taken as simply an opinion that is not widely held. When writing such a definition of 'scope', one either uses literally what is written, or then defines how they will combine the various definitions. No new definition is provided, indicating that they believe the references to be consistent and appropriate. The bar we are looking for here is not "is", but "widely believed to be". This clearly meets that bar. LinaMishima (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but you statement here is a good example of original research WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your objections are a good example of a tendentious misinterpretation of a source. The NSF page clearly gives homeopathy as an example of a pseudoscience; it is unreasonable to read the text any other way. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says According to one group. You could call it a copout on their part. They should have said, According to us. Anthon01 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I call it attribution. It's a well understood convention of expository writing. I suppose I should modify my earlier statement: either you are tendentiously misinterpreting this source, or you are ignorant of how to attribute views to sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean "For the purposes of this document, pseudoscience will be defined as..." (third person tense, remember, must be used), there is absolutely no reason to state this. Unless they state otherwise, the use of a definition within a scope section indicates the use of that definition for the scope. Plain and simple. To try and argue that they 'might' mean something else is not only weasely, but is clearly far more OR (assuming a meaning other than the written english). LinaMishima (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go read any number of reputable journals. Scope sections follow this exact pattern. When something is stated and not rebutted, and no summarised definition of scope is drawn, then the statement is intended to be considered to be used in the definition of scope. This is how one is supposed to read formal documents. One is not supposed to read that something is stated, see it featured later in the literature review, and wonder "why is this here?" - that is frankly an absurd suggestion. LinaMishima (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although homeopathy is without doubt pseudoscience ("a system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not") it may be best for us not to say so. I've heard from people whose opinion I respect that the term arouses suspicion in the mind of the reader. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Even thought I concur with Raymond that the term arouses suspicion, I have to respectfully disagree with his position on the placement of the tag. This is such a clear cut example of pseudoscience, that it defies logic why so many people keep asking for ref's that will never quite meet their criteria. By not saying that it is pseudoscience (remember, it is not us making the judgement call, but quite reliable sources), we are violating our own policies. Baegis (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT SOURCES?!?!?! i have been sitting here liestening to all of this and i havent seen anyone link to a single reliable source that says that homoeopathy is a psuedoscience. No Academy of the Sciences, no major homoeopathic repetories or publications, not a single one! Smith Jones (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was 'reference 6' from a previous discussion here, the NSF publication just featured, and two more sources below here. Homeopathic publications themselves are obviously never going to call themselves a psuedoscience, since the very definition of a psuedoscience is to appear to be scientific LinaMishima (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked briefly and found a couple of scientists talking about how unscientific homeopathy is:

References showing homeopathy is pseudoscience:

• Houston Chronicle columnist Eric Berger discussing Rory Coker's characterization of homeopathy as pseudoscience [10]
• Lancet author Ben Goldacre, writing in the Guardian: [11]

I can find many more of course, depending on how much time I want to spend. But we all know that this won't work. In the history of this talk page there are literally hundreds of references showing homeopathy is complete bollocks, and let's face it, there is an endless supply of trolls and POV warriors, several of which are close to illiterate, who are FURIOUS about the article and the situation, no matter what. They believe in magic and that is that, and are so angry they would shoot any of us if they met us face to face, probably (or at least they appear to be like this). They and only they possess "The TRUTH". I expect them to start claiming they are God any moment.

I think that what we have to do on this page, to settle it down, is start employing the methods we used on evolution and intelligent design talk pages. That is, when pro-homeopathy trolling starts appearing, we just summarily delete it. Period. No second chances. No whining. No repeating the same arguments 10,000 times over and over and over which no one reads or pays attention to because they possess "THE TRUTH". Just attack them brutally and with no mercy. And block them at each and every opportunity. That is what we had to do on evolution, and eventually it worked. And that is what we might have to do here. Sorry if this offends anyone, but this just gets ridiculous. --Filll (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Filll re-read the Wikipedia policy on "Ownership of articles". Insisting that your biased POV will prevail are against Wikipedia policy and against "Reasonable consensus-building". Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a core policy. Concensus cannot override it. NPOV insists that viewpoints be given weight in prominence to their adherence. The pro-homeopathy is a miniscule minority. "2% of US or UK residents use homeopathic treatments in a year?" 2% two. percent. How much of this article do you think is a fair representation of 2%? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In fairness, that's not really a great measure; what percentage of U.S. and U.K. residents use chemotherapy in a year? Do we know that the other 98% don't use homeopathy because they think it's bunk, because they don't have the need, because their insurance doesn't cover it, etc.? I'm still in favour of adding the category, but let's confine our arguments to the non-strawmen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's fair. Chemo is "a" therapy. Homeopathy puts itself out as an entire paradigm of therapies. 2% sought out any homeopathic treatment. That is, literally, nothing, because that 2% isn't even exclusive. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The American Cancer Society states that "The basic premises of homeopathy, developed over 200 years ago, are not in agreement with modern scientific principles." Sounds to me like a pretty clear indictment of calling it science. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:CONSENSUS, you will find that it states "you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves". At one time, consensus was clarified as meaning 'informed consensus'. In terms of the arguments, we now have a number of good quality sources referring to homeopathy as a pseudoscience. Given the acknowledged differences between homeopathy and regular science, there is not a substantial claim that homeopathy is a science , and yet homeopathy regularly uses the trappings of science. This prevents a counterposition being taken against the assertion that homeopathy is strongly enough associated with pseudoscience to be included within the catagory. Within the article itself, this viewpoint can of course be clarified. LinaMishima (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[12], [13], [14] The first of these is the most watertight, and cannot be argued with without a failure to understand formal writing. The second of these is from a highly respected medical doctor and journalist. The last reference is not perfect, but it is another appearance of the statement within published literature. These between them form a strong case for the inclusion within the catagory. [15] is evidence that prevents claims of following scientific method, and I hopefully will not have to document the various scientific trappings that homeopathy surrounds itself with. As such, we have built up a claim that homeopathy is considered by a significant group to be a pseudoscience. For this statement, the sources used cannot be denied reliable status (As the bar for category inclusion is "considered by a significant group", and has been well met, with a national body's publication, a major journalist and journal contributor, and a general journal publication which cites sources). This claim can only be countered by either proof that they are blatantly wrong, that homeopathy is a science (which the failure to follow scientific method prevents), or proof that it does not claim to be science or use the trappings of science (which it clearly does). As this claim must be upheld, merit only exists for the category to be present. Consensus as defined on wikipedia requires the strength and quality of arguments to be considered, and as such a conclusion has been reached. I advise people to abide by this. LinaMishima (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Consensus has not been reached to place the insulting label of "pseudoscience" on homeopathy within this article. Categorizing cannot be used to assert a specific viewpoint, in particular when there are disagreements. If we do, we are proclaiming that one viewpoint is true and another is false. This clearly violates editing an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia according to the WP:NPOV policy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all - it's been awhile since I edited here (guess why I stopped). Just wanted to share a bit of NPOV that is directly relevant to the [[category:pseudoscience]] issue, and has proven helpful elsewhere:

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

Very helpful stuff there, from one of ArbCom's better decisions.

In essence, any topic that has been criticized as pseudoscience by a V RS can have that information in the article... but only those that are "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" should be so categorized. It's good to remember WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus, which says:

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Examples of such sources can be found at Scientific opinion on climate change. Or List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. The point is: despite being well-known, and having no paucity of (citeable) critics, homeopathy is not in the same ballpark as Intelligent Design in terms of being widely regarded as pseudoscientific. The evidence, in the form of commentary from scientific societies, is not there. True, we have the NSF report, which (while hardly a slam-dunk) may suffice for categorization. But isn't it telling that we don't have more?

Sidebar: I was a graduate student at Harvard (chem) when the Benveniste paper came out. Most of my colleagues expressed amused skepticism: "well, maybe there's something there, who knows, probably not." Not exactly the causticity with which creationists are greeted among the scientific community. (/anecdote)

So, absent evidence of widespread condemnation from the sci community, may I suggest that a scorched-earth, ID-troll-flushing approach is not indicated here? Treat it as the sugar pills: at worst, it's nothing. Chill pill! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks Jim for you reasoned input. "Most of my colleagues expressed amused skepticism: "well, maybe there's something there, who knows, probably not." That's the difference between leaders and followers. Wikipedia needs more leaders. Perhaps they are too busy elsewhere. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blowback

You know, I and probably a few others are not really committed to putting a pseudoscience label on homeopathy or putting quackery in the first few sentences. However, you know that when you fight us at every turn, and you challenge everything we say, and you edit tendentitiously and disruptively, you know what that does? It makes us more likely to take a hard line, including:

• Pushing for pseudoscience labelling
• using techniques like immediate deletion of any of your comments from the talk page, on sight, no exceptions.
• pushing to get as many homeopathy supporters are possible blocked by any means necessary

So cooperate and do not fight. You will get further.--Filll (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in violation of at least a couple of policies here. Perhaps you might want to refactor some of your comments, and maybe take a break. Anthon01 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll has just made the false accusation that I "edit tendentitiously and disruptively". Amazingly, right after that he himself threatens to "edit tendentitiously and disruptively"!. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article. Cooperate or we will have trouble. This article will never be turned into a POV vehicle for promoting homeopathy. Go to another wiki if that is your goal. I have several to suggest to you if you want help.--Filll (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

you fight us at every turn, and you challenge everything we say. Who us "us" and who is "we"? Are not we all editors of this encyclopedia? Don;t we have a common goal? When we do not, then this is what happens (check the article history, if you don;t get it). I think it is enough polarization to last everybody a good month. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference for Homeopathy = Pseudoscience

• Medscape article on pseudoscience including homeopathy [16] Of course, we know I can generate hundreds of these. --Filll (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you could. Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD is a partisan. So are many of the skeptic group who have no interest in NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is a "partisan"? If having a POV is being partisan, then you and I are also "partisans". Let's not be careless with the use of that word. Partisan sources are allowed here if they are notable and published in V & RS. They just need proper attribution. Our sources, including from skeptical groups and pro-homeopathy groups, are expected to have a POV that is not NPOV. That's fine. Our job as editors of all persuasions is to include those varying and conflicting POV in an NPOV manner here. That's called collaboration. more, and more. -- Fyslee / talk 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy promoter challenge

I want one homeopathy supporter, to tell me what NPOV is. Come on. Tell me what it means.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones? Arion? Anthon? Come on, tell me. Let's get this straight. --Filll (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is WP:Pointy. If I'm right you and most of us are losing our edge. I think we all need to take a break. We can come back to this tomorrow and take time to outline our differences, and figure out where we could meet. May be this issue should be dropped for now. There is more work this article needs besides this. Anthon01 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not a WP:Point case. Filll is expressing a concern that the good lot of you pro-homeopath people do not understand what NPOV actually means. It would probably help the article as a whole and help to clean up the talk page if you can answer him. Baegis (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again : There are sources which state that and sources already cited in the article which do not. [17]

An editor gave a good example before.[18] --Area69 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry those links prove nothing. You have to know the operating principles and goals of Wikipedia if you expect to be successful editing here. Just show me you know what you are doing and what our goal is.--Filll (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to read them they state homeopathy = positive and promising results(even inconclusive), calling for more research - they state no where pseudoscience that it is pseudoscience. These are citations in the article. --Area69 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A lesson in NPOV for homeopathy promoters

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each'. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. from [19].

So how much more prominent and popular is allopathy than homeopathy? In terms of money? Number of practitioners? Research dollars? Successful results in research journals? Respect in science community? Number of patients?

Clearly allopathy outweighs homeopathy by a HUGE factor (we can argue how much, but clearly by a factor of 10 or 20 or more). So the allopathic and scientific view gets to dominate by NPOV. Period.

So this article is more than half pro-homeopathy. More than fair. So quit whining. Because by NPOV it could be 95% or more anti-homeopathy.

This is Wikipedia. These are our rules. Deal with them or leave.

Alternate wikis which do not have NPOV:

Wikinfo, Conservapedia, Para Wiki and many others.

So cooperate or there will be trouble. I have watched this fighting for a good 8 months or more now on this page now. It must stop. It is a waste of everyone's time. --Filll (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is condescending. Anthon01 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Using biased terms like "homeopathy promoters" does not show the greatest of repect for your fellow editors.
• (2) The best way to have fighting stop is to stop fighting.
• (3) Threatening your fellow editors is a violation of Wikipedia polices.
• (4) Stop twisting the meaning of NPOV to something that it is not. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses the substance of Filll's argument. Being condescending does not mean he doesn't have a valid point, and accusing him of being condescending gets you logically nowhere. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)\

So quit whining. Uh? Is this a schoolyard conversation, or intelligent people have an civil debate? Or is it that some people consider others to be stupid? You may not say that in words, but that is the perception. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So cooperate or there will be trouble : Indeed, Fill, I hope you take your statement as seriously as I do. We sometimes advise others on what we most need ourselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will address the substance of Filll's argument (and leave the tone aside, since Filll is a reasonable guy, and we all get exasperated sometimes). Filll left out this part of WP:WEIGHT, which refutes his comparison of homeopathy with allopathy:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

That passage leavens things a bit. Maybe the reader wants to know about it, perhaps only for historical interest. The place to cover that in detail is right here, in the homeopathy article. Not in medicine. Right here.

Games, popular music, works of fiction and even astrology get better treatment on WP than homeopathy does. We grok already that infinitesimal dilution is chemically implausible (especially when we are chemists, and find the whole debate amusing). We grok that the weight of controlled studies suggests it's likely placebo.

Still, for whatever reason, some scientists and doctors are still looking at homeopathy, so we should cover that as well, along with all that's gone before (again, history of medicine = interesting), and quit attempting prematurely to stick a fork in it, imo. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim, nice to see you back from your break. But could you clarify what you meant by your statement? I am afraid I am confused by it. 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baegis (talk • contribs)

Hi and thanks for the welcome back... Mainly I wanted to highlight the blockquoted section from WP:WEIGHT, since this article comes more under "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" than "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" ... my comments above may be clearer. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. I knew Filll would bring this up again sooner or later. (The discussion is now archived here). --Art Carlson (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more clear

Peter Morrell is a homeopathy supporter. He is a world expert in homeopathy and has written widely on the subject and has a position at a University doing research and lecturing and writing about homeopathy.

And yet, he is productive here. He works with us. He is cooperative. He understands NPOV. I want to work with him. Many of us do. I have defended him before on a number of occasions even though he can be a bit uncivil sometimes. That is irrelevant since he is productive. I want to write more articles about homeopathy with him. We have one in the sandbox we are working on.

See the difference? He understands the goals and function of Wikipedia and its operating principles and cooperates. And we are much more productive that way. See? So if you want to emulate someone, watch Peter Morrell and how he behaves.--Filll (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You can also help by not adding oil to the fire, by not polarizing debates, and by showing respect for fellow editors even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be even more clear. I am a supporter of homeopathy (not a "homeopathy promoter") and a supporter of Wikipedia NPOV policy. You were the first one to engage in a personal attack against me when I came to this article on 9 December 2007. It appears that you have not stopped. Your threats against me and other editors are not appropriate and do not lead to reasonable consensus building. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see things, circumstances are just frustrating Filll to the point of dropping civility here. To be honest, having seen everything that's going on here, I don't blame him. And whether they're stately rudely or not, I think he does raise some good points, which, rather than being addressed, have been parried with the sword of civility (no, there's no coincidence that in my metaphor, civility is a sword). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that things can be frustrating, and the frustration, from what I see in this page and the article's page, manifests on both sides of the dispute. The article was protected for 30 days, and what happened during that time? not much. That time should have been used to look for common ground so that editors can move forward. In any case, the article is now unprotected and most involved editors have pledged 1RR. That is a good start, and rather than discuss each other, editors should discuss the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Infophile is right. I've just arrived at this page, and I can already see why Filll would be extremely frustrated: many editors seem to be disregarding or misunderstanding WP:WEIGHT, and there's a lot of misrepresentation of sources going on. None of this justifies being uncivil, I suppose, but I think that factual accuracy should be valued more highly than civility. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to be uncivil. I do not mean to threaten or offend anyone. I was not able to return to this page to soften or refactor my comments as I attempted to do several times last night as the page was moving too fast and it was too long.

Perhaps the best that we can do is give up on this page and let the homeopathy supporters have it to themselves, undefended and unopposed, unfettered, for 6 months. Then we should judge the before and after results with an independent outside body to see the results of this experiment. Unfortuately, it does appear to me that we have a situation where people do not understand NPOV, or unwilling to abide by NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Could you protect the article after you revert the last edit without discussion? An anonymus user just revert someones edit.--Area69 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit is by a editor that has been warned in the past few days for disruptive behavior. I have reverted what I see it is a disruptive edit, deleting material without any comments. Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the lead

I'm new to this page, having just noticed it after Jossi blocked the guy who had been causing trouble on another page I was on. It's sad to see the degree to which a controversial topic gets wikipedia editors all in a tizzie. I just corrected a so-called quote attributed to two sources, after I saw from the history that that the quote had been mangled and attributed to the wrong source, due to careless edit warring. But what really seems peculiar is that the lead has a substantial paragraph to push the POV of the medical and scientific establishment on homeopathy, even supporting broad conclusions by lists of refs. Clearly, it's a field that's not going to look good in medical and scientific methods, and their evaluation of it deserves a place in the article; but in the lead? This is the place to say what the topic is, not to say who criticizes it. Other articles on topics of great controversy, such as George W. Bush, tend to keep to a more neutral lead (that one mentions that he has some of the highest and lowest approval ratings, but doesn't go into a litany of who disapproves for what). I'd suggest the paragraph full of citations be replaced by a brief sourced statement that homeopathy is very controverial especially in the medical and scientific communities, and demote the rest to a section on evaluations and criticisms. I'll make such an edit if I get some support for the idea here. Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests including "notable controversies" in the lead. The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus strikes me as being a pretty notable controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus" -- wow. See WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. Source? --Jim Butler^(talk) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. But note that WP:LEAD also says "briefly", which is my point; this is not the place to amass the evidence on one side or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think two sentences is fairly brief. Ideally, it would be a little less cluttered by footnotes, but that's really not an option given the level of dispute on this page. What would you rather replace it with? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you're new to the page, you might want to read this section, which contains some context as to how the lead came to be the way it is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon comments are a MOS issue that I have raised repeatedly and has been largely ignored by all but a few uninvolved editors. Those uninvolved editors agreed with my comments, that it too much in the lead. Lets take a closer look at that paragraph.

The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[5] and are "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11] and it is considered to be "scientifically implausible" and pseudoscientific. A lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

Does anyone see this as a problem(s) here? Next to that we add a Psci info box.

This method of presenting homeopathy in the lead will insure that many will not bother to read the article and IMO, will damage wikipedia's reputation for neutrality with a large percentage of the American public, who are, as you all know pro alt-med. Anthon01 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One is writing an encyclopaedia, not a commercial or political publication. An encyclopaedia's neutrality is not equal weight, but the weight of the evidence. If this upsets readers, so be it. Take a look at the Muhammad talk page for how we invite problems from the middle east, for example. The fact we are even having this discussion frankly beggars belief. The above quote acknowledges a truth in the research and in our current understanding of science. LinaMishima (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, that's too fundamentalist a POV. What's the point of having an encyclopedia if no one will read it? I didn't say remove the text from the article but reduce the emphasis in the lead by making it more concise, and putting it in the body. This lead with its Psci box is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Anthon01 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire lead is twice as long as it should be, anyhow. If the entire lead is trimmed, then so can this statement. And I personally do not approve of the psci box anyhow, since it does not seem to be used widely elsewhere. LinaMishima (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be easily arranged. Please stay tuned. Anthon01 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are working on a rewrite, might I suggest that you post it in talk before taking it into the article? LinaMishima (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? That is generally the way I work on this page. Anthon01 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this page, no disrespect was intended, only a desire to avoid upset over revert warring LinaMishima (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I know what you mean. "Please stay tune" is in response to "does not seem to be used widely elsewhere." It will be. Anthon01 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is making the infobox widely used a good idea? I am personally against it, the contents can easily be said in the lead of an article. LinaMishima (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NSF source posted at WP:RSN

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"? regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox paranoia

People arguing against the inclusion of the infobox fail to realize that the infobox simply provides one particular framework for looking at the subject. It is not the be-all-and-end-all of article descriptions. That most knowledgeable people consider homeopathy to be pseudoscience has not been disputed (similar to astrology). That people who believe in homeopathy do not consider it to be pseudoscience is a no-brainer -- but this is not a justification for removing a simple tool for quick and concise explanation of the pseudoscientific claims of the subject. It is simply not "POV" to include an infobox about the pseudoscientific aspects of this idea. Please do not keep removing it while claiming some protection under NPOV. As has been pointed out many times above, this kind of advocacy is itself basic special pleading. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, with you approach you are assuring that large majority of readers won't bother reading the article. Is that your intent? Anthon01 (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot assure anything about what readers will or will not do. I can only hope to provide an article space for them that will help them learn and explore a topic from basic summary to detailed exposition and everything in between. The point of writing an encyclopedia article is to make sure that the readers can get information in as efficient and straightforward a fashion as possible. An infobox will aid in this. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A cursory check of other articles in the category pseudoscience, including ones that clearly meet that definition, did not actually reveal any articles using said infobox. Regardless of any debate over the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy, it appears that the prefered article style is to not use the box. The box is highly contentious, and I think we would do better, given the general absence of the box from other articles, to argue simply for the compromise of the category inclusion and statements in the text. LinaMishima (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is used on 19 articles, out of 172 in the root of the pseudoscience catagory. It seems to be mostly used on paranormal studies matters which don't even seem to make a claim to the trappings of science anyhow. LinaMishima (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so naive. You comments will spark a wikipedia wide rush to place that that box, ugly as it is, on every article that is claimed to be pseudoscience. I'm not blaming you, as it is obvious that it was coming soon anyway. Why not just call the encyclopedia Pseudowikipedia? Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's so ugly about the box? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it has recently been changed I suggest you asked a non-science-only person, that is, an artist. Jossi might be willing to help you. Anthon01 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. You think it's ugly but cannot explain why. I haven't seen any indication here that the box is "ugly". Refer me to the appropriate section, if you please.
2. What's the definition of a "non-science-only person"? I consider myself to be a non-science-only person, but since I don't find the box to be "ugly", I don't think you were intending for me to ask myself.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am uncivil or this offends, but as I have stated above, I am not sure that an infobox about pseudoscience is appropriate here for a variety of reasons.--Filll (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to offend or be uncivil

I do not mean to offend or be uncivil. I do not see how calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" instead of a "Homeopathy supporter" can be viewed as an uncivil attack, but apparently it was and is supported by admins. I cannot see how warning people that we have to cooperate or we will have trouble is an uncivil attack, but apparently it is viewed as such.

I see now that trying to get people to abide by NPOV is viewed as an uncivil hostile act. I therefore suggest that all who want to write an article with a substantial input from science or allopathy leave the article to the homeopathy "supporters" (sorry if that offends; maybe you can suggest a better word?) and let us observe the results as you work to "improve" the article (sorry if the word "improve" offends; can you suggest a better word?)--Filll (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"homeopathy promoter" is not uncivil. I don't know who said it was but I wonder if they had no counter to your argument and decided to complain about civility instead. That said, please don't confuse people with WP:POINTless questions. MilesAgain (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This clearly has complete support from the administrative structure of Wikipedia and the word "promoter" has clearly been designated as highly offensive and akin to the worst possible expletive. Therefore I will treat it as such and apologize at every possible opportunity for my uncivil and potentially offensive posts and inflammatory offensive language. Will I be blocked for this post? Possibly. I apologize to anyone I might have offended by this post.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you name the person who told you that "homeopathy promoters" is uncivil? MilesAgain (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I do not want to blocked or banned for it. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way or judged as uncivil; I did not mean to offend anyone by this post.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

More reliable sources calling homeopathy quackery and pseudoscience

Barrett, S. and Tyler, V.E. (1995) "Why Pharmacists Should Not Sell Homeopathic Products" American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 52(9) pp. 1004-6. peer-reviewed

"Unlike most prescription and nonprescription drugs, homeopathic remedies have not been proven effective against disease by double-blind clinical testing.... Homeopathic treatments prevent nothing, and many homeopathic leaders preach against immunization.... If FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in order to remain marketable -- the standard it applies to other categories of drugs -- homeopathy would face extinction in the United States.... FDA should not permit worthless drug products to be marketed with claims that they are effective. In August 1994, we and 40 other prominent critics of quackery and pseudoscience asked the agency to curb the sale of homeopathic products.... we urge pharmacists not to stock homeopathic remedies and to inform customers that such products simply don't work"

Beyerstein, B.L. (1996) Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (Victoria, B.C.: Center for Curriculum and Professional Development.) from an academic press

"If there truly is nothing more scientific medicine can do for a patient, the comfort pseudoscientific practitioners can provide is not necessarily a bad thing (unless of course the widows and orphans are left destitute by the unconscionably high price of the treatment). But when quacks divert patients from genuinely curative treatments, the results can be tragic.... A few quacks manage to come up with novel nonsense, but most merely present recycled versions of old, long since discredited nostrums. For instance, homeopathy was a serious contender among the competing philosophies of disease and treatment during the pre-scientific era of medicine. Although its remedies were pushed aside when scientific research showed its theory of pathology to be untenable, homeopathy has remained alive despite the inanity of its underlying rationale."

Smolle, J.; Prause, G.; Kerl, H. (1998) "A Double-blind, Controlled Clinical Trial of Homeopathy and an Analysis of Lunar Phases and Postoperative Outcome" Archives of Dermatology 134(11) pp. 1368-70. peer-reviewed

"Statements and methods of alternative medicine—as far as they concern observable clinical phenomena—can be tested by scientific methods. When such tests yield negative results, as in the studies presented herein, the particular method or statement should be abandoned. Otherwise one would run the risk of supporting superstition and quackery."

Federspil G. and Vettor, R. (1999) "[The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine]" (article in Italian) Annali Italiani di Medicina Interna 14(3) pp. 172-84. peer-reviewed

"Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline." (from translation of abstract in PubMed)

Almeida, R.M. (2003) "A Critical Review of the Possible Benefits Associated With Homeopathic Medicine" Revista do Hospital das Clínicas (São Paulo) 58(6) pp. 324-331. peer-reviewed

"CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.... The statement that homeopathy is 'discriminated by an 'official science' cannot be supported by the results of the present review. The quantity and quality of the current research in this area indicates that, actually, the rejection of homeopathy as a valid scientific endeavor comes from the fact that the more recent research has thoroughly disconfirmed the main homeopathic hypotheses. Another conclusion concerns the relationship between the quality of a homeopathic study and its positive results. This is a clearly recognized phenomenon, which, for instance, admittedly 'contaminated' the meta-analyses conducted in the 1990s that detected a (weak) favorable effect for homeopathic preparations. In summary, the present review indicates that the weight of the modern evidence clearly disconfirms the hypothesis that ultra-diluted substances could have a noticeable clinical or pharmacological effect in living organisms."

(Emphasis added.) And again I point out, there have been no peer-reviewed statements brought forth saying homeopathy is not quackery. MilesAgain (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong. Take a look. [20]--76.226.130.40 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Those discredited sources barely show any effect beyond that of a placebo, and do not address the wider question of quackery, including the fact that people die having been kept from effective treatments by homeopaths. My sources above in this section do address that concern. MilesAgain (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Literally hundreds of these can be exhibited (I was going to say "we can find literally hundreds of these" but I remembered that the word "we" in this context is viewed as vile invective and offensive and I do not mean to be uncivil or offensive in any way).--Filll (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter how many biased anti-homeopathy opinions are located. We should not be categorizing homeopathy as "pseudoscience" (by adding it to the "Category:Pseudoscience" or adding an "info box". If we do, we are proclaiming that one viewpoint is true and another is false. This clearly violates editing an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia according to the WP:NPOV policy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)\

Sadly there is no such thing as an unbiased source on homeopathy and pseudoscience. Any source found will quickly be declared 'biased' for some reason (writing about science, being a scientist, being related to one, having done a proper degree course, etc). The very nature of the term prevents such a thing, for it requires a judgement of the scientific methodology in use. As I stated previously, to prevent the assertion that it is widely believed to be a pseudoscience by a prominent group (the assertion needed for category inclusion), you need to argue that either it is a science (hence disproving the assertion, but this cannot be done), or that it does not claim to be a science (which it clearly does). This is simple logic, really. LinaMishima (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider peer-reviewed medical journal sources biased. MilesAgain (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it shouldn't, but those who like homeopathy claim conspiracy from the medical establishment and whatnot... LinaMishima (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we give them any more weight than the 9/11 or Illuminati conspiracy theorists? MilesAgain (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia establishment is protecting them, obviously. And so...--Filll (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of implausibility

This diff by QuackGuru undid my fix to the quote and source about "diametrically opposed". Is it really true that this quote is attributable to both sources? Google Scholar search suggests not, but if someone has a copy of the other ref, and tell us what it says, let us know. In the mean time, may I again request that editors be careful about attribution. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I too have found a bit of editorializing in the lead unsupported by the citations presented. Sometimes text is edited without a careful read of the citations or replacement with new citations. I suspect there may be more. Anthon01 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Supported or not, the lead is probably not the best place for it. But here I'm speaking of a much narrower issue, which is whether the cited sources actually are correct for what is stated; based on the history, I'd say probably not. Arthur Rubin, usually a very good editor, has just undone my fix again, without commenting on whether he has actually checked the sources to see if they say that. I don't know why. If anyone has these papers handy, can you check, or produce a copy for us to see? If not, I'm going to take it back to what it originally said when the sources were first cited, since that was presumbably by someone who had looked at the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from the first source, but the second makes the same general point, so it was added since a few people were uncomfortable at only citing one source for the statement. However, I don't see this as a particularly controversial point, since whatever the view you have on if homeopathy works, we all agree that it is diametrically/directly opposed to conventional pharmacology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientifically implausible" is not editorializing, even if it's not the exact words of either reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I liked the other way better; nonetheless, the issue of greater concern is quoted phrase "diametrically opposed", originally inserted in this diff where it was attributed to a whole list of sources, but not quoted. I was able to find it in one of the two recently cited sources, so I reduced the citation list to just the one with the quote, and extended the quote to be more clear about what the source said. I don't have the other, but I doubt that it uses the same words. Thanks for fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe science category

The problem with this category is that it is usually reserved for ideas that are not outright rejected by the scientific mainstream, but which have a minority status within the field. Homeopathy is not fringe science. It is pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing something as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the something is pseudoscience. But the issue is that this is disputed, and NPOV forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize it as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A statement that would be true had we not had all of the refs labeling homeopathy as pseudoscience. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reliable source that disputes that homeopathy is pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're serious, it must just be that you classify any source calling it a science to be not a reliable source. There certainly are books that treat it more as science than as pseudoscience, even if they don't use the term pseudoscience in the book. For example, Homeopathy: Science Or Myth? by Bill Gray M. D. Here are some more. I'm not taking a position on classifying homeopathy one way or the other, but the close-mindedness of editors making statements like yours is what will keep this article from ever achieving NPOV or any kind of consensus, it seems to me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those sources are not worth the paper they're printed on. Reliable sourcing doesn't mean just doing a google search. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These are books with real authors, editors, and publishers behind them. Nobody is saying that makes their content true or correct, but as sources they are reliable, per WP:RS. If you're not going to treat them as such, then it's of course just a tautogy to say "I see no reliable source that disputes that homeopathy is pseudoscience." You've made your POV very clear, so why waste our time repeating it thusly? Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's just ridiculous. Just because a book has "real author, editor, and publisher" does not make it a reliable source. I could write an entire encyclopedia based on hollow earth theory if that were the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that close-mindedness will keep this article for ever acheiving NPOV or any kind of consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if people who believed in homeopathy would open their minds to understanding physics, chemistry, and modern medicine, maybe take some college courses, maybe read some good introductory science texts. But that's not for us to legislate. Scientific illiteracy may plague the people who support homeopathy, but we cannot force people to learn. Open-mindedness can only be properly achieved through education and that is beyond the scope of these conversations. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what is being referred to here is open-mindedness in regards to respecting the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, being open-minded to the fact that the pseudoscience classification of Homeopathy seems much too disputed even outside the profession to be identified as a "obvious" or "a general considered" pseudoscience. Therefore, Wikipedia describing it as such would violate WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. We all have the right to be open-minded or close-minded about our own personal feeling about Homeopathy, but in terms of Wikipedia, we need to respect NPOV and labeling Homeopathy as pseudoscience clearly violates NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience at this point (as we still have no definitive verification that the scientific community in general considers it so but rather we have varying opinions from lots of source; hence, it is a dispute scientific theory.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am so happy to be open-minded with respect to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia which are, after all, just representations of community consensus on how to write an encyclopedia. Since we have plenty of reliable sources which indicate that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience we have plenty of justification for categorizing the article as such. Those who object to this categorization are doing so not on the basis of reliable sourcing (which is the only way to determine what is generally considered pseudoscience) and instead are falling back on their illiteracy and true-belief. Or, sometimes, some of the editors arguing this way are simply falling back on their personal vendettas against the attempts that many have had in keeping Wikipedia NPOV with respect to pseudoscience/alternative medicine/etc. Frankly, most of what you are claiming about a lack of "definitive verification" from the "scientific community" is not only specious: it's patently absurd. Read scientific consensus for more. There is no imprimatur required to decide what is and isn't pseudoscience. Science is not a community of high priests. It is a set of methods. When various ideas (like homeopathy) violate these ideas in very particular ways, those ideas are generally pseudoscientific. Astrology, homeopathy, creation science, ancient astronaut theories, perpetual motion machines, etc. etc. etc. If you are confused by this, I made a convenient list where you can see what qualifies! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needs source or removal

During the numerous recent edits, it appears that citation number 97 (Ernst2005) has been deleted, but a secondary link to it has been retained. I think this citation has been a point of contention, so I'll leave it to you all to determine how to handle the stray reference - whether to restore the original citation or delete the stray. It occurs right after the text "without losing the original substance altogether". Thanks for looking at this.Mindmatrix 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That was done in Arthur Rubin's two latest edits. I had fixed it previously, but he reverted me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden

Is it just me or did User:Adam Cuerden use his administrative abilities to get around the full protection, edit the article and then User:Ryan Postlethwaite reverted his edits? It certainly seems that way from the diffs and history. I am incredibly disturbed by this. Is a report to AN/I the appropriate place or right to ArbCom? Bstone (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you be reporting, exactly? It looks like Ryan was saying "Hey, wait, don't edit this- it's protected" with his revert. This is reasonable. Adam may well have edited without realizing it was protected, as happens sometimes. I don't see any problem here requiring a report. Friday (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, after waiting... 2 minutes for responses, had made his report. Is he acting in good faith? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice I posted on AN/I wondering where the proper place to post. Just curious where to put such a concern is. Seems a big enough issue that AN/I is the most appropriate place to seek comment as to where to get info as to proceed with this. Tempers are running very high with this article. It one I have been watching for a long time (but refraining from editing). It's important everyone conducts themselves, especially admins, with the highest level of professionalism and know when to step back and take a break. Bstone (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PouponOnToast, you're assuming that I have bad faith because I went to the most appropriate place with an honest question and legitimate concern about an admin who seems to have actually violated a full protect in order to edit an article? Good day. Bstone (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UIT was an accident, as five minutes' time spent looking at my talk page would have shown. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No Bstone, you didn't go to the 'most appropriate place'. As an editor with such a tremendous interest in both the adminship process and in Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, it is disappointing and troubling that you didn't know the first step in dispute resolution: a polite, good-faith question on the talk page of the individual involved. Indeed, the matter was resolved there – revealing Adam made an innocent mistake – before you even started the thread here or on AN/I.

It seems that your suggestion that everyone ought to "conduct themselves with the highest level of professionalism and know when to step back and take a break" is good advice indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sneaky here, Adam didn't realise it was protected and made the edit - I reverted the edit because no-one should get an advantage when the page is protected. Just a simple misunderstanding. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

perfectly in GF, and Adam has apologized. End of story.DGG (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing what an admin's screen looks like when they go to edit a fully protected article it's hard for me to know what he saw- or didn't see- when he edited it while fully protected. I accept that it was mistake. Thanks. Bstone (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So where is Adam's alleged apology? I don't see it. Peter morrell 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would he apologize? I believe DGG misspoke and meant Bstone. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He could apologise for strolling up to a protected article--one that God knows has caused him enough grief--editing it and walking away. Yes, I think that requires an apology. Anyone other than an admin could not do that period. Some folks might choose to see that as an abuse of those admin powers. Certainly it needs explaining. Peter morrell 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, are you remotely serious? A mistake was made, and it was fixed. If anyone has issues with user conduct please bring them up on user talk. This page is for discussing the article, not for stirring up ridiculous "zOMG Bad admin!!1!" drama. Friday (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam made an innocent mistake; Ryan corrected the error two minutes later; nobody was harmed—to whom would Adam apologize here? The only party who might offer an apology here is Bstone for blowing the whole matter out of proportion.

Unless you're suggesting that Adam knowingly edited a protected page for the purposes of advancing a POV, no abuse occurred. The matter doesn't 'need explaining', as it's already been explained. Adam didn't realize that the article had been reprotected, and he edited it. After he found out the article had been protected, he didn't get into a revert war, and he didn't dispute the protection (or unprotect the article, or do anything else that would constitute abuse). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ten, please mind what you write. You're being a bit sensationalistic, I believe. I came here with a question, not a "zomg bad admin!" report. Once it was explained to me the difference between how admins and non-admins see a fully protected article I thanked everyone for the input and apologized to Adam on his talk page. Do you need to continue beating a dead horse? Bstone (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of that was my comment, not Ten's. I do think it's silly and unhelpful to want apologies and talk of abuse of power, when the matter was a simple mistake. Everything worked just fine in this case- a mistake was made and quickly fixed. We cannot eliminate mistakes, we can only try to correct them with minimal fuss. Friday (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And notice it took (5?) minutes before there were accusations and counter-accusations made about abuse, assuming good faith, etc. Rather silly indeed. Bstone (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was replying, in part, to Peter's insistence that the matter still 'needs explaining', that Adam's lone, erroneous edit constituted 'abuse', and that Adam's conduct required an apology. I hope that Peter will drop the stick, but even if he doesn't there's nothing else that I can add. I think that all the other parties here are satisfied that Adam's mistake was an honest and good-faith one and would be quite pleased to drop the matter.

As to your conduct, this drama is due to your failure to make a good-faith approach to Adam as your first step, rather than your last. A rhetorical question on AN/I isn't really a 'question'. 'Sensationalistic' is going to AN/I, starting a thread with "admin abuse" in the title, and asking if AN/I is sufficient or if the matter needs to go straight to ArbCom. I know that you have a great deal of interest in what you perceive as 'admin abuse' on Wikipedia, but seeing 'abuse' under every rock isn't a productive or useful way to fight it. I'll not say another word if you acknowledge that you need to do your homework – read the relevant policies, assume good faith, follow the steps of dispute resolution – before you report more 'admin abuse' in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I propose that this whole section is achieved immediately (using a show/hide box with a do not edit warning), with a link to the apology. Or my preferred option is it should just be deleted. Can an admin do this please to stop things spiralling? --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More Wiki-bullying and underhanded tactics

Once again, some of the people who believe in faith healing and sacrificing sheep to Marduk are placing warnings and block threats on the talk pages of people trying to edit this article properly. Once again, they are pretending to be administrators. Once again, we see that there is no rational argument in favor of homeopathy, and no rational argument in favor of this article being pro-homeopathy, so the homeopathy proponents resort to threats, lies, and intimidation. Just another fine day in the reality v. magical thinking conflict. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom reference to psychoanalysis

I have been trying to stay out of the discussion on the pseudoscience category because the shouting hurts my ears. Still, I would like to repeat an argument I made a couple archives ago, because I think it still cuts to the point:

Maybe the most directly applicable indication of policy is the demarcation in the ArbCom ruling between Astrology ("may be categorized as pseudoscience") and Psychoanalysis ("generally should not be so characterized"). I think homeopathy has more in common with psychoanalysis than with astrology, but that can be discussed here. It is interesting to note that psychoanalysis is called pseudoscience by a prominent critic (Karl Popper) and the article cites a statement (Cioffi, 1998) that "an increasing number of scientists regard psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience". The citations we have found calling homeopathy pseudoscience are neither from very notable scientists nor do they make a generalized statement about how widespread that belief is. If we take the ArbCom ruling as our touchstone, it is hard to see why homeopathy should be classified as pseudoscience while psychoanalysis is not. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I posted that, there have been a lot of citations of scientists that call homeopathy pseudoscience. Good. That justifies a statement to the effect that "many scientists consider homeopathy to be pseudoscience". No one, however, has found a RS making a statement about scientists in general. The closest that has been offered is a report by the NSF, which says without contradicting them, that csicop thinks homeopathy is pseudoscience. NSF does take a clear stand here, and they do not make any statement about how many scientists do or don't hold the same view. Jim Butler has also reminded us of the content guideline which states "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Unless RS can be found that provide evidence that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" (generally, not just by a portion), which is stronger than the equivalent evidence for psychoanalysis, a dispassionate application of Wikipedia guidelines requires that the pseudoscience category be removed.

On a similar topic, I can't avoid the impression that the pseudoscience "infobox" was created to provide an even more prominent label than that given by the category. In addition to having the same problems as the category, it doesn't provide any significant information or navigational aid. It should go.

Disclaimer: My personal opinion is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience.

--Art Carlson (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should also mention the guideline on controversial categories (WP:Category#Some general guidelines, No. 7): "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." --Art Carlson (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The citations we have found calling homeopathy pseudoscience are neither from very notable scientists..."

Per WP:V, the notability of a scientist only comes into play for self-published sources, and not peer-reviewed medical journals, which are called, "in general, the most reliable sources," and, "usually the most reliable sources in areas ... such as ... medicine"

I'm just trying to figure out what the difference is between psychoanalysis and homeopathy. Are you arguing that there is something about the sources for homeopathy as pseudoscience, compared to the sources for psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, such that the one should be so classified but the other (according to ArbCom) not? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"nor do they make a generalized statement about how widespread that belief is."

The Almeida (2003) source explicitly says, "recent research has thoroughly disconfirmed the main homeopathic hypotheses ... the weight of the modern evidence clearly disconfirms the hypothesis...." That is not an opinion of a single M.D., it is a statement about the totality of the modern research on the topic. MilesAgain (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the opinion of a single researcher (in a rather out-of-the-way journal) about the totality of modern research. He does not say that most everyone agrees with him (although they obviously should). --Art Carlson (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Now if everyone would just chill out and take some time to absorbed what Art has said may be we could get on with this. The box is like a scarlett letter. How is that encyclopedic? Anthon01 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the psuedoscience infobox was originally labelled "Disputed science", however was recently changed in title without clear consensus to be more provocative. LinaMishima (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful research and observation. This is helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I was just about to propose using the Disputed science box as being more neutral. I would have no objection if the name were changed. Well, no fundamental objection. I still don't find it particularly useful. I also wanted to point out that there is already a List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which works as well as the category as a navigational aid, but allows a more differentiated characterization, e.g. "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" as well as "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus". (Begging the question for now of whether homeopathy is in the right list.) --Art Carlson (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I contend it's not but have avoided the unreasoned debate that often goes on there, which begs the question ... ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" comes on a bit strong, but "disputed science" is far too weak. Homeopathy isn't string theory. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Art Carlson, thanks for your comments. I agree with your assessment and proposals. I also believe that Homeopathy is no science, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have suggested above, anything that hints or suggests that homeopathy is not supported by science or is in any way questionable or disputed or controversial will be objected to. I guarantee it. In light of this, I suggest that the only option is for all those who believe in double blind studies and the scientific method and publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals to leave the article to the truly "unbiased" among us who can remove all this "POV" science and allopathic blather from the article. I apologize if this comment is deemed uncivil or offensive in any way to anyone.--Filll (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, you mean we can write this for the National Enquirer set? •Jim62sch• 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is not an apt comparison because many analysts do not claim scientific imprimatur on their practices. Homeopaths, however, on the whole do. That's what makes this subject classic pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ArbCom did not give us enough examples to do fine tuning. I don't follow your argument, because it seems to me (OR), both homeopaths and psychoanalysts would simply say, what I practice works, BUT that is part of the discussion I think we can/must avoid. The issue is not whether you or I think homeopathy is pseudoscience, and not whether homeopathy really is pseudoscience. The issue is whether there are reliable sources that claim that it is generally seen that way, and whether those sources are stronger than the ones available for psychoanalysis. I think the answer is clearly "no", but I am eager to hear your opinion. (P.S. Thanks for engaging me here. It seems everyone else charged on past.) --Art Carlson (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Art, since you asked me to reply here.

1. Homeopathy is pseudoscience. It claims to be a science. It's practitioners claim scientific methodology and education. Yet, it makes falsifiable claims but when falsified the "true believers" don't acknowledge them. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, WANTS to be a duck, but in the end, still a goose in drag.
2. Specifically about ArtCom. ArbCom also says about Categories, that they are a navigation aid, not content, and not a factual claim. The pseudoscience claim is made, over and over again, from reliable sources. There is no reason to not have it as a category. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Actually several policies and guidelines do consider categories as content, and explicitly mention attendant NPOV issues. See WP:CG (cited by Art above), WP:NPOVT#Categorization, and pages linked from them. And of course WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, the most obviously applicable one, where (as Art also notes above) the specific demarcation is given for categorizing.

As for the full-stop opinion that "homeopathy is pseudoscience", see WP:Wikipedia:Common knowledge. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, SchmuckyTheCat, for responding, although actually I was hoping you would read my arguments above and respond to them. I share your opinion and that of the cited scientists that homeopathy is pseudoscience, but ArbCom says we need reliable sources saying that it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Damn. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete agreement with Art's points here. I couldn't have put it better. Using ArbCom's examples, a spectrum exists between astrology and psychoanalysis, and many of the more prominent alt-med topics lie on it. If we use the demarcation "generally considered pseudo by the sci community" and require a source, we can move on from arguments over categorizing, and do more interesting stuff: I think criticisms from V RS's that homeopathy is pseudosci should absolutely go in the article, and better still, their reasoning (and countering views, if any) clearly explained. [[Category:pseudoscience]] may not be the best way to do that, but I agree entirely that we can do it with a list.

(Disclosure: I'm agnostic about homeopathy. First determine efficacy. If that exists, then science will have quite an interesting task in establishing mechanism. But efficacy seems to lean negative. That said, if ritual is what works, why the hell not add ritual to antibiotics 'n stuff? Give the monkey mind (i.e., every specimen of humanity, bless us all) what it craves.) --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Art as well (and consequently Jim). We must heed WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Despite our personal feelings about homeopathy (I am in the same boat as Jim as well), homeopathy seems to fall in the spectrum in the "questionable" science realm and not in the "obvious" pseudoscience section. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I believe that the peer-reviewed reliable sources I have provided above unequivocally state that homeopathy is the kind of quackery which costs the lives of untold multitudes who fail to seek -- or are dissuaded from[21][22] -- legitimate medical care. The entire article does a terrible job of presenting that fact.

Most of the others here seem to be squabbling over whether it's merely pseudoscience or fringe science. Accordingly, I have placed a {{POV}} neutrality dispute tag on this article. MilesAgain (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your PubMed quote doesn't say what you are saying. "which costs the lives of untold multitudes who fail to see?" Prove it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is direct evidence that homeopaths tell people to avoid vaccinations. Tell me that doesn't cost lives. MilesAgain (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but prove that it cost lives. Otherwise its OR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfft! All I have to say is WP:SPADE, or wait, maybe I mean WP:DUCK. MilesAgain (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

MilesAgain ignores the "untold multitudes" that have been helped by homeopathy world-wide. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether his argument is good or not, he does right to ignore them --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of whom there is nothing but sparse anecdotal evidence and homeopaths saying that controlled trials are for some reason not a legitimate means of testing efficacy. MilesAgain (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What untold multitudes? How were they helped? What evidence do you have other than anonymous anecdotes? Natalie (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I self-reverted. I'm on board with Miles now! Yeah, what untold multitudes Anthon01? Oh you mean the untold multitudes who are screwed out of their money to buy a couple of liters of distilled water? And that money would have only been spent on sex, drugs and rock and roll, therefore saving them from the misery of their existence. Sarcasm intended. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated a few times, I think that everyone who believes in double blind studies, the scientific method, science and allopathic medicine should recuse themselves from this article and let all others forge a "real NPOV" version. Then after 6 months, lets have outside bodies and internal groups review the product, and judge if it really meets NPOV and Wikipedia and reader requirements.--Filll (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it to the untold multitudes who believe in alien abduction, horroscopes, the Loch Ness monster, magic crystals, mood rings, Yeti and Scientology. •Jim62sch• 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the science of homeopathy to obvious nonsense does not help us work cooperatively to improve this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I've always found congruency to be of value. •Jim62sch• 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

POV/Disputed/whatever Templates

Please don't add these to the article. The dispute on the article is perpetual. The templates serve no purpose. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

agreed. we should at least weight until the curent bitchfest is over before ywe start adding more tags. right now any of us could put every single tag on wikipedia on this page and be juustified in doing so. Smith Jones (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are saying to not indicate that there is a dispute because the dispute is long-running? Preposterous! That the dispute is long-running makes it more important to inform readers, not less. Perhaps you should share your opinion with the people at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States for a second opinion. MilesAgain (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is to inform the reader that there may be problems with the POV of the article. As MilesAgain points out, the duration of the dispute is a curious argument against the tag. The only time that I feel justified in removing NPOV tags is when those inserting them do not specify concretely the problems they see, and possibly when they don't constructively work on solving those problems. I don't know how many real or perceived problems the article currently has, but the pseudoscience category certainly qualifies for a start. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" category again added - against consensus

I think, based on the length of discussion that this has generated and the number of reverts that have occured with the Pseudoscience categorization, that it is controversial. From Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines guideline number 8, it should not be put into the category.

Please can summarise why homeopathy might not be a pseudoscience? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Read all the discussion on this yesterday and today. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please read it. I have, but I must be missing something. •Jim62sch• 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was categorized as pseudoscience for some time. Since homeopathy is self-evidently pseudoscience and has been shown through reliable sources to be pseudoscience, there is no issue. Removing the category is unacceptable POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the real issue should be whether the description of Category:Pseudoscience is appropriate. The category as defined is intended to include "fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects". We can avoid arguing about whether homeopathy is pseudoscience, and argue instead whether this is a good way to define such a category. But as long as that's what it says, I don't see why we wouldn't go ahead and put this article in that category. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made this point above as well. But my observation fell on deaf ears. Indeed, there seems to be little doubt that homeopathy falls squarely within the bounds set by the category description. Silly rabbit (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to REMOVE it. So it stays. Besides, consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Sorry to make such an obvious point. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I wish it was that easy. Obviously there is no consensus, as the categorization is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would people be happy with a better description of pseudoscience which clearly included homeopathy? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm. Anthon01 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly move the argument to another page. •Jim62sch• 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing something as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the something is pseudoscience. But the issue is that this is disputed, and NPOV forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize it as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people dispute the Earth is a planet. We still categorize it as such. We are not in the business of accommodating the disputes with those who have weird beliefs otherwise we would never be able to start writing an encyclopedia. Homeopathy is pseudoscience. End of discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is disingenuous as you know you won't find a RS to say that. There is no point to your point. Anthon01 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Weird beliefs are part of "human knowlegde" and I am sure readers what to know all. As you have no authority to call to end any discussion, I am considering placing that category for deletion. See for example the deleted category Category:Dictators. Here is the CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_22#Category:Dictators, for the rationale I intend to use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

History repeating? Jefffire (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I hate to say this, but you are not only threatening to repeat history (this has been tried before, and a repetition would be quite disruptive and bloody), but you are revealing that you are in over your head on a subject (one of several) that you don't understand well enough to be making such dramatic and drastic actions.

BUT, and I really mean this, please continue to function as a referee here. (Referee's don't play.) That's what you do pretty well, and what we really need. Leave the major editing and wave-making to those who know more about these subjects, or who for various reasons burn for them. That way you keep your hands clean and are appreciated by editors of all persuasions. You don't want to alienate too many editors and place yourself in a compromised situation as a biased and partial admin who gets dragged into RfC/U's, RfArbs, etc.. I have suggested this before, and I'll repeat it here. We desperately need a category of admins whose major job is to function as referees to keep things on track, deal with disruption, incivility, personal attacks, give advice, and to break deadlocks, etc. We need that and you can continue and develop that function, setting a good example for other admins to follow if they choose to serve in such a capacity. -- Fyslee / talk 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute? •Jim62sch• 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything can be disputed [and frequently is on WP]. Are there any reliable sources (outside homeopathy) which say homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? This would demonstrate that this obvious fact is in fact disputed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how this helps, Stephen. Read the rationale in Category:Pseudoscience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, pseudoscience is defined, it is not a POV. There is a checklist of 5 or 6 items, all of which Homeopathy fits. Terms like Junk Science, are much more pejorative, and have no official definition. There are NO reliable, peer-reviewed sources that state that Homeopathy is a medical science that actually cures anything. I suppose drinking that much water will keep away kidney stones, but that's the water, not Homeopathy. I understand your POV Jossi, but NPOV is not anti-SPOV in the case of scientific and medical articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is generally described as something that desires the appearance and respect of science, yet fails to follow proper scientific method and the appropriate forms of the scientific method for its field. For something to not be a psuedoscience, it either would have to show that it does not attempt to seem scientific, or show that it, on the whole, follows correct scientific procedures. Homeopathy clearly wants to seem scientific, what with journals and procedures and practices and qualifications of its own, so that attempt to rule out the definition fails. Regarding the following of the proper scientific method, this is were we run into trouble. Homeopaths of course will claim that they do! As they wish to be a science, they must claim this! However, many of the common procedures and testing systems used have traditionally failed to be appropriately double-blind with large participation and a sizeable control group. As such, traditionally it clearly has failed to follow proper scientific procedure for the medical field. Some homeopaths are trying to improve this, as are people in the medical field, however the widespread inability of the profession to control their members from saying dangerous things (such as recommending homeopathy alone as malaria protection, or advocating homeopathy over antiretrovirals in the treatment of aids) and the continued widespread use of research not following appropriate methods makes it clear that proper scientific method is not widely used yet. If you disagree with this, either state how the proper medical research process is being used widely within homeopathy and scientific methodology is being encouraged, or point out an error in this logic and how something, without following this process, can counter claims of pseudoscience. LinaMishima (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's laughable to think that any amount of science can show that 0 molecules of a substance can have any clinical effect. Unless it's magic. In that case, it's not falsifiable, and therefore is outside of the scope of science. Most homeopathy promoters will not agree to falsifiability. Medical research will be better spent finding real cures for breast cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and whatever else. There is a limited amount of research dollars and it has to be spent wisely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We should only argue ethics here to the extend that it displays a lack of scientific process, and implausibility is regularly challenged by supporters by bringing up various scientific paradigm shifts (and they would be right to say that this can be researched - science investigates and disproves, not suppresses). As such, I am suggesting we stick to what can sensibly argued here. LinaMishima (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen and Orange, labeling homeopathy a "pseudoscience" is disputed by some of the editors of this article, and by scientific researchers conducting and designing proper homeopathic double-blind studies. The reason for labeling an article as "pseudoscience" is to condemn it as "junk science". If that is not the intent - that is the effect. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great argument, since I know it's a junk science. No way does 0 molecules of anything have any effect except for the solvent. The 2 liters of water are a great thirst quencher, but they do nothing else. The research being done is a huge waste of money of the US and other governments. But the US government wants to push Creationism, so since Homeopathy relies on the exact same anti-science attitude, so be it. It is junk science. But to be nice, we'll call it pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, some researchers are attempting to apply proper scientific methodology to investigate the claims, and this is a wonderful thing (if, however, the larger proper studies are tending towards placebo). The problem here is not those excellent researchers, but the body of the profession and the current basis for its work. LinaMishima (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone that claims that "0 molecules of anything have any effect except for the solvent" - do you? Homeopathy certainly does not claim that. Maybe that is why OrangeMarlin and some of the others who have expressed opinions about homeopathy have been so dismissive of the science of homeopathy. It appears that the misunderstandings about what homeopathy claims are part of the reasons for problems reaching a harmonious consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From a purely based-on-what-we-know scientific level, that is the logical conclusion of the process used to make homeopathic remedies. I agree that homeopaths certainly do not claim however that said situation is what they create, however they claim effectiveness, rather potential effectiveness. As no method of action has yet been found and proper medical studies have been highly lacking, potential effectiveness is all that can be claimed from a scientific point of view, however. LinaMishima (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen evidence of non-homeopaths testing homeopathic claims (I linked to one on scarlet fever on another page, for example). And I don't necessarily dispute that some homeopaths can test claims scientifically, just as Creationists can test Newtonian Dynamics scientifically. But from what I understand, Homeopathy is based on a set of assumptions which were invented without evidence, and if these are false, homeopathy cannot reject them without not being homeopathy any more. This is very different from science, where any theories, even such established ones such as Newtonian Dynamics, can be replaced. Science starts with reality and works out. Homeopathy doesn't work like this. So even if individuals who call themselves homeopaths test the claims scientifically, homeopathy is still not a scientific discipline. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

homoeopathy migt be a junk science, but that hardly means taht it is also a psuedoscience. psuedoscience has far more criteria than just being incorrect or not proven scientificaly; if that were all that it entailed then we would have to slap the psuedoscience label on all the Greek myths and anything that has ever not been provenscientifically. if homoeopathy's accuracy is disputed (which i concede that it is), then that should be raised in the aritlce, but calling it psuedoscience has a higher burder of proof for us. Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should not conclude that it's pseudoscience. On the other hand, as I pointed out above, being in the category pseudoscience is not saying that the topic is pseudoscience. Read the category; if you don't like it, work on that. But for what it is, I see no problem with homeopathy being in the category. Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Psuedoscience, as I have stated previously, has two defining criteria. Firstly, it must attempt to appear scientific, claim evidence to how it works and demand to be respected as a science. Secondly, for something to be a psuedoscience, it must then however generally refuse to follow the scientific method, dismiss criticism based upon this, and not follow proper scientific principles to any study it performs. This clear and commonly used definition prevents the label being slapped on myths, but clearly entitles homoeopathy (with appropriate allowances for the growing attempts to apply proper science to the study of the matter). As stated previously, if you wish to contend this point, you either have to dispute the definition of pseudoscience, dispute that homoeopathy attempts to seem scientific, or dispute that homoeopathy in general fails to follow proper scientific method and or implement proper medical studies. Please see my previous comment for more details on this. LinaMishima (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources indicating ths homeopathy pretends to be scientific? I realize based on my research that homoeopathy does not fallow many of the main guidelines of "mainstream" science / allopathic medicine and i recongize that those are the criterions used here (although I dispute that this is in fact necessary for homeopathy to be effective, but that's a personal oponion and beside the point here). I am not sure since I have never heard a homeopathic professor or researcher claim that homeopathy is inline with traditional scientific consensus currently, so I cannot currently say whether or not homoeopathy follows mainstream scientific precepts.

and please watch your typing you made several spelling errors (the word pseudoscience has 2 s's in it, not just 1) that I corrected for you. Smith Jones (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

People in glass houses... Jefffire (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they have a journal "Homeopathy", which is regularly cited by homeopaths as evidence of their 'science' status? That homeopathic provings are looked to as evidence of their work? That in response to allegations of no known method, they appropriate other research to try and find some basis for a claim? Pretending to be scientific absolutely does not mean having to claim to be in line with traditional science - indeed to do so and have evidence of doing so makes it not a pretend claim. You too made some typos and grammatical errors that I corrected, but I advise that everyone to leave commenting on spelling out of this, as it really doesn't look too professional to be bringing it up as a debating point. LinaMishima (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

if those informations that you lsited satifsfies you then go ahead and add the infobox, and if the psuedoscience category hasnt been reverted yet then go ahead and add it. someone might revert it, but it wont be me because there are worse and worser problems relating to this article that need to be addressed and I just wish that this petty issue would just die already. Smith Jones (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the best examples of pseudoscientific attitudes are seen on this talk page, where some homeopathy advocates argue that non-individualised placebo-controlled trials can't be used to test homeopathy, but they are still willing to scour PubMed to find any such trials that give ambiguous or supportive results. On one hand rejecting the scientific method, on the other trying to use scientific results to advance their agenda. This is pseudoscience - non-science that tries to appear scientific. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

damn it, i already concereded that point. let it go, ffs!

BTW are you sure that requiring individualization in a theurapetic practice = rejection of the scientific method ?--Area69 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths say that "homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect- which means non individualized trials will show results but not the best. Since almost all the meta analyses which are currently being used in the article DONT call Homeopathy pseudoscience but they find the results promising and positive -even inconclusive, the category is inappropriate. NOPV violation. At least according to the Wiki Policy. It is really simple.--Area69 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Have you really stopped to think of why they write conclusions using such inconclusive wording, often in contradiction to what the research actually revealed? (This applies to much of the research in alternative medicine, not just homeopathy, and to some degree mainstream research.) That is what's simple - the ones who perform that research are believers in homeopathy and they aren't about to cut off the branch upon which they are sitting. They want to keep their options open and the door open for further funding. Also keep in mind that there are other studies that don't make equivocal conclusions, but make definitely negative conclusions. The reason why (within mainstream research) there are probably fewer inconclusive conclusions following definitely negative results, is that such researchers aren't on the fringes and would suffer greatly from any criticisms of inconsistency. The fringe researchers have little to lose since they are sometimes already on the sidelines, if not already ostracized. Another point is that scientific research articles don't usually include personal POV, such as using labels like "pseudoscience", "quackery", etc.. The researchers may well believe it, but they stick to writing the hard, cold facts of what they found. In that sense they are only telling part of the story with their research. And yes, that is my personal POV after following these subjects for years and reading the research. End of rant....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 03:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please offer a citation to support your statement. Anthon01 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I ended my comments in a manner that should tell you that such a citation does not exist. IOW you are asking the impossible. It is a summary of my collective experience from years of studying these subjects and following these controversies. -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I missed that. Anthon01 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Individualised treatment does not preclude proper double blind randomised large scale trials with sizeable control groups. The fact that few trials have been run this way is not relevant to this discussion. [23] has a good discussion of the problems here, as do many other published articles by Ben Goldcare, such as [24]. If you look at the evidence in the meta-analyses, it is clear that as the sample size increases, the results tend towards placebo (I am trying to find the reference for this now). Also, it must be noted that pseudoscience is a descriptive term for a field, not the effectiveness of a treatment approach. One determines a judgement of pseudoscience by a study of the manner in which a field acts, not by results of experiments, although the results of experiments, if done properly and required for all claims, can be used as evidence against the title. Again, see my logic reasoning. You have merely stated that "some scientific approaches have been made", not actually countered any of my arguments. Please attempt to do this. LinaMishima (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As promised, please take a look at [25] (assuming you have access). This is a discussion on the methods used in meta-analyses published within the BMJ, and is now heavily cited. As trial quality increases, and trial size increases, the results tend towards placebo. LinaMishima (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. I have been critical of applying to great an importance to meta-anlyses in the past on this page, the reason being that large clinical trials sometimes negate the conclusions found in meta-analyses. The same is true for drug trials. Anthon01 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article I linked to? If you could not get access, please let me know, I can at the least give you proper details to then look it up elsewhere. The article is a study into the conduct of meta-analyses. As an example, they analysed a homeopathy related meta-analysis, and found that it displayed that the larger, higher quality, studies were tending towards placebo. In effect, the article talks about exactly what you say and agrees with you! ;) That meta-analyses are often overly biased by smaller and less rigorous studies. LinaMishima (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Area69, just droop it, okay. theres no point in arguing, they clearly have more poeple and more time than we do, and there are much much bigger issues on this page than a measly little tag. the compromise that i recomemnd is to leave the tag in and keep the actual box out until a better consensus is reached. Smith Jones (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise, however the categorisation is unlikely to change in consensus, it must be noted. LinaMishima (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

never say never. even though it sems dark right now, that only means that once we do resolve this ssue and get back to actually beeing productive we will put all the enrgy and resources we put into this argument into achieving consensus, provoding content, and following the spit of wikipedia policies. Smith Jones (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The spirit of NPOV is clear, especially if you read into the history of the policy - it is regarding presenting the evidence as it exists, in proportion to the weight of the evidence according to the framework which something presents itself within. As such, until the general nature of the homeopathic profession changes be based upon proper scientific methodology or it discards any attempt at appearing scientific, the framework will clearly be science and the evidence (due to the lack of changes to the profession's general nature) will point towards pseudoscience being a significant (but not all-encompassing) aspect to this subject. LinaMishima (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're making it sound like a Tort or Contracts case in law school. It's verifiable, reliable and peer-reviewed references that gets the most weight. Even if there are 1 million homeopaths publishing in the Journal of Homeopathy and Creationism, it still not verifiable, not reliable and it isn't peer reviewed, and as such deserves no weight. This article is merely a presentation of the history of Homeopathy, which can be documented, along with a scientific and medical critique, which has a vast wealth of references. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a good reason for a similarity to a legal argument - the best arguments build up from abstract principles and cases first, only once reaching some statement of guidance from these then applying this to the specifics. It makes for a much more watertight argument, and it allows for change in the specifics. In this case, homeopathy could reform, become peer-reviewed, follow proper practices, etc, and as supporters of the scientific method this has to be accepted as a possibility. My use of 'framework' was perhaps pretentious, but is accurate here, since we don't detail the false scientific claims of religions in comparatively significant detail to the rest of their article's content (which focuses more on history and spirituality, rather than matters of science). Anyhow, we are agreeing in general, it seems. LinaMishima (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of this article as Pseudoscience

The categorization of this article as such, needs to take into account the decisions made in the related ArbCom case, namely

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Obvious_pseudoscience;

   Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Questionable_science

   Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#Generally_considered_pseudoscience

   Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers two and three are switched. Compare the links with the quotes. -- Fyslee / talk 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I struck the incorrect text. Fixed below. (Not intending to mess with talk page etiquette; just heading off unnecessary confusion. Kind regards all around.) --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience:

(begin quote) The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has described pseudoscience as follows (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience):

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.

• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

(end quote) fixed. --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up. I was unaware of the structure of the decision, but it clearly falls in the second category. A very strong supermajority would classify homeopathy this way. Cool Hand Luke 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not that sure... Hope editors can arrive to a consensus on where this article fits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

If sci consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience exists, we should be able to source it (cf. Art's and my comments above). If not, no big deal, we just cite what we do have, which is more than adequately informative. --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Questionable science is the appropriate category, until someone finds a source that confirms consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• To categorize an article as pseudoscience makes it appear that Wikipedia is endorsing a subjective view that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, even when that categorization is disputed by the editors.
• There has been significant research in recent years confirming that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters. No "placebo" explanations can deny the results of this research. That is another very important reason homeopathy cannot be labeled "pseudoscience". Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that I have not seen that many sources labeling Homeopathy as pseudoscience, even when it may be obvious that the scientific method has yet to prove that it is science. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientists don't normally have to argue that it's pseudoscience. It's rather more a background assumption (it is "generally considered pseudoscience"). See for example, Diluting the scientific method Cool Hand Luke 06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How they assume in the background that it's pseudoscience stating in their conclusions that the results are positive and the studies promising and some metaanelyses state also that they have an effect over placebo? ) Look above for ref. .--Area69 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom definition is merely that questionable science is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." That's absolutely true here. Even the editors of Homeopathy acknowledge that most scientists think the placebo effect is responsible. Cool Hand Luke 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note to Cool Hand Luke: the term they used for that is "Generally considered pseudoscience". There was a mistake above. Just a semantic issue.) That said: Regarding claims of consensus, WP:PROVEIT does apply, as does WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus. The NSF source so far comes closest, AFAIK. --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Please read the sources.They are above.They say positive but inconclusive and/ or unconvinsing - promising studies. Where do you see any background assumption that it is pseudoscience? At least almsot all the studies which are being used in the article. --Area69 (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here - I m just telling you what the studies write. Nothing more.[26]--Area69 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be a better gauge of the general attitudes of scientists? Your selective quotations—which mostly reject the hypothesis anyway—or the National Science Foundation? Or perhaps the editor of Homeopathy admitting that most scientists believe homeopathy is placebo effect? You can argue that scientists are being unduly dismissive, that there's an allopath conspiracy, but it's undeniable that homeopathy is most widely considered non-science. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are not selective quotations. These are the whole paragraphs of their conclusions. And my question was "where do you see any background assumption that it is pseudoscience?" The topic is controversial - many scientists would believe that others obvioulsy no. Therefore it is a violation of NPOV to categorize as such according to the wiki rules.--Area69 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"homeopathic preparations ... have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters. No "placebo" explanations can deny the results of this research." Well, a cursory search reveals that the placebo effect is well documented within animals [27], [28]. so for this claim to hold, the study would need to take this into account. Could you provide me with a reference so that I could look this up? LinaMishima (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Try Google.com. It has a lot of informaiton. Smith Jones (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When a claim is made, it is polite to ask for a reference, rather than to assume a source. For instance, I found [29], within which only one homeopathy related trial may have had a placebo group. Without a placebo group, the results of the study cannot be appropriately compared and conclusions about effectiveness cannot be drawn. You will also note that other studies within this collection of a conventional veterinary medicine nature did tend to feature placebo groups. Arion, however, could well have been referring to other studies without similar methodological problems. Hence one asks for a reference before commenting on their claim. LinaMishima (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i am sure that he has s tudy. you should look harder, and if tiat doesnt workyou can wait for him to get back. meanwhile, he listed several other homeopathic studies earlier in this discussion (its possibly in the latest archives now) that you might want to check into just inc ase. Smith Jones (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am certain he has a reference also, and I am happy to wait for them to comment. But to suggest that I should spend hours reading studies that may or may not be the ones they are referring to helps no-one. In science, one never expects this, for it is obviously a fool's endeavour (as again, we do not know what it is we are supposed to be reading). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not those who wish to comment on the claims to go searching for the evidence. Your approach here makes no sense to me, since I never expressed any rush. LinaMishima (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i never siad that you had to read the stodies. It was only a suggestion because many of them are very interesting and i only sugested it because you seemed interestingded in homeoopathic science. Smith Jones (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting the abject faith you have in the existence of a source for a claim that would lend support to homeopathy. All I'm saying. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean? both of us are waiting for User:Abusrezs to bring the source that he promised. That is no way implies 'faith' ince there is a possibility (or was) that he might not show up. besides, tehre is no need for antagonism since we have already rescinded our disagreement with the tag 'psuedoscience' and that issue is all but resolved. Smith Jones (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting AN thread

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Offsite canvassing?. Please don't comment here. Centralize there to avoid WP:MULTI. Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor

LinaMishima, did you ever hear of Occam's razor? Mice are used in research all the time, yet almost no one tries to say there are "placebo effects" at play in the mice. (Your link referred to mice being given saline solution, which is chemically active. In the homeopathic research that I was referring to, WATER was the control.) You start to deviate from scientific objectivity if you start trying to devise convoluted explanations to deny the scientific evidence of the biological effects elicited by 200C homeopathic preparations. At potentized (serial dilutions and succussions) levels above 12C, according the Avogadro constant there are no physical molecules remaining, but according to homeopathic theory, characteristics of the original substance are there.

Critics of homeopathy like to dismiss it by saying "It's only water!" They have argued that chemical analysis of a water sample and a "homeopathic remedy" in water elicits identical chemical analysis results. I would respectfully point out that if you did a chemical analysis of 2 CDs, they would test identical. Yet one may be a blank CD, and another may have encoded upon it an entire library of books. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

CDs are solid and water is liquid. Water molecules move around very quickly, losing all "memory" in a matter of femtoseconds, whereas atoms in a solid stay more or less where they are, which allows one to shape the solid in a way that contains information. In fact, a remedy made out of crushed Enya CDs would be more plausible to have a therapeutic effect than a homeopathic remedy! --Itub (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A remedy by personally crushing Enya CDs would be even more plausible... (That's not a WP:NPA violation, is it? Enya isn't an editor here?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

She was just the first artist that popped into my mind, as her work is often prescribed for curing stress. :-) I am not aware of Enya being an editor here. --Itub (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor would suggest the placebo effect as a simpler mechanism for the supposed homeopathic effect. The placebo effect in animals is well documented. Your CD analogy is flawed, as I can tell the difference by looking at the reflection of light from the underside, or by using a magnifying glass, or by putting it into a CD drive, or thousands of other ways. LinaMishma has behaved amicably and with grace, and is correct in her statements about concentrations at dilutions. See user:DanaUllman's talk page for an explanation of dilution and for another debunking of the CD analogy. Poor analogies do not increase understanding (edit conflict) --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is some major scientific illiteracy we're combatting here. Physical properties and chemical properties are usually subjects that are taught to 12-year-old children in most science curricula. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, I agree that the analogy is flawed, the point he was trying to make was that information is left after dilution that we are currently not able to discern.Anthon01 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with you. You cannot possibly keep a straight face while telling me that water stores substances in its "MEMORY"! if you look at the facts its simple. homeopathy is water. you can say there used to be something else. but now its just water. placebo effect at best and quackery at its worst.

oh and by the way you are abusing occams razor and turning it into quackery if your going to use it. use it right. User:213.203.150.101

I'll respond when I know who you are. Otherwise, just read what I wrote and not what you read into it. Anthon01 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the injection of water is generally not recommended, since this effects the electrolyte balance (the study was injecting saline, and hence I assume you are being sensible and comparing like with like). As such, saline is the most appropriate placebo. Many studies with mice also involve a placebo group, and if not there is a reasonable (if not ideal) alternative often used. Rather than having a specific placebo group, one uses existing studies which document a placebo method appropriate for a similar experiment. This gives you s virtual placebo group. I agree that such methods are inaccurate, and indeed they can only generally be used with mice thanks to the typically very large sample sizes involved.

Secondly, raising the concept Occam's razor is perhaps not the best of ideas. It should be noted that the meaning of 'simplest' is dependant entirely upon the depth of research and the evidence to hand. Classical physics is certainly far simpler than quantum or relativistic physics, but for large or small scale situations it simply no longer holds true. And if you must raise it, well... larger and more methodological studies point towards placebo and no known method of action exists (and we certainly wouldn't want to have to make things more complex by inventing one, would we?). I am sure you get my point. Occam's razor is not really something you want used here.

Although convoluted explanations without basis in evidence do indeed deviate from the scientific method, criticism and the observation of flaws in studies does not. Indeed, criticism and observation of potential flaws in investigations, and the acceptance of these and working towards mitigating them in future studies is core to the scientific method. The three most popular BMJ articles of all time are all criticisms [30]. Nothing is sacred in the eyes of science.

I have seen the comparison to CDs before, and you are correct that a purely "what is in here?" analysis would result in exactly what you stated. CDs store information in their physical structure, and some involved in studying homeopathy argue similarly with respect to the solvent in use in a preparation. This is not the correct place to be arguing theory, and indeed this topic of conversation appears to be a misdirection from the topics at hand (which have nothing to do with the mechanisms at work). However, I shall indulge you. The first argument against the physical structure approach is that of scale. CDs encode data in structures with dimensions measurable in a few hundreds of nanometres, if not a few micrometres. Hydrogen bonds in water, however, occur on a scale of an Ångström, roughly 0.1 nanometres. It is conceivable that large hydrogen bonded structures may occur, perhaps on the scale of 20 nanometres (average H-bond length of 2Å, hence allows for a structure with dimensions of around a hundred molecules). Any larger than this is fairly implausible given the inherent heat of the molecules themselves and the low level of donation in pure water under standard temperature and pressure, but it could occur. However it is then very unlikely that such a structure could reach the highly macroscopic size required to evenly distribute across a vessel (dimensions in the order of millimetres). Secondly, we shall talk about impact energy. In a CD, the force needed to disrupt the information is quite substantial, it is not easy to break a CD by heating or by impact (I shall not look up the figures for this, but please apply common sense here). Within a water structure hypothesised by homeopaths, the energy needed to disrupt this structure is much less. The mass of any given molecule is smaller, and hydrogen bonds, whilst strong, are not so strong as to exceed the level of force needed to break all the physical and structural linkages required in a CD. I will freely admit, I am having trouble researching this point, as it has been nearly six years since I studied chemistry in any depth. However, there is certainly cause to suspect that succussion will disrupt any highly macroscopic structures, as would the addition of the next stage of solvent. Finally, I would like to talk about the other approach taken by some homoeopathic supporters, that of 'quantum' information. If it is to be argued that the process of dilution and succussion imparts the information signature upon the collective separate macroscopic groupings of molecules, then it must also be accepted that similar process to this dilution and shaking in the past of said macroscopic groupings would have also imparted an information signature. Since there are competing sources of information and only so much information storage in the system, the successive stages of dilution will reduce the significance of the new information in comparison to that of a similar amplitude within the new solvent. Again, this area is not my expertise, however a basic understanding of information theory, quantum mechanics and fourier analsysis will point towards such results. Arguments involving entanglement have also been made, but the energies and comparative wavelengths involved render this a little absurd.

As you will no doubt point out, the above analysis is not fully researched, nor is it complete. I will be the first to state that it clearly does not rule out any possible method of action for homeopathy. However, what it does not do is show that any such method is simple or within our current understanding. The matter of the scales involved alone is a significant obstacle to be overcome. LinaMishima (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! As someone active in QM, I can back up the statements regarding Milgrom's poor analogies to quantum entanglement --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you mean Milgram. Smith Jones (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No I mean Lionel Milgrom. However, Milgram's experiments are interesting. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

me too. Milgram is a lot very intesresting especially his role in the studies of human psychiatry in which he got a whole bunch of people to electrocute a sick kid to death (simulated). could this be considered af orm of homoeopathy??? Smith Jones (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "sick kid", and to answer your question: no. Milgram's experiments on obedience are very good psychology, as are the related studies into conformity. However, I'm talking about the crackpot chemist Lionel Milgrom, who is someone else. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although they do relate to the power of the placebo effect, it must be noted. Is it just me who was quite, quite amused by this odd confusion? :P LinaMishima (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Milgram would be :) --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i agree. Milgrom is a joke even in homeopathic scircles since he seems to spends most of his time emroasted in a pointles character attacks on his critics (as you can see by the bad science.net link above.) Oh, and iknow it was really a recording but it was a recording of a sick kid and the people who were tricked into participating were thinking that they were electorcuting a sick guy. Smith Jones (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject was never made out to be sick until the higher shock levels, were a 'heart condition' would be mentioned. The relevance is not in terms of any illness, but because this was intended to cause empathy, sympathy and heightened sense of awareness in the 'teacher' of the subject's imminent danger. Some variations of the experiment also used actors rather than tape recordings. You can read the article here on the Milgram experiment for more information. LinaMishima (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)