Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18

NPOV dispute
There is a clear NPOV dispute on this article. "Mainstream" scientific POV is presented throughout the article, which is appropriate to give most weight to, but alternative viewpoints are not given an adequate voice, nor are primary sources treated. Beliefs are attributed to "homeopaths" as a whole, by non-homeopaths. There is not an adequate factual description of homeopathy. It is treated as a subject to be dismissed. Whig 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's treated no differently than is any other pseudoscience. Why not create a new article Homeopathy for and by Believers and you can cast aside all that nasty "science stuff".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is trying to cast aside science. Whig 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And other times, trolls descend on articles. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a troll. Assume good faith. Whig 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've wasted a huge amount of time on tendentious arguments and trying to POV-push a fringe view. It's near enough. As NPOV dispute also says, "ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough."
 * I haven't POV-pushed a darn thing. Whig 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'know, it's very odd that "Assume good faith" is the mantra of trolls and POV'ers the Wiki world over. I wonder why that is? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Focus on the article. Not personalities. Whig 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You claim that ""Mainstream" scientific POV is presented throughout the article, which is appropriate to give most weight to, but alternative viewpoints are not given an adequate voice," - Scientific point of view is presented as a balancing point of view in History section, almost completely absent in the General philosophy section and Treatments section. It is rightly given predominance in the section on Scientific assessment. In all, from 5 sections where this view could be discussed, it dominates only in one. This complaint is without foundation. Tim Vickers 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have taken only one of my complaints and partially out of context, it is not wrong for the scientific point of view to predominate, but alternative viewpoints are not given an adequate voice. Whig 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, if a single editor insists on adding a tag in the face of a large number of opposing editors, the problem is not with the article. While this article isn't perfect, there doesn't seem to be any flagrant violation of WP:NPOV, either.  Give specific, clear examples of non-neutral wording, or provide specific examples of significant, relevant points of view that are omitted or improperly attributed; stop edit warring over a tag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a single editor ....don't you see what happens here.?? Half of the souses are misrepresented in the article in order to support inaccurate statements. Even the current editors who support the article agreed with this...... look for example:
 * 
 * --Sm565 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but there has been a long running NPOV dispute here, and the very quick response reaction to suppress NPOV disputes by User:Adam Cuerden and others does not represent the views of all editors. Whig 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to set forth a list of at least several specific, clear examples, and I encourage other editors to do the same. Whig 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, all of the sections in this article should be pro-science. If someone wants something else, they should make another article. Perhaps on another wiki.--Filll 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er no. Wikipedia has a NPOV not an SPOV although in cases like this. The article as it currently stands is pretty NPOV though as far as I can tell. JoshuaZ 20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Well maybe there is something I am not understanding. I thought that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE meant that we did not promote fringe theories and characterized nonmainstream viewpoints as the mainstream would.--Filll 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you seem to not be understanding Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:NPOV. Whig 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I pointed out above, Filll, that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE do not imply a "pro-science" POV, no matter how much you want them to. We are trying to be neutral here. Just report what's out there and don't worry about whether it is right or wrong, good or evil, vegetables or jelly donuts. Try reading the sources and replacing "homeopathy" with something you don't have an opinion about. What wording would you use then? --Art Carlson 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the text of the article for weeks on end. So do not bite me ok? However, medical articles and science articles about pseudoscience topics are to be written from the mainstream viewpoint, as far as I know, and from my reading of the guidelines. However, it is not up to you guys, no matter what tantrums you might want to throw and how you want to spit and fume. This does not mean we do not present the pseudoscience view. We present both. But we make sure we temper the pseudoscience view with at least an equal measure of the mainstream view, if not more. However, it is not up to me or you either. It is up to consensus. So we will see where that lies.--Filll 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV is non-negotiable. Whig 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." Whig 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Equal representation of all sides is not NPOV. This is why we have WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDO. We also have relevant arbitration rulings to help us decide: here, here, and here.  Someguy1221 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has asked for equal representation. We do not give undue weight to alternative theories, but we present them fairly. We use primary sources to elucidate and describe them, along with criticism by opponents. We do not enact debates in Wikipedia, we contextualize them. Whig 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Filll seems satisfied with the present state of the article while promoting a very explicit pro-"Mainstream science" POV and condemnation of alternatives, seems evident proof that it fails to be neutral. Whig 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, Fill wasn't happy. Filll said "The problem is, all of the sections in this article should be pro-science". So apparently he thinks that it isn't SPOV. JoshuaZ 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No point arguing over what he thinks, he can speak for himself. I take it that if he hasn't edited it in some time and does not agree it fails to be NPOV, he is satisfied. Whig 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear Liberal friend Whig, do please study NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" with care. Filll is right in requiring offstream views to be tempered by clear juxtaposition and comparison with mainstream views.. .. dave souza, talk 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My liberality and friendship seem irrelevant, but according to the NPOV Pseudoscience link, we should be more specific in categorizing an alternative view. Homeopathy is not obvious pseudoscience, it may be generally considered pseudoscience, in the same category as astrology, or perhaps questionable science, like psychoanalysis. Whig 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I am speaking for myself now. And I am NOT happy with this article. I want it delisted as a GA. I want it to present the scientific and medical side first and foremost. I do not want to see it bending over backwards to try to rationalize some mythology or obsolete witchcraft with no and I mean NO basis in science, or medicine, or any evidence to support it, or any theory that would even make it plausible. It is claptrap. It is nonsense. It is horsepucky. It is bull. It is woo woo. Can I make myself any clearer? The present article is FAR TOO PRO-HOMEOPATHY. It needs to be made much closer to neutral and mainstream to be included in WP. Do I make myself clear? Or do you want it in even clearer terms? I will be happy to oblige you if there is any doubt.

I did not edit this article for weeks on end because I was driven off by an editor who was frantic to make admin. So I let him have a chance unimpeded, and I am not entirely happy with the outcome. So now we have to start the arduous task of fixing this mess. Capisci?--Filll 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I am glad to know where you stand. I would like to see there be a real contextualization of the debate here, and if we can thereby show how it is demolished by modern understandings, then that would be consistent with what you want to achieve. Whig 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Second para
"Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12]"

Hahnemann wrote that how many hundred years ago before modern molecular biology? Attributing these words to "homeopathy" as a whole as if all modern practitioners must believe precisely this, is a complete farce. Whig 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be correct to attribute to Hahnemann what he said. We do not say all people in the group share one belief. Whig 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there actually any other explanation of it current in homeopathy? Adam Cuerden talk 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have knowledge one way or the other? Document it. Isaac Newton's ideas are inconsistent with modern physics, so what? Is there no such thing as modern homeopathy? Whig 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All homeopaths believe in the use of extreme dilution and "water memory" or its equivalent to produce remedies, this is one of the defining characteristics of the practice. You might use alternative words to describe this belief, but this is indeed a common attribute of homeopaths. Find me a reliable source from a homeopathic organisation that dismisses the idea of water memory. Just one would do. Tim Vickers 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Has Whig got a reliable secondary source for the assertion? ... dave souza, talk 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What assertion? Whig 21:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Water memory is not the same thing as believing the precise thing that Hahnemann does. For instance, a quantum mechanical view can explain some things, however unlikely that explanation may also be. I do not wish to conduct original research here, I wish only to contextualize the debate. Whig 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All homeopaths believe that dilution increases the medicinal powers of a compound. This hypothetical "medicinal power" is not a physical property that can be measured. Therefore, it is entirely accurate to describe a belief in a insubstantial and supernatural entity with these classic words from one of homeopathy's most respected practitioners. Tim Vickers 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is correct to attribute to Hahnemann what he said. Unmeasurables exist, we have already discussed it above. If you take a 6C dilution, you will not be able to detect the original substance with your instruments, but it is still present according to the laws of physics. Whether it has medicinal effect is a separate question which can be evidenced by studies which tend to support or disprove it. Whig 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution? Whig 21:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All homeopaths, including you it seems, agree with Hahnemann on the existence of these unmeasurable spirit-like properties, I can therefore see no reasonable grounds for your objection to us noting this fact and stating that these views are inconsistent with the laws of physics and chemistry. This is a fair summary using a direct quote from the father of homeopathy, your incoherent objections to this rely on original research that is bizarre even from a homeopathic perspective. Tim Vickers 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly a homeopath, and I don't agree with spirit-like properties. I do believe in quantum mechanics, but that's kind of standard science these days, isn't it? Whig 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not standard science to misinterpret quantum theory to attempt to prove water memory. That's like using special relativity to prove the existence of unicorns. Tim Vickers 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried to prove a thing. That would be original research. Whig 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is you are trying to prove that homeopathy is a fraud. That isn't our job. Whig 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I just share the mainstream scientific view that homeopathy is a fraud. Our job in this article is to ensure that the reader is given a thorough and detailed explanation of the history, theory and practice of homeopathy, while making absolutely clear the the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors find its ideas and practices completely absurd. That is NPOV. Tim Vickers 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree : None of the cited references in the article supports the sentence the overwhelming majority of scientists. They say many. Thats why I made this list: Here are all: :::
 * I think I wrote it before. If there are any objections please let mknow by giving examples.
 * --Sm565 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you name any scientists who have published in mainstream journals in support of homeopathy? If not, then we clearly have a case of calling a spade a spade and stating, simply, that "the scientific community considers it [insert pejorative here]" should suffice. The onus is on you to find a counter example if you really believe that there are examples of people in the scientific community who publish otherwise. ScienceApologist 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

calling a spade a spade?????

Two of them find homeopathy positive promising without yet definite conclusions.

Look at the results.

— /  

Dont ask me for Dr.Fisher. --Sm565 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With the exception of those who draw no definite conclusions, the journals cited are not mainstream. ScienceApologist 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They are MDs and some of them are university proffesors. --Sm565 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. The issue is the venue. ScienceApologist 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your mainstream journal constraint is unreasonable. Homeopathy is an alternative viewpoint, and does not have a lot of mainstream research. What research exists in mainstream journals should of course be included and given prominance. Whig 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to claim that there are people in the scientific community who support homeopathy then you should have a citation to back yourself up from the mainstream community. Please read WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely fair and proper to say that the overwhelming majority of scientists disbelieve in homeopathy, but the article should also give space to alternative views and present cited context for all points of view. Whig 23:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Give an example of a non-homeopath who has an alternative point of view that has been published in a medical journal or another peer-reviewed outlet and we'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise, you are barking up an unduly weighted tree. ScienceApologist 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your precondition is the problem. You cannot restrict the Wikipedia to non-homeopaths. Whig 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine. Find us a homeopath who has been published in a medical journal or another peer-reviewed outlet showing the scientific efficacy of their discipline. ScienceApologist 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I am reading the Organon, this primary source needs to be read in order to be discussed intelligently. It seems like few editors here have bothered to look at it, beyond deciding it was crap from one or two excerpts taken out of context. Whig 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What editors should or should not read is a private matter. Research proceeds accordingly. Anyway, I'm still waiting for that homeopath who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. ScienceApologist 02:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a private matter. It is the primary source document of homeopathy. Without an understanding of which, this article has no context. Whig 06:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement Whig. All points of view that have been published in reliable sources should be represented according to the prominence of these views. This is what the article does. Tim Vickers 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How it does that Tim? Stating that the scientific community asserts? If you want to be presice you should at least add "a.... part of this community asserts" that homeopathy works.
 * The size is debatable. --Sm565 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy and quantum mechanics
I've seen some pretty weird stuff on this talkpage, but I'd like to point out the following:

There is no quantum mechanical basis for homeopathy, nor have their been any reliable papers written that support homeopathy through quantum mechanics. We can therefore abandon that rhetoric right now.

ScienceApologist 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A Google Search brings up several hits including papers. They may not be reliable and worth including in the article, but they belie the argument that all homeopaths believe in some spirit-like property. Whig 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to realise that the first hit in this search is a spoof paper Towards a Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Homeopathy from the Annals of Improbable Research. I think that says everything that needs to be said about your argument. Tim Vickers 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't review that or any other paper, I just performed the search, and that was not the only result. Just because someone spoofs an idea doesn't mean nobody holds it. Whig 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is not upon me, but upon those who claim that all homeopaths believe in some spirit-like property. That is a hard burden, because only one exception disproves it. Whig 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've shown no exception. Perhaps User:Whig should take a gander at what a reliable source is. I might also note that WP:FRINGE comes into play. By invoking quantum mechanics you are placing the bar very high. Quantum mechanics is a subdiscipline of physics and as such, the only reliable sources that are permissible are those which are published in peer reviewed physics journals. I see nothing like that in your Google search. Try again. ScienceApologist 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my burden. Read again. I'm not doing original research here. Whig 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By asserting that someone uses quantum mechanics to support homeopathy, you are asserting a claim that has absolutely no backing. It undercuts all of your arguments. ScienceApologist 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I made no such assertion. Whig 23:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Then we're done with this section and we don't need to hear about quantum mechanics anymore. ScienceApologist 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, found an article. Towards a New Model of the Homeopathic Process Based on Quantum Field Theory. It may or may not be suitable for reference in the main article, but establishes quite plainly that some homeopaths posit a quantum physical mechanism. Whig 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbounded dilution poll
I will ask the question again: Do all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution? Whig 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes -- Inasmuch as homeopaths believe in water memory and that the presence of the substance in measurable amounts is not required for the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy, then yes, all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution. ScienceApologist 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, a 6C potency has an unmeasurable quantity of substance which is still physically present according to the laws of physics. Whig 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing between infinity and infinity minus epsilon is a philosophical splitting of hairs which has no place in this conversation. Yes, every breath you take has at least one atom that was in Julius Ceasar's last breath. That does not make you Julius Ceasar. ScienceApologist 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I'm Julius Caesar. I think I'm a Wikipedia editor. Whig 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, then we can move on. ScienceApologist 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No -- Inasmuch as ScienceApologist has defeated his own argument. Whig 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I haven't. Attempting to simply state it as such doesn't make it so. ScienceApologist 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad Caesarum is a novel argument, I'll admit. Whig 23:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad Homeopathum is equivalent. ScienceApologist 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even better! Whig 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the question at hand. Adam Cuerden talk 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It it not irrelevant. If some homeopaths use 6C potencies, then you cannot say that they are violating physical laws. Whig 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a verifiable citation for this claim? ScienceApologist 02:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What claim? I haven't made a claim. I have rebutted the false claim you made. Whig 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the verifiable citation for saying that all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution? Whig 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You stated "If some homeopaths use 6C potencies, then you cannot say that they are violating physical laws." Can you verify this statement with a source? ScienceApologist 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SA,. you miss the point: He doesn't just have to show us homeopaths use lower dilutions, he has to show homeopaths, in print, saying that dilutions that theoretically DO contain substance work, but that dilutions higher, that almost certainly CANNOT contain any of the substance do not. Otherwise, this is a pointless attempt at OR. He's making the bold assertion that some homeopaths don't believe in the core aspects of their practice, with no evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 30C is 1 in 10^60. We can estimate the number of original atoms using Avogado's constant, which tells us there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in a mole of substance. A mole of a substance has a weight measured in grams (the number of grams is based on its molecular weight, and hus can't be less than 1). Even if we presume that we start with a kilogram of the substance - that's less, perhaps substantially less, than a thousand moles - there is still less than a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that a single molecule remains in a litre of the original. Any dilution greater than about 1 in 10^24 has this problem. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Accepting your math for the moment, what dilution would 10^24 correspond to? Is 6C still too dilute? Whig 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * About 12C, though the maths vary a bit depending on the amount in the original, and how much of the final remedy is actually taken. Given the size of homeopathic pills, I suspect that it'd actually be a little lower - 10C or so. However, remember, this is for there being a statistical likelihood of one molecule being present. If we're looking for, say, a part per billion - which is about the minimum limit of what could actually be detected - that's at most 4.5C. Adam Cuerden talk 07:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter is very knowledgeable on Homeopathic matters. None of you might agree with his beliefs regarding the efficacy of homeopathy, but he knows a lot about these sorts of things regarding homeopathic beliefs and it's history.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, whatever the words used, the belief that "extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their medicinal powers." is still at the heart of homeopathy. Whether they think it's spirit-like, or come up with some post-hoc justification, it's still bunkum. We could spend an entire section on the takedowns of the stupidities used to justify it, but it all comes down to mere attempts to claim Hahnemann's magical thinking was right, not through evidence, but through more magical thinking in contemporary language. Adam Cuerden talk 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Adam, that is not at all my understanding from the first hundred sections of Hahnemann's book. Not at all, not remotely. His idea is that it is helpful to use a remedy which causes a symptom like the disorder, but in the smallest possible dose in order to minimize the toxicity of the remedy. Whig 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, Whig, it's cute that you copy-pasted my attempt to explain things to you from up above, out of cotnext, in order to replace my real thoughts. It's also attempting to make me support an argument I don't by making it seem I was replying to SA. Don't do it again. Adam Cuerden talk 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, sorry for deleting your comment above, that was accidental. I thought I had made a mistake copy-pasting. Second, I'm not sure what is wrong with having done that, because you showed mathematically and irrefutably that a 6C potency is undetectable but above the level at which none of the original substance could be atomically present. Whig 02:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can point me to some useful macros for that purpose, because I can see how it was possibly confusing and I didn't mean to mislead anyone. I just wanted to quote you. Whig 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Apology accepted. Try putting it in cquote or stripping the signatures. It's just Peter was editing my comments earlier, so... Basically, it's upon you to show that a notable group of homeopaths reject dilution above the Avogadro's limit. The text, after all, says "some common dilutions" are over the limit, not all homeopathic dilutions. Adam Cuerden talk 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned my own concerns with what Peter did on his Talk page. I think we have all gotten rather overheated and it is best we all try to be civil. I'm not a homeopath. I'm just learning about it. I'm reading the articles and the books and doing my own independent research. That is allowed, of course. I'm not trying to place my own research into Wikipedia, but I am very much trying to demonstrate that the article presently represents a straw man description of homeopathy which is easily made to look silly. Whig 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is slanted prose to say that some common dilutions are possibly bizarre, and not note that there is no physical reason lower potencies aren't practical and effective. Whig 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shorter Article (in present form): Homeopaths believe in horses and some even believe in unicorns. Unicorns are nonsense. Therefore homeopathy is bunk. Whig 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is difficult to follow. Quoting from the discussion:


 * Do all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution?


 * Yes -- Inasmuch as homeopaths believe in water memory and that the presence of the substance in measurable amounts is not required for the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy, then yes, all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution.


 * As discussed above, a 6C potency has an unmeasurable quantity of substance which is still physically present according to the laws of physics.

First question, relating to the above, is it true that at a high dilution one dose of the solution might have 1 or 2 molecules of the "active ingredient", while another dose from the same batch could have zero such molecules? Because materials are not infinitely divisible, high dilutions would result in many doses that contain only the dilutant. Right?

Second question: If a patient goes to a clinic with a ailment for which there is a “conventional” treatment  of proven efficacy, would it be ethical for a doctor, instead of giving the conventional treatment, to put the patient into a study where the treatment they would get is a homeopathic treatment of unknown value or a placebo? Wanderer57 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In an emergency, Hahnemann would give an allopathic remedy, according to what I've read so far. In a chronic case, he would give a homeopathic remedy. Whig 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in answer to your second question particularly, it would not be ethical to withhold emergency care but if a patient is giving knowing consent to participate in a study that is not more harmful than placebo, what is wrong with that? Whig 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA
It is clear to me with the neutrality under attack for this article and being currently in protection, it is not fair to call this article "good". I have delisted it. ScienceApologist 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A point of agreement. Cheers! Whig 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SA. Not a good move.  You've fed the POV-warriors.  It had it's problems, and I consider it had an NPOV issue, but for the opposite reasons as Whig.  However, I had compromised because a bunch of much better editors such as Adam and Tim Vickers had rewrote the article essentially.  I completely disagree with your move.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you can certainly relist it if you want. I just am sorry to see the page protection of a version I think has major problems in being too lenient toward homeopathic true believers. ScienceApologist 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SA, don't worry, I wouldn't get into this hornet's nest. I'd rather keep this quackery-POV article well-hidden.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at when updating GA status. Also, if editors will scroll to the bottom of the page after updating articlehistory, they will notice the red highlighted error category when errors are introduced to articlehistory. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm here, added Medicine. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources in particular has a lot to say to keep us on the right track here. --Art Carlson 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is general agreement with this delistment, the reassessment should be archived. Otherwise, the article should be relisted until an outcome at GAR is reached. Please add any comments here, otherwise I will use my own judgement. Thank you! Geometry guy 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, unless SA is a major contributor, (He just got back from a long wikibreak, so I don't know) i'm not sure if he's really done anything wrong here. Of course, the GA/R could change the article's status back again.... Homestarmy 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking a delistment during a GAR is not appropriate, but I see no disagreement here, and the GAR is not going to resolve the issue, so it seems to me best to accept it for now. Geometry guy 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision to introduction
It seems to me that the intro is far too long - tempers are running rather hot, and everyone seems determined to get in every single point they can, as early as they can. The proposed revision below cuts the lead back to the minimum - the material that's removed doesn't have to be removed from the article itself, it can still remain in the appropriate paras of the main article, but the lead needs to be concise and to distill the essence, not to touch on every detail. Anyway, the following is for your consideration, whicb I know you will give in a gracious and considerate manner. PiCo 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

+++++CURRENT VERSION++++ ''Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine that aims to treat "like with like". It was invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution. Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some imprint (or memory) of the diluted substance upon the medium (usually water or alcohol), thus enabling it to treat the patient, even though in many common homeopathic dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[2] Homeopathy is based on a vitalist world view, which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. Proponents claim that homeopathic treatment can harmonize and re-balance the vital force in the body, thus restoring health. These claims are unsupported by modern biology or medicine.[3][4][5][6][7]''

''Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[8][9][10][11] Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12] The scientific community asserts there is no evidence that water or alcohol retain any memory of a substance and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9] Homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15] Meta-analyses confirmed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that have shown positive results were flawed in design. These findings, along with the proscription by homeopaths against conventional medicine and encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health, are consistent with the argument that homeopathy is a sort of quackery.[16][17][18]''

+++++PROPOSED REVISION++++

''Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that aims "to treat like with like". Invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann,[1] it is based on a world-view which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical "vital force"; treatments aim to harmonize and re-balance the "vital force" through the administration in highly diluted doses of substances which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease.''

Claims for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by clinical studies or by modern scientific knowledge,[8][9][10][11] and homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15]


 * Second paragraph is not fairly stated. There are clinical studies that support homeopathic effectiveness. They may be a minority of the studies and they may have had design defects. Second, I have already touched on the modern scientific knowledge claim, 6C or lower potencies have no physical existence concern. Whig 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it then that you would feel ok about the first paragraph. As for the second, your point could be met by adding the qualifier "most",i.e. "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by most clinical studies..." I don't understand the last clause of your last sentence: "...6C or lower potencies have no physical existence concern": what do you mean by "no physical existence concern"?PiCo 05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any potency below 11c is below the Avogadro limit and thus theoretically has molecules of the original substance in it. Thus it is chemically detectable and has 'no physical existence concerns.' Is that clearer? Peter morrell 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Adam Cuerden, anything above about 4.5C is undetectable with scientific instruments. That does not prove it is biologically undetectable. Whig 05:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's clearer, but I don't think it's connected to the point being made in that para about the scientific basis of homeopathy: primarily, the concepts of molecular "memory", and of "vital force". PiCo 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you need to rely on the spooky language as the essence of homeopathy. Most books from that era used similar terminology. Allopathic medicine was in worse shape. The article makes that much clear. Whig 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most analytical techniques can detect substances down to one part per million which is 3c or 6x but for many substances with biological activity such as hormones and insect pheromones, for example, one can get down to one part per billion which is 6c. We need an analytical chemist to speak on this matter. Peter morrell 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The detectability of substances in dilution is not material to the question of the scientific basis of homeopathy. The sentence that I'm summarising says: "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers". What's at issue is not whether substances can be detected at extreme dilutions, but whether there exist chemical mechanisms which could enhance the effectiveness of drugs through dilution. The theoretical basis of homeopathy, according to the first parqa, are the ability of water to take an "imprint" from other substances, and the existence of "elan vital" (and also the existence of "miasms"). Detectability is not an issue in this context.PiCo 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that does not seem to be the fundamental basis of homeopathy. The idea of dilution is to reduce toxicity of the remedy. Whig 06:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahnemann believed that reducing the toxicity of the remedy would cause it to be more effective because the body would have less to overcome, if I translate him into modern language. Whig 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I may be totally off, and Peter can probably correct me if I'm misunderstanding and I'm only a little bit into the book, but it is at least a foundation that makes reasonable sense. Whig 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case there are potencies which will always be undetectable yet physically present according to modern day science. Whig 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

- - -

I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. At this dilution (assuming thorough mixing), there are definitely small amounts of each ingredient in each tablet, so there is no issue of infinitesimals or total absence.

The existence of remedies of this nature should remind us that all of modern homeopathy cannot be written off as being “unsupported by.... modern scientific knowledge” or words to that effect. I think the article (and probably the introduction) needs to acknowledge the diversity of practise, both to give a fair description and to avoid a "one critique fits all homeopathy" approach. Wanderer57 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Parts per hundred billion
Here is an article detailing detection of Nitrogen dioxide at parts per hundred billion, which is clearly a feasible task in modern chemistry, therefore yes indeed 6c or 8c potencies do indeed contain detectable molecules. thank you Peter morrell 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

inconclusive studies
1. There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.

2.cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12535487 MAIN RESULTS: There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.

3. Insufficient information was available on the method of randomisation and the study lacked clinically meaningful outcomes.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction. It is likely that the demand for complementary medicine will continue and women will continue to consult a homoeopath during their pregnancy. Although caulophyllum is a commonly used homoeopathic therapy to induce labour, the treatment strategy used in the one trial in which it was evaluated may not reflect routine homoeopathy practice. Rigorous evaluations of individualised homeopathic therapies for induction of labour are needed..--Sm565 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Reduction was mostly in mild attacks on placebo, more in moderate and severe attacks on homoeopathy. Few adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment. The course of change differed between groups, and suggested that improvement reversed in the last month of treatment on placebo. On this evidence we cannot recommend homoeopathy for migraine prophylaxis, but cannot conclude that it is without effect.--Sm565 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.--Sm565 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies showing negative
1. methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies .... found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.--Sm565 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2.Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects. --Sm565 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This link today does not reach an article. Wanderer57 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to the abstract is here ... Kenosis 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Cancerous lymphocytes (Jurkat), having lost the ability to respond to regulatory signals, seem to be fairly unresponsive to high homeopathic potencies--Sm565 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4. CONCLUSION: There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention--Sm565 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies showing positive
1. although favouring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.--Sm565 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2.(pilot study ?) Efficacy Study of Homeopathic Potassium Dichromate to Treat Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients: The most recent study was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial of 50 critically ill ventilated patients with a previous history of COPD and tobacco use by Frass et al. Five C30 pellets of potassium dichromate or placebo were administered twice daily until extubation and it was found that those receiving the homeopathic formulation had statistically significant (p<0.0001) tracheal secretion reductions, earlier extubation times and shorter lengths of stay in critical care as compared to their placebo counterparts. Whig 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 50 patients is at best a pilot study. Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

3. The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo. --Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4. individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.--Sm565 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't that one come up before and turn out to be another pilot study when you looked at the full text? Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea.--Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

metananalyses inconclusive
 CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.--Sm565 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

metananalyses inconclusive - positive trend
1. it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.".--Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Sm565 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2. INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic--Sm565 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Sm565 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

3. CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies--Sm565 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

metananalyses negative
1.This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.--Sm565 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Sm565 04:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2. CONCLUSION: for childhood and adolescence ailmentsThe evidence is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition ......for childhood and adolescence ailments. --Sm565 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

metananalyses -critisism
1. [] "Having read this ( LAncet) report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." --Sm565 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

.........

Comments below this line please

 * The whole quote is "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". That isn't positive, that's at best neutral. Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

These all the clinical studies cited in the article. If anybody can contribute to this list it would be helpful.I think all the studies could be used including the metanalyses and its critisisms. The basic homeopathic objection about the  placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial not being  a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." must be added, briefly exlained and critisized.--Sm565 06:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the outstanding quote mining!!! Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is verging on WP:OR. Anyway, this page is not the place to debate Homeopathy itself. It is a place to discuss the article.--Filll 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That's totally correct Filll.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it? I haven't seen any WP:OR here. Whig 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, Did you get my E-mail? Look at the bottom section and see if you can add some stuff there so that we can get an idea of what your disputes with the article are. Just to summarize it all and clarify it all without having to read through all of these talk page posts.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please RTFO
Organon of Medicine

I'm only part-way through, and spending so much time here on Talk:Homeopathy has left me little to get further. I think responsible editors will read this book in order to be properly informed of what homeopathy is, or at least how it was originally defined and practiced. Whig 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary article on clinical trials
How do guys type fast enough to produce so much verbiage in a few short hours? And does anybody think we have made any progress? I'm sorry (or maybe I'm not) that I don't have enough time now to mediate and/or join the fray, but let me suggest a way forward. The discussion now focuses on the summary of the scientific opinion in the introduction. This is understandable, but the main reason we cannot agree on the wording of the summary is that we do not agree on the content of the section "Medical and scientific analysis". We should work on that first, but ... To do justice to all sides would require going into great detail, including what is good and bad about individual studies, and what is good and bad about clinical tests of homeopathy in general. That level of detail is not appropriate in an overview article on homeopathy. The way out, as I see it, is to work on a supplemental article on "Medical and scientific analysis of homeopathy", or maybe just "Clinical trials of homeopathy". With more space available, we can be more comprehensive and work more closely with the reliable sources. My great hope (I have always been known for my unbounded naivety.) is that, once we have all the cards on the table, we can find a summary that all sides can live with, especially since potential misunderstandings can be mitigated by refering to the detailed article. I have a foggy outline in my head of what the new article should look like, but that will have to wait till later. Also, it might be easier to keep tempers under control if we first write the article off-line, like we did recently for the main article. I thought Wikidudeman did a good job there and would welcome it if he took over the process. --Art Carlson 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Art, I see no problems with your suggestion and think it could indeed be a valuable addition and hopefully an arena which could generate more common ground and more light than recent heat! cheers Peter morrell 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think splitting the article into parts is not a bad idea. I'm still fairly new to the Homeopathy discussion but I think Wikidudeman has some POV issues himself. Perhaps that is difficult to avoid in a controversial issue like this, but I wouldn't put one person in charge of the editing job especially with existing WP:OWN issues. Whig 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually a terrible idea. Splitting the article up. This is how it used to be and it was a mess of articles mostly with redundant information. Concerning your accusations of me having POV issues or "OWN" issues, This is a dead horse issue. I do have personal beliefs regarding homeopathy but I'm willing to bet that you likely wouldn't even be able to identify them based solely on my contributions here. As far as "ownership" goes, If you can provide a single example of how any of my actions exhibited coincide with "ownership" of the article then please do.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No desire for an argument, but you have had past accusations of WP:OWNership by others, and I have seen you respond very defensively to any request for change or acknowledgment of present NPOV violation. Whig 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusations are pretty much meaningless if they don't include details or examples. I'm all for attempting to fix any problems that I might have in editing style, however baseless accusations aren't productive in any way. You can't conclude that I have "OWN issues" based solely on those accusations. If you want to see what editors uninvolved in these discussions think of my editing habits then please see :Editor review/Wikidudeman. As far as being defensive in requests to change the article. I don't know how you get the impression that I am defensive in that regard but take it from me that it isn't true. I simply try to stick to the facts. If I see a NPOV problem then I'll be the first to say it. However if I don't see one then saying that I don't see one doesn't make me "defensive". It's just my opinions.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not making accusations. I'm stating my concerns with your being in charge. Whig 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think making a whole new article for the scientific evaluation of homeopathy is a good idea in the first place so it's not really relevant. However stating that "Wikidudeman has some POV issues himself" and that I have "existing WP:OWN issues" are clearly accusations.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please may the other active editors weigh in on the question of whether a supplementary article is a good idea. We can decide later how to produce it, whether under the mediation of Wikidudeman or someone else, or as a live article. --Art Carlson 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus
There are obviously some people who see problems with this article and from what I can determine, these long and unregulated discussions don't accomplish anything. Therefore I want to try to resolve the disputes and get to the core of what problems some editors see with the article by having each editor who sees a problem with the article state in their own separate section what they see as problematic. Please list each problem as briefly as possible but don't forget to provide sufficient details. Be sure to list each separate problem with a *.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the conversation has been extremely productive, especially since the article was locked. I hope that when the article is made editable again, these conversations will help us to make it less POV. Restating the problems *again* here does not seem more than duplicative at this point. Whig 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was locked due to edit warring. If it's unlocked before a total consensus is met then edit warring will occur again, immediately. Trust me on that one. I would suggest simply not editing the article at all, even after it's unprotected. Also please let's try it my way for a little while. Please list each problem below as briefly as possible but don't forget to provide sufficient details. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was locked due to some people insisting on taking off NPOV flags which are properly added. Whig 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time today to reiterate the problems that I spent almost the whole day on yesterday. You are late to the party on this one. Please feel free to summarize the arguments that have been made so far, that would be very helpful. Whig 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was locked because you continued to add the POV tag even when other editors removed it. This is called "edit warring". You shouldn't have added it back. The first time it was reverted and removed, you should have continued to discuss it on the talk page opposed to adding it back. Regardless of whether it should or should not have been there. I am not "late to the game". The mass of discussions above occurred within a few hours. There is no consensus. They have accomplished little. I'm asking that you simply summarize your problems with this article so that we can all get an idea of your disputes with it. Will you not do that?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I could maybe do it tomorrow or the next day. Not today. I have things I need to do. Please feel free to summarize the things I and others have said up to this point. The POV tag should not be removed once the article is unprotected. Whig 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't summarize it. It's too confusing for me to do so. That's why I'm making this area for everyone to summarize their own arguments so that everyone can understand everyone else's. You say that the POV tag should NOT be removed when the article is unprotected? Well take it from me that at this rate it will be removed by someone. You'll add it back. Someone else will remove it. You'll add it back again. Then the page will be re-protected. That's how it will go down unless real consensus is met. So whenever you get time please add your rational for the tag. Include reasons and give details and then offer ways to get it removed. If the tag is taken down when the article is unprotected please do NOT add it back up as that would start an edit war. If there is a POV problem then let's fix it so there is no need for the tag in the first place. Please comment on Adam's proposals also.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me. If the page needs to stay protected to keep a POV tag, I will request continued protection. Whig 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * POV tags are only temporary. They remain until the POV can be fixed. If you aren't willing to summarize exactly what POV issues you see with the article then there is no justification to keep the POV tag. If you explain and summarize the POV issues and they get fixed, then again, there is no need to keep the tag. Keeping the article protected does not help anyone as the tag remains and the article's POV(if it exits) isn't fixed.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have summarized my POV problems at length. If you can't read what I've written because you think it is too confusing, I'm sorry, and if someone else wants to summarize what I and others have written, who has less trouble understanding than you, that would be great. I have not refused to describe my POV problems with this article. You are just insisting on needless repetition that I don't have time for today. The POV dispute remains until it is resolved. Whig 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking you to clarify and summarize them just once more here. Each problem each with it's own bullet so that it's very clear and easy to understand what your disputes are. From my reading I have seen no actual summary of your problems with the article. I see long drawn out debates but no actual summaries.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conflict)I'm sorry but, no, Whig, you have decidedly not summarized what you claim to be POV problems in this article, though you are correct about the "at length" part. You've been spouting gibberish about how quantum theory somehow justifies homeopathy and you've seriously misrepresented the conclusions of peer-reviewed research.  Do us a favor, and tell us in 500 words or less what your major issues with the article are.  If you can't do that, please be on your way and let us write an encyclopedia in peace.  Skinwalker 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Skinwalker, have you read the Organon, Section 64, as I provided it to you above? You have been spreading misinformation. Whig 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WDM, certain editors think that unless we state in the article that Homeopathy cures erectile dysfunction, pattern baldness, and all types of cancer, it will be POV. Since there are no reliable sources which can be verified in peer-reviewed articles which confirm anything about Homeopathy, it's hard to state anything that the POV-warriors will approve.  I've requested that the article remain protected, but have the tag removed.  Thank you for your time.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for rubbing a diluted and concussed solution of hair on my head. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's complete nonsense. Whig 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So's homeopathy, but who's keeping score? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Not as complete as it might have been if Jim had decided to talk about the ED cure suggestion. Maybe Jim was trying to lighten the tone of this discussion, something sorely needed, I think.  Wanderer57 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, I was. Besides, baldness is my bane.  ;) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well clearly no one here understands your stances or problems with the article. That's why I'm asking for you to summarize them briefly here.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? No one? Or just you and a few POV warriors that refuse to understand? Whig 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Name calling won't accomplish anything. Please just summarize your problems with the article in the way elaborated upon above.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "...a few POV warriors that refuse to understand" what? What do people fail to understand (besides your strange meanderings on your user page)?  BTW, Wikidudeman and I don't see eye to eye much of the time, but he's hardly a POV warrior. &#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Example name
 Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Example of explanation of problems
 * Example of explanation of problems
 * Example of explanation of problems

Adam Cuerden
...Well, as I said, I expect this to blow up in our face, but I'll have a go...

Adam Cuerden talk 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "18th-century medicine" section seems a rather poor introduction to the article, being somewhat light in directly relevant information.
 * The "Concepts" section has an unfortunate habit of directly implying Hahnemann was right to decide on X. E.g. "From this, he decided that all effective drugs must produce the symptoms in healthy individuals that are similar to the diseases that the drugs are intended to treat." is poor phrasing from a POV point of view


 * (A note about process) My understanding of Wikidudeman's suggestion was that editors should individually set out their points of concern with the article as it stands AND THEN these points could be reviewed by him and others and a revised draft article prepared.  I thought this a good suggestion.
 * Now I confused, once again, because Wikidudeman did not leave the points that Adam raised to speak for themselves. Instead he commented on them, triggering a new round of discussion.  I suggest time is needed for other editors to collect their thoughts and offer their points of concern.  Wanderer57 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. This section is for each editor to elaborate on their problems with the article. Clearly stating them once and for all so that everyone can know them. And then other editors comment on them.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with both. Perhaps we can fix them once it's unprotected.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I suppose we could just delete 18th century medicine, but that might be excessive. Could move it to the talk page, but with the talk page growing as fast as it is, that's just about the same thing, really. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden talk 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. There is nothing much wrong with it. Can you more specifically state your problem? Peter morrell 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be excessive. Most of that section explains the development of homeopathy and where it came from. It explains the environment in which it developed and how and why it spread as well. It's quite important to homeopathy. We could just change some of it around to make it more directly relevant to Homeopathy. Though right now I don't see that many problems with it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The first section of the article should really be explaining the concepts that the rest of the article will be using. However, the 18th century medicine section only discusses things that are not mentioned anywhere else. I suppose you could split off homeopathy's influence on conventional medicine to proving, with a bit of POV-balance from the sources cited (The nitroglycerin article, for example, makes it clear that the provings were useful as research, but that homeopaths did not know about nitroglycerin's benefits to the heart). I'm not sure if the rest of it should be there or not. Maybe if we made it a lot shorter, or, alternatively, discussed it more.... Adam Cuerden talk 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the history section mentioning the history of homeopathy even though other sections don't mention it. Why must other sections mention it exactly? I'm not sure I understand your problems with the section though.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be better sourced and reworded something I promised to do way back but didn't. I will look at improving it. thanks Peter morrell 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Adam, The idea that an article should explain the terms in the first section(aside from the lead) seems to be an issue of taste opposed to manual of style. I think the article should start with the history of homeopathy, it's origins, the environment in which it developed, etc.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I did rework it a little for clarity and flow. Moved a bit of it discussing provings to the "provings" section, so the reader knows what part of homeopathy is being described. Adam Cuerden talk 04:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Under dispute POV
I m surprised that the sign under dispute is removed. That means some editors dont want to accept that there is well documented opinion on the talk page different that theirs. I think that this is not respectful for the other editors and it is not in the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. The under dispute sign should be there as long as there is a dispute going on.If someone objects to this idea please explain.--Sm565 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to apolozise. I thought that someone from the editors we were arguing in the talk page removed the under dispute tag but actually it was another user (I think) who did not participate in the discussion and gave non reasons for the tag removal from what I see in our talk page.

I do not consider "the article seems fine" a rational explanation since we had agreed to reach a consenus in this oage before any editing. Sorry QuackGur.Please next time try to participate in our discussion. .--Sm565 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

put the wrong sign before.--Sm565 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the POV flag. It should remain until all NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - ongoing.
Sorry, I don't have as much time to spend here as I did over the weekend. Instead of rehashing again and again the issues that I and others have with this article in its present form, I will try to make some careful edits to the article and if they are removed we can come back and discuss them here. I may be more infrequent for the next few days, but at least now with the article unlocked we can make some forward progress together instead of arguing. I want to say that I do not recognize a current group of editors to be seeking an NPOV article, but I hope we can resolve this dispute in some mutually agreeable fashion, whether that entails splitting the article into two or more, or some other solution. Whig 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. What then do you think is that group of editors seeking? Peter morrell 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A Mainstream-Scientific POV, exclusively. Whig 05:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what are they belly-aching about? That has already been achieved. The article is 50% critique and dismissal. This was supposed to be placed in one section but it shadows everything the article tries to say. It is a goddam mess again. You can't please everyone. So what do you suggest? Peter morrell 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is, indeed, my point. Whig 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What I suggest is what I said, I'll make some careful edits when I feel comfortable with what I want to do, and if anyone objects we'll come back here. You can do the same or continue talking here. If everyone makes defensible edits, we can have a very good conversation. Whig 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the mainstream science POV does not really exists. I have never seen in any major organization like WHO website or the others cited references that Science considers homeopathy as a pseudoscience. They say "controversial".--Sm565 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should not put words in their mouths. Whig 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like to edit that text with a proper citation? Whig 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the POV tag again. OrangeMarlin removed it. Please stop removing the tag, it is required until NPOV disputes have been resolved. Whig 10:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't keep edit warring to get a POV tag up without being crystal clear and summarizing what POV you see with the article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no edit war. Stop trying to control this discussion. Whig 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If one person adds a tag, another removes it and yet another adds it back then that is automatically an edit war.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Please stop being contentious, the POV tag is required to remain in place until NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter morrell's edits
I'd be a lot happier if your first reference wasn't shitty random spammy crap off the intarwebz, not to mention the fact that this is probably giving undue weight to your point of view where it is not needed: specific examples are given elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your POV; where are these alleged 'specific examples elsewhere?' The only point being made is that medicine of that time employed complex mixtures. That is not part of my POV, it is simply how things were as shown by the examples given. Peter morrell 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal. It shouldn't be hard to find a better source for that and I hardly see how giving examples of the substances used has any POV at all.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, for finally fixing it better than I could. much appreciated. cheers Peter morrell 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's alright, but I wish you'd ask about these things first on the talk page, because it was really confusing: It took me four readings to realise Theriac wasn't a homeopathic remedy, but Galenic medicine. And I almost deleted it again when I realised that the remaining source didn't actually cover the correct time period, and the source I had was for ingredients (luckily, I then found that interesting article I used). I am, despite my somewhat ogrish image of late, quite willing to help with finding sources and improvements to the article (it's the circular discussions that annoy me), but a little context helps in sorting things. Adam Cuerden talk 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK no harm done, but thanks again anyway. It's now much better and sharper. cheers Peter morrell 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My god, people used to take opium mixed with... viper meat? I suppose Galenic medicine has many more entertaining examples of horrid "cures" like this - I just haven't looked at it in detail.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy does that. Uses preparations of Bushmaster viper, Opium, etc.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but homeopathy ONLY uses single drugs (OK predominantly) so no complex mixtures with 64 ingredients etc. Peter morrell 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Plant extracts, such as used in the initial stages of some homeopathic remedies, contain many thousands of different types of molecules. These are by definition complex mixtures. However, once diluted to 30C they only contain one type of molecule - water. I know you doubt that molecules really exist, Peter, but you can't talk about components in drugs without considering molecules. Tim Vickers 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Wikipedia has many guidelines. Sometimes these get in the way of the process of improving the quality of articles. However, in my experience, there is one guideline that never does, and that is WP:LEAD. It not only gives great advice on how to write leads, but also, implicitly, great advice on how to write articles. Almost every encounter I have had with an article in difficulty has been resolved by applying WP:LEAD. Get the article right first, and then use WP:LEAD to write the lead. The lead should summarize the article. It should cover the most important points in the article, and nothing which is not covered in the article. There should be no big surprises in the article for someone who has read the lead.

The lead of this article does not, currently, summarize it adequately. It does not cover the historical development, the various forms of current practice, the current prevalence, or the legal status, all of which are prominant parts of the article. This may mean that the article needs to be changed. More likely, however, it means the lead needs to be changed. Proposals to shorten the lead to 2 paragraphs for an 80+ K article are absurd.

My own opinion is that this article should be more strident but also more concise in its criticism of homeopathy. "Show, don't tell" is one of the key principles of NPOV. The article should spend more time describing homeopathy in neutral terms, so that the criticism of it as pseudoscience is obvious and does not require so much repetition. However, that is just my view, but I urge you to let WP:LEAD guide you. It is a great guideline. Geometry guy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. This lead has been cut down and important information has been removed.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the new Lead, ending with the sentence: "These findings, along with the proscription by homeopaths against conventional medicine and encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health, are consistent with the argument that homeopathy is a sort of quackery." is quite far off from being NPOV.  The word "quackery" in particular is a loaded word, and the whole last paragraph, the longest paragraph, is anti-homeopathy.


 * By the way, when did encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health become evidence of quackery?  Wanderer57 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?
This is the area where ANYONE who thinks that this article has POV can summarize their reasons why. Everyone who thinks that this article is POV, please just summarize your reasons why you think that so that we can start fixing the article appropriately. POV tags aren't meant to stay forever and unless reasons are given and summarized clearly here by those who believe it is POV then the tag must go. I've read the discussions above and I can not determine exactly what changes to make to satisfy those who think that the article is POV so I request that they summarize their reasons here. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sections on the development of Hahnemann's thought has a habit of implying that the evidence he saw was best explained by his conclusions, with a bit of peacock terminology. A more neutral, though not hostile, portrayal would probably solve most of the scientific editors' objections to the article. Adam Cuerden talk 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a problem of semantics or perception. I don't really see it that way however feel free to tweak it to make it more POV NPOV so it doesn't imply that he was correct.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to flag this comment right here, Wikidudeman is advocating POV. Whig 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake on my part. I meant to say make it more "NPOV". Sorry.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you were correct the first time. You are trying to make it come out to imply a certain thing that is not supported by citation. Whig 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also seeing some POV issues in the lead. The lead has a tendency to overplay the lack of scientific support for homeopathy, often at the cost of actually explaining what homeopathy is. This is a major problem. The last sentence in the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second one are pretty much redundant and could easily be merged or put into the same paragraph. Another problem is that it says that "the scientific community" asserts that there is no evidence water or alcohol retains a memory. This give the impression that there's such a thing as an entire body called the "scientific community" who walk lock step. A better rephrasing would simply be "There is no scientific evidence water retains memory".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Adam, Tell me what you think of this edit. Is there still the tone that Hahnemann was right in his conclusions? Please let me know. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Moved off topic discussions here)  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Of ghettoes and stuff
My only grouse about the article at the moment FWIW is that there seems to be too much critique built into the flow of narrative as it goes along and yet WDM promised some time back not to do that but to place critique in a separate section, what Adam amusingly termed a ghetto. Well, I would prefer that because it seems to me that the article never really gets into second gear; it is always looking over its shoulder for the dark shadow of a criticism to come bellowing down on anything it says. It is suffocated all the way along by critique. The whole thing reads as if it is way too cautious and defensive about saying anything about the subject this article is supposed to be about. Sorry if that offends a few folks but we must try and air our grievances as that is what we have been asked to do. Hope that's OK... let's discuss it then. cheers Peter morrell 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article needs to do it's best to explain homeopathy in a NPOV manner without mixing everything that is said up with criticism. I think that articles flow better without adding so many qualifiers to sentences and without adding so many exta notes every other sentence about how most scientific studies don't support homeopathy. In my opinion the history and treatments and philosophy sections can all be elaborated on without mentioning distinct criticism of homeopathy or remind the reader that scientific studies dispute homeopathy. I think that we're underestimating the intelligence of the common reader if we need to make so many changes in an attempt to convince them of something. I think that any reader interested in the criticism of homeopathy will browse right to that section and any reader interested in learning the basics of the history or philosophy of homeopathy will not want to be reminded every other sentence that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at other articles on Pseudoscience and you'll note that all are treated the same way. Additionally, for reasons that I don't quite understand, separate crit sections are considered "bad". <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can make the medical efficacy(or lack thereof) of homeopathy clear without hurting the explanation of it's basic philosophy or history. I know that when I don't know anything about a subject and read a wikipedia article about it, If I am looking for "criticism" of the subject I will always scroll right down to that section to see it. It's very difficult to have to browse through the whole article reading each sentence essentially argue against itself just to get the jist of criticism. Both the History, philosophy and the methods used in homeopathy can all be discussed from a NPOV manner without ever touching on it's actual effectiveness.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem with separate "critique" sections that they're inevitably separated from the subject they're dealing with, so each argument has to be restated in order to state the objections. It also means that the "pro" arguments are presented without being put in the context of majority mainstream opinion, and so contravene provisions of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ. Hiding the critique away in its own section means that it's easily overlooked, and its readers get a false impression. It's a matter of balance, but each controversial section must be put in its proper context. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There really shouldn't be any "Pro" or "Con" arguments. Just "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe". Also, As it stands, This section has no critique section. It has a "Scientific analysis" section which isn't really the same thing. Integrating the Scientific analysis section into sections like "History" or "Philosophy" wouldn't really work well IMO as it always leads to "Criticism/Reply/Criticism of reply/Reply to criticism of reply..Etc..Etc" Which makes articles totally incomprehensible. I don't believe for one second that criticism sections or even in this case the "Scientific analysis" section would be overlooked.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. This article's responsibility is to present a NPOV of a practice that has been credibly and intensively criticized from an evidence-based standpoint. That NPOV requires clear statements of what critics allege is the problem at each stage of presentation, in tandem with the relevant assertions by advocates and practitioners of homeopathic medicine. WP is not a free host for putting up unchallenged hype. Thus, it would be irresponsible to put all criticisms at the end of the article.
 * I do, however, agree that the approach of "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe" for each significant section of the article is one suitable approach to NPOV. ... Kenosis 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how putting the "Scientific analysis" of homeopathy in it's own section (second from last) would not allows us to present it in a NPOV manner. Also, How are we supposed to put the "critics" view of the history of homeopathy? Since the criticism of the philosophy and the criticism of the treatment methods are essentially the same, they must be in the same place or we'll face redundancy. This leaves us with the option of either putting the scientific analysis in it's own section (as it is now) or putting it all in one section, either the "treatments" section or the "Philosophy" section, which really wouldn't make any sense at all. Thus the only viable option would be to format it the way it's currently formated.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. In order to be a useful presentation and also be in keeping with WP:NPOV, pro and con, and assertions of experimental proof of efficacy as versus assertions of "no valid correlation in properly controlled studies", along with other issues involving opposing POVs, seem to need to be at least somewhat intermixed throughout the article, even in the section currently titled "Medical and scientific analysis". Remember that homeopathic advocates claim a certain degree of empirical support, critics claim "placebo" and "false hope", and, for example, both the US Department of Health and UK NHS have weighed in on this too. Last time I checked, this is already more-or-less how the WP article balances the pros and cons of this controversial practice of homeopathic medicine. ... Kenosis 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it actually true that criticism of the philosophy and the criticism of the treatment methods are essentially the same? Haven’t the treatment methods changed since the philosophy was formed 200 years ago?  If they have not, that is a pretty damning statement about homeopathy.   Wanderer57 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On removing the under dispute flag without giving reasons
Do you realize that removing the under dispute flag without trying to reach a consensus using rational arguments and reliable references but using banners, you totally discredit your selves ? Serious readers who will try to investigate the subject they will not take you seriously if they decide to just take a look at the talk page and see the way you argue. Unless you think that wikipedia is for middle school students who want to copy quickly some info for their homework. Please stop doing it and accept that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why.Try to do the same. It is more healthy I assure you. Best wishes.--Sm565 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is for middle school students. It's also for anyone else who wants it. Seriously, this argumentation you are trying to make is pointless. There needs to be an actionable dispute ongoing for a tag to be in place on the main page. Certainly there is a lot of complaining here, but no one has offered a specific dispute of wording or facts, so I think you are the one who needs to do some accepting "that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why". ScienceApologist 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you dont read the talk page.Here is why.

--Sm565 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good try, but no cigar.

User:ScienceApologist continues to remove the POV tag. I do not want to revert repeatedly. Please someone else restore the tag, so that we can continue this civil discussion. Whig 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig, Please don't encourage other editors to participate in an edit war.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Opinions on our discussion

 * There is nothing to discuss. It is clear that the relevant medical and scientific communities views the iodiocy of homeopathy as pseudoscience. We have demonstrated it with plenty of citations. The offered rebuttal is to third rate journals and inconclusive studies. NEXT! ScienceApologist 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the the Lancet a third rate journal?--Sm565 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your POV is noted. Whig 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss.


 * I have reverted ScienceApologist's edit, which not only removed the POV tag but restored the false POV claim at issue below. Whig 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

False POV claim
The article states, "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"

I have tried to restate this claim as follows:

"Some common homeopathic potencies are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since the statistical chance of one atom of the original substance remaining in solution is vanishingly small beyond about 11C."

Some editing may be helpful to make this clearer, but the original claim is false. Spirit-like medicinal powers was a phrase used hundreds of years ago by Hahnemann, that does not mean all homeopaths believe that today, and furthermore I have already demonstrated at least one who does not. Whig 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reworded this sentence. It now reads "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theorists state that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers" If you wish other references can be added showing other prominent homeopathic theorists such as Kent making similar claims, but since Hahnemann is the most prominent of all this is not really necessary. Tim Vickers 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which theorists? Just Hahnemann? All of them? Cite please. It is really necessary. Whig 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have edited your language to make it factually semi-accurate. "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its original theorist stated that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"


 * Not that it's even an accurate characterization of Hahnemann's fundamental views. He might have made some extraordinary claims, but he also made some quite ordinary ones. Whig 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a reference to Kent's views and the set of review lectures by Dudgeon. Kent's views on dilution were even more extreme than Hahnemann's. Can you find a prominent Homeopathic theorist who argues that dilution makes drugs less powerful? That is the reference you need to find to disprove the general statement. Tim Vickers 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have to disprove the statement. You have to prove the statement. That's the burden. Whig 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig, not all modern major homeopaths use the term "spirit-like medicinal powers"'' Vithoulkas for example.  FOr example Vithoulkas says.
 * Homeopathy uses a type of energy unleashed through the process of potentization . The fact is that at this moment we do not have conclusive evidence of what the nature of this energy is.


 * User TimVickers is right it is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics - if we suppose that scientists know them all. --Sm565 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if we took a poll and every one of us agreed that homeopathy as a whole was not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, and I would demur based upon my reading thus far, we would not be permitted to insert that POV into the article. We could quote somebody who said that, however.
 * If you want to incorporate this Vithoulkas into the statement somehow, go ahead, but I'd never heard of him before you and maybe he's a quack. Whig 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think quacks are published by Grove Press easily.    but its worth looking into and decide.
 * However, the sentence "homeopathy as a whole is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics is inaccurate.  Most of  the meta analyses  in clinical trials  show a therapeutic  effect.  The fact that we cannot explain its mechanism does not mean that it does not exist. Take Aspirin. It was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine and until few years ago, and no one had any idea how it worked.


 * Therefore, it could be more precise to state that scientists cannot explain the phenomenon, or the effect with their current knowledge. But the therapeutic effect exists and it is measurable and recorded in scientific papers even with the placebo trials ( not always the best tool to test Homeopathy ).
 * So, I agree with you that this statement "homeopathy as a whole is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics" is not appropriate and it should be modified. --Sm565 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to make or suggest a specific edit to the article. Whig 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottom line here, is only Hahnemann can be said to have invoked the phrase, "spirit-like medicinal powers." Only Hahnemann can be attributed. If others said similar things, quote them, or paraphrase in a way that does not imply all homeopaths hold this precise belief. Whig 02:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahnemann's quote is a simple summary of his beliefs, which are shared still amongst homeopaths in general. Find me a quote of a single homeopathic theorist who does not agree with him that diluting remedies makes them more powerful. Find me a quote of a homeopath stating that dilution weakens the medicinal powers of remedies and I will agree with you that this statement doesn't apply to all. Tim Vickers 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to find a quote. You have the burden of proof. As I keep informing you. Whig 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since your only objection is the attribution of these precise words, rather than their meaning, I'm willing to compromise by stating what we all agree homeopaths believe and attributing Hahnemann's reasoning for why this might be. Tim Vickers 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a negotiation. I do like your new wording better, but it still needs work. This is not the only POV sentence in the article. It's not close to being NPOV. There remain many issues which have been discussed in the foregoing talk and other NPOV issues which may not yet have been addressed. There is no consensus that NPOV disputes have ended, and you should not unilaterally remove the POV tag. Whig 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Whig. NOPV issues have not been addressed properly; potentization  is the term I think.Not dilution.--Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC) --Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made a first pass at it, I think it still needs a lot more work, but I hope it's an improvement, and rather than trying to keep tweaking it myself, I'd just as soon leave it there for discussion and modification consistent with the NPOV that we're striving for now. Whig 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sm565, I encourage you to correct my wording if it is in error. Whig 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC): I will do.--Sm565 04:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Isnt removing the under dispute flag against the rules if consensus has not been reached?
I will do; but I have to wait for user Orangemarlin; maybe since he removed the under dispute flag wants to participate in the discussion.--Sm565 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No valid explanation was given for removing the flag.--Sm565 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, many many WP participants have been involved in bringing the article to its current state. Myself, I've gotten shit from both sides of the "equation" here. But the "equation" is not merely pro and con. It involves many aspects of people who depend on the handle "homeopathy" to make a living, a few who actually make a living being skeptics, researchers who may or may not actually be paid money for doing "objective" research, researchers who are definitely paid but who may or may not be "objective", and a whole host of other POV slants on the topic of homeopathy. Inserting a POV tag at this stage of the article's development would generally require a stronger warrant than mere disagreement about how the presently irreconcilable POVs are distritbuted in the article. That, at least in my view, is what the talk page is for. ... Kenosis 05:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you see that the article is not supported by its cited references and its POV?     --Sm565 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked 4 questions a week ago and I did not get an answer in all of them. If someone want to comment I would like to hear your opinion. .--Sm565 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Homeopathy
Note - The rfc template below has been nowikied as RFC should not be open on an archived and hence closed discussion page. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute is not being respected. 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific issue on which you would like comment? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the editor who filed this has just been banned for 12 hours for edit warring. Though it might be another editor who filed this.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please investigate users conduct;other conduct issues as well; under dspute tag is removed even if there is a discussion on NPOV ; investigate if the article is supported by its citations - sources have been presented and compared with what the  article claims in this page. --Sm565 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)thanks

Appendices
Can we please place all critiques into appendices? then the article can have an uninterrupted voice to speak about the subject without constant interruption all along the line. At every point where a criticism is made place a tag directing the reader to read a more balanced view and the critique by science and conventional medicine. Then the article can be read as one continuous flow of info about the subject the article is supposed to be about: homeopathy, without the numerous interruptions as it now stands. A tag at the head of the article can also advise readers to read the critique section as well as the text body in order to get a balanced view. Can we have some idea of who would support this idea? thank you Peter morrell 06:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be split in some fashion. There should be a space for an article on homeopathy according to homeopaths, and that article should also direct readers to criticism, and vice-versa. The header Homeopathy article might end up being a smaller one with mainly links to those articles. Whig 06:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad idea, and probably against policy. Adam Cuerden talk 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What policy? This is done all over Wikipedia. Whig 06:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be clear, all articles must be written from NPOV. That is absolute and non-negotiable. I am not asking for a pro-Homeopathy article. That would be absurd and as wrong as an anti-Homeopathy article. But an article which is about Scientific critiques of homeopathy can describe those critiques, and another on Homeopathy which is descriptive of the subject itself. Whig 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are called POV forks.


 * There are some sound scientific principles, and some ideas that may be extraordinary enough to require extraordinary proof, contained under the heading of Homeopathy. Low potency remedies have no scientific problems. They may or may not have effectiveness. Whig 06:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of the suggestion is simply that any reader will be able to read the info on the supposed subject without interruption. The cricitisms will all still be there in undiluted or even in expanded form, but they are not getting in the way at every turn. Readers do not IMO come to this article principally to read all the critique or at least they come to read principally about homoepathy and any valid critique there is should not be distracting them from that priamry task. Currently that is exactly what happens: nearly every sentence is shadowed by a criticism. That interrupts the flow incredibly. Peter morrell 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The current formation of the article is ideal. A section for History, A section for Philosophy, A section for procedures of treatment and a section for scientific analysis.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Tim Vickers 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Tim, you agree that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will stop it sinking? No way; until these crits are moved the article will never flow and the basic gist of homeopathy is continually interrupted by crit. Until that stops the article is a useless hybrid that no-one will enjoy reading and be only be thoroughly confused by. It cries out for it. Peter morrell 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter the best we can hope for is that everybody is equally unhappy! Some will be unhappy that criticism is included and some will be unhappy that criticism isn't the only thing. Let's focus on what we can realistically achieve here, an article that gives a reasonable balance between the two. Tim Vickers 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Any other subject on WP you care to choose will give info about the subject in the title all through. This does not do that. It is a mess and one reason it is a mess is that it cannot even speak about the Main subject without numerous apologies, cautious deferential statements and shadowed by crit, it is crowded out by crit, choked to death by it all the way through. Read the goddam thing it is not an article about homeopathy it is anti-homeopathy and should be retitled as such. It's pathetic. Open your eyes. You're so soaked in science you just don't see it. thank you Peter morrell 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We are all a prisoner of our viewpoints, I'm just as guilty of this as you are. However, in a contentious subject such as this, we have to explain both viewpoints. We just cannot have an article that only takes the homeopathic view. Tim Vickers 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what part you're talking about Peter. As far as I can tell, the ONLY section which mentions the scientific analysis of homeopathy is the scientific analysis section.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are critical comments scattered all through. If you can't see them, I will post them up later on. Peter morrell 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding a fair way to represent all sides
I suggest: Not critisim in the beginning.

1.Homeopathy definion what it claims to be.

2.history

3.technical ( provings preparation)

4.Clinical studies. A table with all metanalyses stating its findings including its sourced critisism.No comments from the editors.

Labaratory studies. The same table. (Beneviste research.....etc) no comments report findings.

5.Separate critisim section in this form: ( safety concerns...) Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ......

Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ...

6.Popularity -countries practiced....

happy ending( kidding) I think it is fair and NPOV. --Sm565 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also against WP:UNDUE. Adam Cuerden talk 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

we will give you more space if you want.....70% more in every paragraph.(Even if prominence according to citations cannot be established ) many scientists say 70% homeopaths say30% Homeopathy needs only a few statements to explain its objections. As long there is not censorship in anything. Do you agree?--Sm565 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

70 30 I meant in the critisism section. The description of the phenomenon does not fall into WP:UNDUE. Critisism does. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have strong arguments the facts in a table and more space to argue. Peter. whig?--Sm565 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in general agreement, censorship is a strong word, not everything is encyclopedic. But I think in this case there is a strong tendency to suppress alternatives to the mainstream scientific POV. Whig 08:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Imagine if we allowed only scientific POV on religious articles? My goodness. Even if there is an aspect of spirituality to homeopathy, all the more reason it should have spiritual viewpoints represented in that case. Whig 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We are not here to pass judgment on homeopathy. We are just supposed to document it fairly. Whig 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship : I tried to proposed adding objections from homeopaths and they refuged. I don't see any solution.

They just want an article saying :according to science homeopathy is fraud and no one is allowed to add any objection in the criticism section because it would be WP:UNDUE. What I proposed is fair I think. --Sm565 08:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're asking we remove criticism of a fringe theory from the lead and every other section until the last, and in that last only give it about 2/3rds of the section. And you think that's fair and NPOV. See, this is why we're ignoring your NPOV tags. Adam Cuerden talk 11:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1.They are not NPOV tags but under dispute tags. That means there is a discussion going on in which you participate or you are predending to participate.Not only you but everybody. If you do participate,  removing the under dispute tag the same time is completely unethical and disrespecftul, whatever your credentials are.

You have no excuse.


 * 2. I suggested : you write the whole article, you state the facts only studies findings  etc...without comments, and in the critisism section give to Homeoapthy  30% of the space to explain its objections assuming there will be no censorship. Give even 20%. It is enough.

if you want critism in the introdustion give to homeopathic view 20% even less to object in this form. Homeopaths claim that..... You object even that. We dont live in the Dark ages. Even if you regard Homeopathy as a "fringe theory" its objections are an essential part of the information you give to the reader.You should not hide them otherwhise the article is incomplete. These are obvious things we should not be talking about. .--Sm565 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in here, but you cannot define something by what it claims to be (point 1). That is the antithesis of NPOV. A neutral definition is required, and in a contentious topic, that would include the fact that it is contentious. Danny 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me state two things:
 * 1. The Lead MUST summarize the article. If the article contains a section on the scientific analysis of Homeopathy then also must the lead.
 * 2. I don't know what you mean, Danny, by saying we define homeopathy not from how it defines itself but from some other definition. There are no other definitions. If you mean we should not define homeopathy as "effective" if it defines itself that way then I agree, however if Homeopathy defines itself as a 'philosophy of treating likes with likes and involves high dilutions to produce substance' then that's how it must be defined as that's what it is.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not edit war. Try to discuss changes, I'll be blocking those who are disruptive on this article. Thanks, M er cury    12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're uninvolved. Please don't hesitate to block edit warriors, even if they don't violate 3rr because a lot of them seem to measure their reverts so that they don't, essentially attempting to game the system. Editors may STILL be blocked if they continue to edit war even if they do not violate 3rr.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not secret that I have blocked in the past for 2RR, disruption includes edit warring among other things. I'll be monitoring this article as uninvolved.  I encourage healthy discussion, but I'll try not to protect an article that folks are attempting to improve for GA/FA.  I'll do my best to stop disruption other ways.  M er cury    13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are so uninvolved and even-handed in this matter, as you claim, then precisely why did you block the editor you did and not others? It takes two to edit war, surely? why not block folks from both sides? Peter morrell 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked the only technical violation of three revert rule that I saw. However, no one is entitled to exactly three reverts.  Consider its me, turning on the electric fence.   M er cury    01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He will. However Whig violated 3rr.


 * 18:05, 9 October 2007
 * 18:37, 9 October 2007
 * 19:23, 9 October 2007
 * 21:30, 9 October 2007
 * last edit

 Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well he has had plenty of time now to chew it over, so who else has he blocked? answer: nobody. So you were incorrect WDM not for the first time. Peter morrell 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has been edit warring since he has been blocked. So It seems to have solved the problem.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well taping someone's mouth sure makes it go quiet but has the problem been solved? not really Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When they're causing the problem, it does.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK let's tape a few more mouths and PRETEND we have a civil discussion and a good article. Dream on. Peter morrell 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Overly Broad Criticism?
Earlier I tried to raise the issues of whether Hahnemann’s views are representative of modern homeopathic practise, and of how much diversity there is in modern practise. I think these are relevant to the NPOV discussion.

For example, IF SOME modern homeopathic treatment uses low dilutions and does not depend on the idea of the “memory of water”, then all of homeopathy should not be criticized as being based on this idea.

However, I see in the article, in the Medical and scientific analysis section:
 * “Homeopathy has been unsupported by scientific research since its inception. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations, which would often leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules), is inconsistent with the well observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The idea that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient is also counter to the accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. “

“Thus critics contend...” only follows from the preceding sentences in the case of highly dilute preparations.

To try to be very clear, I am NOT saying lower dilutions are effective. I don’t know if they are. I am saying that spreading a critique over an area of homeopathy where it does not apply is careless and leads to statements which are not-NPOV. Wanderer57 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter would be a good person to answer this, although all the modern homeopathic approaches I have come across use hugely diluted preparations, I don't know if there is a tiny minority of modern homeopaths who use remedies in undiluted or slightly diluted (10-fold 100-fold) levels. Peter? Tim Vickers 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What % of homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted? Based on my reading, I would say the vast majority.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many modern homeopaths use the LM scale (such as LM1 LM2 LM3 etc) which are all below the Avogadro limit so your precious theoretical molecules are actually present. But many use 30c and above and they are pure space! does this help? both views need to be stated I think. Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, doesn't LM5 hit the Avorgado limit? Adam Cuerden talk 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, dunno, please show us the maths on that one Adam. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 50000^5 = 312,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 3.125 * 10^23. Which is near enough the Avorgado limit for there to be a good chance of no molecules remaining. Adam Cuerden talk 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted earlier, I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. Wanderer57 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a good source on this, it states:


 * "The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."




 * I've cited this in the article. Tim Vickers 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear
Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? ''According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 1023 particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion.'' please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure not to confuse the common reader.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam I will contend that you have no idea what you are doing and are completely out of your depth here. This sentence is meaningless twaddle: A mole of common substances used in homeopathy ranges between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. please explain what you are up to. Peter morrell 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what he's trying to say, but bringing in moles and Avogadro's number, while more rigorous, isn't going to help the average reader. Also aren't we talking about 15 sequential 100-fold dilutions in 15C, rather than a 15-fold dilution? Tim Vickers 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rigorous? please, Tim, that is rather gratuitous I think. I have tried to correct the problem. 24x is equivalent to 12c and 6c is 1,000,000,000,000 dilutions = 12 zeroes. does that now clarify? thanks Peter morrell 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, now! I agree the sentence could be improved, but "meaningless twaddle" is a bit harsh.  Wanderer57 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of general 'sweetness and light,' OK I withdraw the twaddle word! however if you read what he wrote, esp. the grams stuff, well I'm sorry but it was a bit unintelligible to put it mildly. Mischief now managed. Peter morrell 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, 6C is six successive 100-fold dilutions? Is this right?

1C = 1:100 2C = 1:10,000 3C = 1:1,000,000 4C = 1:100,000,000 5C = 1:10,000,000,000 6C = 1:1,000,000,000,000

The problem with using a "24x" is that some people might read that as 24-fold, since "x" is commonly used in chemistry to denote concentration/dilution (in this usage a 2X solution is two-fold more concentrated than a final 1X solution). I removed this to avoid the dual meaning. If we stick with just explaining the "C" notation this might be less confusing to the reader. Tim Vickers 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure about the mole/Avogadro sentence either. A non-specialist isn't going to understand that a protein, for example, is going to have a higher molecular weight than a simple salt, even after reading the mole and Avogadro's number articles.  Cheers, Skinwalker 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, for each centesimal potency you need two zeroes on the scale so 4c is indeed 100,000,000. I thought you were the chemist! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I could just put 1:1e10 that would be simple, it's working it out into numbers I have problems with! Are we all happy with this bit? Tim Vickers 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained this all VERY carefully on the talk page of the draft in the sandbox. And it was summarily rejected. But it can all be made quite clear if necessary. I still think it belongs someplace in Wikipedia to make this disgusting dilution nonsense more transparent.--Filll 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I get tired of basically swimming in molasses and getting caught in an unproductive morass. --Filll 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A foot note with the mathematics would be a good solution. Allowing readers who want to see where the conclusion comes from read it while not scaring away the rest. Tim Vickers 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the article need to cover all the different notations for dilution? There seem to be a lot of them.  Wanderer57 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  (I agree about the molasses - some dilution would be good.)

I agree completely. If we do nothing else in this article but very very carefully explain, once and for all, what X, D, LM, C, etc potencies mean, and how they relate to regular scientific understandings, we will have accomplished more than any of the thousands upon thousands of nonsense articles on homeopathy that litter the internet. I think if we can just make this mumbo-jumbo clear, it will stand us in extremely good stead. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and a reference manual for all kinds of people all over the world. We are not supposed to be shills for pseudoscience and promoters of incoherent nonsense.

It would be extremely valuable, IMHO, to straighten out these matters of confusion, even if they seem overly technical to some. Because the first thing a scientist or regular pharmacist or a doctor wants to know is, what the heck do those potencies and this nonstandard nomenclature mean? And how do they relate to each other, and how do they relate to what is common knowledge in science? And of course readers cannot easily find anything except confused mumbling from people deeply steeped in mythology and magic, who are almost purposely not explaining it clearly. So let's make some unique contribution here. Let's correct this lacuna in exposition. --Filll 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know WDM will disagree, but I think this is another prime candidate for a supplementary article. Always with the understanding that the main article refers to the supplementary article and only summarizes its content, so that redundancy is minimized. I think explaining the nomenclatur and giving details on various dilution and succussion procedures is definitely too much detail for an overview article. On the other hand there is plenty of material available and sufficient interest to justify a separate article (perhaps a short one, but more than a stub). --Art Carlson 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly believe that it would be enough info to be it's own article. I think that this could all be explained in a single paragraph if done properly.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do dilutions make things work better?
Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it reduces the toxicity of the remedy. Beyond the Avogadro limit, effectiveness may be an extraordinary claim, but otherwise, not so much. Whig 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't not taking the remedy at all be the logical conclusion of that argumentation? ScienceApologist 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps at high enough >11C dilutions, yes. At lower dilutions, what's the physical problem? Whig 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a logical problem. If your goal is to reduce the toxicity of a remedy to its lowest level, then you wouldn't give the remedy at all. Otherwise, there must be another goal in mind. What is it? ScienceApologist 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just sophistry. The goal is to provoke an allergic response, but without overtaxing the body's ability to cure itself of the toxin. Whig 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an optimization problem that needs a boundary condition or external parameter to solve which you have glibly summarized as "without overtaxing". The problem is what determines the amount of allergic response that is too "overtaxing"? Does the homeopath endeavor to measure allergic responses or does the homeopath use another method of optimization? Obviously it's not the optimization considered in most of medicine otherwise this would be the article on effective dose. ScienceApologist 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this argument, I neither know nor care. I am not making any claims about effectiveness or optimization theory. Whig 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At any rate, you've conceded it is no longer a physical problem or a logical problem, only an optimization problem. Whig 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't conceded anything. What we have is a dead end in your argumentation. Basically, according to you, homeopaths are trying to optimize the benefits of an allergic reaction without measuring the response or relating the amount of the toxin to any sort of response. Instead, the bald assertion is made that their method works through the mechanism you propose without any evidence or argumentation to back up the claim. Therefore, it is clear that your attempts to argue this point are nothing more than a smokescreen for ignorance. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that this all original research and so not very relevant. Do we have a reliable source that discusses homeopaths saying this? If not, it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is not OR. This is just simple math. Whig 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no math mentioned in this section. You are beginning to sound like a one note samba. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And as far as finding out what homeopaths themselves say, you won't allow us to quote them because you don't consider them a reliable source. Catch 22. Whig 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Homeopaths are reliable sources as to what they believe, but they are not reliable sources in describing reality. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What role does the intention of the homeopath have in influencing the effectiveness of the remedy? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever: "I have often had physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with the wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy." Dr James Tyler Kent MD (1849-1916) Homeopath. Peter morrell 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He was apparently unaware of the value and purpose of blinding....;-) A real experiment would have (and practically always have) proved differently. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC/User in regards to participant in this Talk
Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes on homeopathy
Very interesting reading:


 * Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, by Oliver Wendell Holmes

also


 * Hahnemann's Homeopathy, by Dr. William E. Thomas, MD

-- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are these considered primary or reliable sources? Whig 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article by Holmes definitely is. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly notable. Whig 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV under dispute
I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles :  It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on the article. I will mark the article  *  and I will ask  Mercury to  protect the flag  since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it. Best wishes.

--Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article

Now, Mercury you have to intervene and restore the under dispute  flag and take further action as you said. User gave non reason for removing the flag and did not answer the specific questions. --Sm565 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note explaining why I will restore the POV under dispute flag
I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says. Please make sure you read the example. --Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have NO support. Please note the following WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.  You especially have not developed a full understanding of NPOV.  Any further tendentious editing, slow edit warring, making a point or violating NPOV will only serve to lessen your impact on this article.  I would suggest you get a consensus to place a tag.  One editor placing a tag (along with another one that quit doing so immediately after being subject to a block).  So take a deep breath, and stop.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Orangemarlin just made two reverts of the POV tag. Whig 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

he did not reply to my questions either. I mtrying to discuss here. I wonder why he disagrees with the above example. Adam agreed with me.

Please Mercury ask him to participate in our discussion before he reverts something.thanks--Sm565 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so much agree as didn't think it worth fighting over. Adam Cuerden talk 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you check the history log, Orangemarlin has made additional reversions in the past 24 hours. Whig 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 1
This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else find it odd that a brand new user, Naftilos (talk|contribs), immediately after registering, made four edits: 2 to Talk:Homeopathy and 2 on Homeopathy regarding the subject of a current dispute? Those four edits occurred over a span of twelve minutes and no edits have been made since. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and we'll be seeing a lot more from Naftilos. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember to assume good faith, Diego. —Diego&#39;s sockpuppet 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's it, you were on your last warning the pair of you, you're blocked for that. - User:Diego's admin sockpuppet 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is one of you guys a ventriloquist? Wanderer57 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes happens.I remember another user quackgur or something who did the same. We never heard of him. I dont remember you either the last montth- I dont see you anywhere in the talk page.--Sm565 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you "remember" me or not, or whether I have made comments on this talk page is irrelevant. I am obviously not a new user. I didn't create myself 30 minutes ago just to immediately make an edit to an article that is in the midst of an edit dispute. By the way, User:QuackGuru has made 3688 edits in the last 10 months (but only 1 on Homeopathy), so he hardly compares to User:Naftilos, who made 4 edits in 12 minutes (all on Homeopathy or Talk:Homeopathy). User:QuackGuru had a long edit history before and after his random edit on Homeopathy. In your experience, is it usual for new editors to go straight to the talk page of an article, make a comment (using terms like "POV"), then immediately insert POV tags in an article, then stop for the day? — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well....you just appeared after him without giving any reasons at the right time as well. Where were you the last 2 moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't just "appear", and I did give a reason. User:Naftilos literally just appeared. This user did not exist 2 hours ago. Homeopathy is on my watchlist and I noticed User:Naftilos's suspicious edit, which I immediately reverted. Why was his edit suspicious? Because it was out of character for a new user (I checked his contribs before reverting). The editing behavior was odd (i.e., registration followed by an immediate cluster of edits that display rather advanced knowledge of Wikipedia (POV tagging, etc.) and a clear opinion on the article (which just happens to be the subject of an edit war over POV tags), followed by silence from the editor. If you don't think that is odd, fine. But please don't imply that I have no business pointing out questionable edits on a talk page (in the interest of maintaining neutrality and the integrity of the consensus process) just because I haven't previously been involved in any discussions on this article. I think people deserve to know if something potentially fishy is going on. I simply don't have time to get involved with any homeopathy discussions. I'm too busy rubbing HeadOn® directly on my forehead. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO  talk 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it odd at all. Somebody interested in Wikipedia and homeopathy wanders by and watches the circus a while, in particular the POV tag that comes and goes. He decides he wants to put in his 2 cents, so he opens an account to do so. Maybe he had already been editing anonymously for a while. Perfectly natural, but neither here nor there. --Art Carlson 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right Art. There could very well be an innocent explanation for this. I hate to jump to conclusions, but my BS alarm is going off, so I have requested a checkuser to clear things up. Feel free to add any additional insights you might have. Thanks. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO  talk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

under dispute POV: 1
I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another administrator must intervene.  --Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile the under dispute flag must be there until we decide about the changes.

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

I think this is a not accurate. Some metanalyses conclude that "The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo."--Sm565 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the confidence interval set to 95%, one would expect about 5% of studies to show such a result by chance. Cherry picking a positive result is flawed science. And even in this cherry-picked study, you've failed to quote the remainder of the conclusion: "The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." And you've failed to note that there was no effect when the data was restricted to the methodologically best trials. Results that fail to convince researchers from the "Center for Compementary Medicine Research" publishing in the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" are not going to convince anyone else. - Nunh-huh 09:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unethical to hide published studies. Just show them all and allow to the readers to decide. We dont live in the dark ages. Dont you think?--Sm565 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unethical, is selectively quoting an unfavourable study in order to misrepresent its conclusions... just as you're doing here. Unethical, would also be trying to present a skewed scientific consensus in favour of homeopathy, by loading that article down, with studies of dubious rigour, when properly conducted tests show at best minor positive results well within the bounds of what could be expected on purely statistical grounds... just as you're doing here. I find, that you're in a rather poor position to pontificate to others about "ethics". <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot present all studies, so we must present only those that are most significant. Editorial choice is not "hiding" anything and is not unethical. As per your question, I don't live in the Dark Ages - mostly because of the rather thorough job that empiricism has done on the superstitions propounded then, and the significant progress made since vitalism hampered scientific understanding - and real hiding was going on.  As to whether you live there - you'll have to decide that yourself. - Nunh-huh 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what seems to be "cherry-picking" to one person is "presenting only those that are most significant" to another. How can we decide on the most significant?  We don't want to do "original research".  Wanderer57 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. Looking for only positive results-Sm565's procedure-is cherry-picking by anyone's definition, just as looking only for negative results would be. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Studies that are published in the most reputable publications, have the most citations are generally more notable.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the use of the particular journal's impact factor be an acceptable way to objectively guage which studies to include (i.e., which ones are most notable), while avoiding any perception of cherry picking? Just a suggestion. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Double yes. We need more rigor in this discussion to keep from going around in circles. I would like to see - on the Talk page, not necessarily in the article - a table of all reviews, meta-studies, and statements from professional organizations, including the wording of their conclusions, any potential conflicts of interest, impact factors or other measures of respectability, and any other indicators of quality. When that is on the table, it should be easier to come to an agreement about what to include and how to summarize the state of the debate. (Individual studies would be too numerous and too difficult to evaluate, i.e. we need secondary sources, not primary sources.) --Art Carlson 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing to note: negative results are much more difficult to get published than positive results. One should always expect publication analysis to be skewed towards positive results in the literature. We need to be able to characterize what a secondary analysis for a topic that had absolutely no legitimacy would look like (it would not have zero evidence in favor of it as pointed out). Thus, we should have a control standard for a similarly poorly-considered medical claim (e.g. faith healing). ScienceApologist 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The article on publication bias presents this nicely. I believe there have also been a few studies of publication bias specifically concerning homeopathy, and I expect any decent review or meta-analysis to confront this problem, so we shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources. I have zero problem with stating that x% of double-blind studies have shown a statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy over placebo and citing whatever information we have on publication bias. I am not afraid of letting the reader draw his own conclusions (even if half the time the git will get it wrong). I also hope this would be the kind of presentation that we could get consensus on. --Art Carlson 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

about boxes
I deleted this box:

because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, but it's also the nearest box I could find to the problems in that section. Adam Cuerden talk 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits to that section that I think solves the problem anyway.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, it helps the problem, but I'm not sure it's completely solved. Adam Cuerden talk 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What specific problems do you see with it? I read it and don't see any POV or suggestion that he was right in his assumptions or conclusions.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bach flower remedies
I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I see Peter has written an article on this link. Tim Vickers 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my this is a difficult one! Strictly speaking they are not the same thing for a number of reasons: they are not proven, they are often used in mixtures, they are not potentised. That essay was requested because the German Govt were thinking of re-classifying BFRs as homeopathic (not sure if they ever did that) and so I was asked to see if I could 'construct a rationale' for their recognition as homeopathic remedies. This I did and found the case fairly convincing for the reasons I give in the essay. However, many homeopaths disagree with my appraisal of that topic and believe them to be different. So take your pick. Hope that clarifies. Peter morrell 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We could add them as a sub-section in the types of remedy, with a note that their classification is controversial. The article should cover this, if only that the two are commonly sold in the same places and people may be confused as to the difference. Can you hunt up any good sources of homeopaths arguing that these remedies are not homeopathic? Tim Vickers 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you could find them just as easily as I can. Besides I am busy right now. I don't think many homeopaths actually have a very strong view about this. In fact they are probably assumed to act by initiating the same self-healing mechanisms that homeopathic remedies and acupuncture do. cheers Peter morrell 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. Tim Vickers 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You could slim down that "flower remedies" section a bit though.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Tim Vickers 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Miasms
The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The miasm is an inferred or imputed entity and is usually described as 'a defect in the vital force.' Do you want refs for that? thanks Peter morrell 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter, can you rewrite it a bit. I just read the section and it's a bit confusing.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to explain it as clearly as I could, but I guess I failed. Perhaps Peter could clarify it a bit.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at it a bit later on. thanks Peter morrell 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 2
Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

is not supported by the studies. Not accurate. See above why. Sentence should be modified. --Sm565 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You made this false assertion above, where your claim was pretty much demolished. Repeating it for a second time lower on the page isn't going to make it truer. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sm, with all due respect, please stop repeating yourself after your arguments have been refuted. You've been doing this on ANI and other places.  We're willing to work with you, but not listening to other editors' objections isn't going to get you anywhere.
 * Also, if anyone hasn't read it yet, I suggest reading this closely. This essay contains the reason why the majority of the editors here are insisting that the scientific view be given prominence.  Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Zicam
In my opinion, the sentence is not presice, the sources are there. I will come back to it.

My question is: according to the version of the mainstream view which is adopted in the article 2x dilutions have any effect on cells or not?--Sm565 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a good source to deal with this, it states:


 * "The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."




 * I've cited this in the article to support the sentence - "However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in the final remedy." Tim Vickers 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is minor issue in comparison with the reading of the sourses but if the article adopts that 2x "dilutions" have no effect on cells then the Zicam issue contradicts this whole point of view. If it was the 2x dilution which caused the damage then voila a tiny example that 2x dilutions might have an effect. Therapeutic or the ..opossite. If it was the mechanism of the bottle which caused the damage then the example is totally unrelatated if additonial explanation is not given. Perhaps I miss something here. objections? --70.19.106.170 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--70.19.106.170 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is entirely true that if the large majority of homeopathic remedies are chemically identical to water, there must be a small minority that are not so diluted. Considering the toxicity of the substances used in preparing homeopathic remedies, the generall excellent safety record of these products probably reflects how rare these "non-water" products are. Tim Vickers 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont disagree with this. Just the way it is written implies that the medecin caused the problems something highly impropable -accordign to chemistry. Shouldn't for that reason the sentence be rephrased or .....vanished?

If 2x dilutions could have an effect we could ask for our million from Randi - right?) --Sm565 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A 2X dilution is just a 1:100 dilution, enough to take a 10 mM solution to 100 uM. That's nothing surprising - I do 1:100 dilutions in the lab all the time. I've moved this material to the first paragraph where there is an introductory sentence to give it context. Tim Vickers 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of it all
Tim Vickers, I have made some slight wording changes to make it more clear. Of course when dilutions of a substance are made, all the original molecules of the substance are still present in the whole mass of water used to make the dilutions, but there is basically too much room "in between" those molecules to have much of a chance of any of them being in a small dose of the remedy made from the dilution.

Now to illustrate the absurdity of the situation I'll just grab a number out of the air. (I should probably say 10 marbles, but I'll be generous and say 100 marbles.) We're basically talking about 100 marbles thrown out into space which then distribute (dilute) themselves in random orbits in an area encompassing the content of a sphere the size of the orbit of the moon around the earth and they fly around at random in that space. Then we take a thimble, close our eyes, and stick it up in the air hoping to catch one of those marbles, and then we empty the contents of the thimble into a bucket. What chance is there that a marble will fall out of the thimble into the bucket? Is it impossible? No, because there really are 100 marbles flying around somewhere out there. Is it likely? Well, when hell freezes over and the sun has burnt out, maybe by then it will have happened only one time.....;-) It's about the same chance (except on a much larger scale) of winning the lottery. Someone who buys a lottery ticket and someone who doesn't buy one have about the same chance of winning, but the one who doesn't has absolutely no chance, while the one who does has a chance in many million. But with homeopathy the chance of getting even one molecule can hardly be calculated, it's that far a shot. And to top it off, if even one molecule of the strongest poison known actually was in the remedy, what effect would it have. Zilch! (Remember that I am just illustrating here, so don't shoot me for some inaccuracies. Few illustrations stand on all four legs.)

What homeopathy does is violate the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics, as well as the modern scientific observations of dose-response relationships that have been demonstrated by pharmacologists. "The dose (still) makes the poison." Interestingly enough, in everyday life and in every other area, believers in homeopathy follow these rules of logic. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, carry on a normal conversation, pull up their own zipper, or balance their checkbook. But when they are talking about homeopathy, they suddenly suspend their logical thinking and enter a metaphysical fantasy realm where all things are possible, including the impossible. Go figure. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Homeopathy has not discovered a mechanism which could completely explain its theurapeutic effect. This is a fact. The effect exists though. Scientists discover aspirins mechanism some years ago but tt was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine.


 * Homeopathy would not become more and more popular if it were only a placebo effect. Many people use it after they have used conventional medecin. The problem is that it is not regulated and it is not practiced by Mds or licensed prectitioners - the only way in my opinon it would protect homeopathy from quackery.
 * Even most of the metanalyses which are cited in the article call for more researsh since they find a positive trend. If something is a sort of quakery how scientist suggest further well designed reasearch?  Do they recommend the same for ....astrology?
 * sm565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * sm565, I will comment on your last mention of metaanalyses. The explanation for such puzzling conclusions that are contrary to the actual results of the study, or at least are noncommittal, is rather simple. The studies are usually performed by believers in homeopathy (at least the many studies I have seen) who are reluctant to simply admit that the experimental results did not confirm their beliefs, so instead of "telling it like it is," they mention some vague "positive trend" (which is statistically insignificant and meaningless, otherwise they would write a totally different conclusion) and suggest further research. It is rare for believers in pseudoscience to actually admit defeat, but it does happen on rare occasion. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible that a psychosomatic effect can be greater than ordinary placebo. Whether due to the power of suggestion or belief, or whatever. I am not saying that this is explanatory for the purported successes of homeopathy, only that it is one possible consideration. Whig 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a psychosomatic effect and a placebo effect? Cheers, Skinwalker 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no difference, but some placebos may be better than others, i.e., more prone to produce a beneficial placebo effect in some patients. Nor am I contending this is the case for homeopathy, only that it is a possibility. Please see placebo for more on the subject. Whig 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Magnificent editing
This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Placebo effect and annimals
There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]

How possible is this? Placebo by proxy? I guess telepathy could play a role.... I read the sources. My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to write nothing  or state there are no studies available .Right? --Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You really need to read about tendentious editing. It's getting close to requesting you be blocked from this article.  If you want to participate, you cannot repeat  yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.  You have not brought one valid point to this article.  Please STOP.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one valid pointOrangemarlin.  If the majority of the editors believe that I dont contribute to this project- please feel free to ban me for ever. best.--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC) One more :


 * The Owners imagine that the homeopathic remedy is working because they interpret imagined changes in the animals behavior or disposition as being related to the remedy that the animal was given. For instance if I believe in homeopathy and give my dog a homeopathic remedy, I might imagine changes in the dogs behavior and thus interpret these imagined changes as being the effect of the medicine. This is actually a HUGE reason for the success of homeopathic medicine in other animals aside from humans and I think that this info should be in the article in one way or another.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. Not serious studies no comment.--Sm565 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was edited - by Tim I think - "The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is regarded as controversial, as there have been little scientific investigation on if it has any effects in animals and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[87] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[87]"--Sm565 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists. I m almost sure that most of the editors would consider this sentence unsupported. Did you read the source? --Sm565 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on introduction sentence
These sentences below are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article. I would like your opinion on this:

 1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". 2.''Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. 3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.''

1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions? 2.How these suggestions about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching.  ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments and/or answers

 * The words are "homeopathy" and "researching", if you can't even spell the subject you are trying to discuss, I see little point in taking you seriously. Tim Vickers 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind suggestions. I did correct them. Feel free to comment on my english. I always want to learn. Now, if you have an answer or comment on the real question, please let me know. --Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

--Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a tip for learning, you still have three different spellings of the word homeopathy in the above paragraph. Try reading through it carefully. Tim Vickers 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * not me; that I just copy and paste from the original studies. I will correct them though. Thanks again.I really want to know what everybody thinks. It is not attack,you know.I have proved that I respect everybody here (I cannot claim easily the opposite ).Best. --Sm565 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You changed it to "homeoopathy" - but apart from that you're almost there Tim Vickers 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done! Tim Vickers 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you dont want to give an answer to the real question. You dont have to.--Sm565 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone spells perfectly. When spelling errors exist in the article text, they need to be corrected. When spelling errors occur here in Talk, they might be mentioned in order to prevent the error from being replicated in the article text, but otherwise it is not constructive to mock and disregard editors for their spelling. Whig 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I m sure Tim did not intend to be unkind. Whig I would like to hear from you too. BEst--Sm565 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As he said, Sm565 is grateful for any correction of his English, which is not his first language. It is doing people learning a language a disservice to ignore their mistakes and deny them the opportunity to learn. The reply to your question Sm565 is that the introduction does indeed summarise the results of the metanalyses. These comments are not part of the results so they are not summarised. Tim Vickers 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They are part of the conclusions even more important.
 * They are part of the conclusions even more important.

Do you think that if the specific scientists regarded homeopathy as a sort of quackery they would have suggested in the conclusions more research using phrases promising studies and positive trend?--Sm565 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Accepted. I had the sense before that Sm565 was feeling underappreciated. I hope his participation will continue to be welcome. Whig


 * Double negation is confusing. The question is whether it is appropriate to include in the summary, and whether it is inappropriate to exclude. Whig 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::thanks.


 * I think we cannot say that homeopathy is quackery. We can quote someone notable who called it quackery, however. Whig 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that in the introduction the metanalyses summary should be rephrased in order to include this conclusions ( promising studies positive trend request for more research) as well. Otherwise the sentence's meaning is totally  dismissive for homeopathy which is false- according to the actual studies. Opinions ?--Sm565 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think whig has the skills to propose a version like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not totally clear on what Sm565 is attempting to have this sentence say, I have asked him to follow-up with me on my Talk page, so we don't clutter this forum with markup on a single sentence that may need rewriting. Whig 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is sad. It is embarassing. Homeopathy is pseudoscience with no and I mean NO scientific or medical evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. To try to pretend otherwise is just pure nonsense. So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.--Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not obvious pseudoscience, particularly at lower potencies. Whig 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That "homeopathy deserves further study' is an opinion, not a conclusion. It's what researchers say when they fail to achieve the significant results they would have preferred. It's filler; it's verbal throat-clearing; it's not a conclusion of the study; it's meaningless, and would seem meaningful only if someone were desperately searching for support for his position rather than actually understanding what the study means. - Nunh-huh 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"? "Further research on homeopathy is warranted" "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies" is a verbal throat-clearing ???? which is included in the final conclusions? Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions sentences for others forms of quackery? Examples?Please ?--Sm565 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was no need for any study whatsoever to say "we should study homeopathy but not in the slipshod manner we've been doing it." An opinion, not a result. Almost every study with less than earthshatteringly conclusive results suggests further study is needed.  It says nothing whatever about the matter being studied, only about the inconclusiveness of the published study. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * inconclusiveness? Then the summary must state that: We have no clue whether it is working or not.--Sm565 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of a truism to say that if you are going to study homeopathy then at least you should design your trials properly. Tim Vickers 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You refuse to read the CONCLUSIONS. "is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" It is a suggestion which is clear. "Promising studies".It does say something. But you didn't answer:

Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions for further research for others forms of quackery? Examples??--Sm565 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem intent on reading conclusions that simply aren't there. And the study did not address quackery, so your final questions are...peculiar. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't there?

It is one of the current article's conclusion that Homeopathy is a sort of quackery based on these results. You just refuse to read the conclusions of the studies.  I just have not heard scientists to waste time on studying any form or quackery and after that to suggest further studies and in their conclusions to use expressions like there is a poditive trend  is legitimate case for research  and promising studies. Have you?--Sm565 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The study you are citing was not designed to test this article's conclusions. I've read the studies "conclusions", and they say nothing of any significant import. And yes, scientists suggest further studies whether or not there are positive trends. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientists suggest further studies on any form of quackery ? Writing about "positive trends" and "promising studies" ? Examples? --Sm565 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggesting further studies is not a pronouncement upon efficacy. That's the answer to your question. Repeating it won't make it a more sensible question. - Nunh-huh 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that it is a pronouncement upon efficacy. I said that the suggestions of the conclusions for further studies because of the findings of  positive trend  and the considerations  that there is "legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"''' should be included in the summary of the meta analysis,  otherwise the meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy and it does not reflect what the conclusions of the studies really say.

And of course these conclusions do not support the final statement in the introduction of the article:

The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.

because no scientists would support further studies on subjects which are a sort of quackery. --Sm565 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting original formulation, but of doubtful validity. The study you're citing is in fact part of the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. The statement you're quoting is, simply, true. It doesn't say "the absence of a scintilla of supporting data on efficacy", it merely says "the lack". - Nunh-huh 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can homeopaths tell water from remedy?
Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):126-30. (link)

The answer is that 60% identified the correct bottle while 40% identified the wrong bottle. The results did not differ significantly from what you would predict from chance. Unfortunately the sample size is rather small. Do people think we should include it? Tim Vickers 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a statistically significant result or not? Whig 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From the summary:
 * In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. A multi-national, large-scale trial will be required to investigate this phenomena with adequate statistical power. Whig 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, 75% in this trial would be the 95% confidence interval. As I said, this is within the range you would predict from pure chance. Tim Vickers 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. The result was no different than a guess. Whig 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. A very inconclusive result.  If I wanted to use this study to argue in one direction, I would mention the "promising trend".  If I wanted to go the other way, I would point out that more than 80% of the homeopathists approached stayed out of the experiment.   Wanderer57 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 80% of homeopaths know they would just be guessing? Tim Vickers 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unwarranted. And we were doing so well with consensus. :) Whig 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot use this study in any direction, it has no statistical significance one way or the other. Whig 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not really true. It does demonstrate that the effects of homeopathic medicines must be marginal, as the paper says the best we can say is that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. Tim Vickers 02:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. They failed to reject the null hypothesis, but they did not confirm the null. (This from my wife, a statistician). Whig 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all three of us agreed that this was not a significant study and was not worth including. Couldn't we just leave it at that? Wanderer57 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found it deeply amusing that homeopaths apparently can't do better than flipping a coin when trying to identify these "highly potent remedies". Must have come as a bit of a shock to the four out of ten who confidently identified a drug only to be told it was water! Tim Vickers 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are still asserting the null hypothesis. Whig 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, of course. If you fail to show a non-random effect then Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for results that you would predict from chance is that they are the results of chance. That's pretty standard, ask your wife. Tim Vickers 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I already told you what she said. You are mis-stating. Whig 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It says plenty. Except for those who want it to say otherwise.--Filll 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want it to say? Whig 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I follow William of Ockham. And I think the 80% figure is significant as well.--Filll 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The study wasn't statistically significant. If it holds some personal significance to you on account of some allegiance, then fine. Whig 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the 80% (actually 82.4%) is significant. And even statistically significant at some reasonably impressive confidence level. However, I would have to study the matter more to say anything more conclusive.--Filll 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are POV-pushing if you think you can make a statistical wash significant. Whig 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confused I am afraid, and this is bordering on trolling.--Filll 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship
Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship. Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.

Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful. The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. --Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He is an MD, but who cooperates with, consults, and quotes physicists as necessary. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So we cannot take him as a primary source on physics, at any rate. Whig 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can use the reference which quotes an outstanding physicist. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By citing to that physicist, as quoted by Barrett, certainly, as long as he is a trustworthy source. Whig 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting note about Barrett while we are on the subject, when he was payinh himself to act as his organization's own expert witness while suing a Homeopathic remedy manufacturer, the judge, in conclusion, had the following to say of Barrett's alledged expertise with Homeopathy: Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs ... As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area ... Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. The proceed was from Section IV, Subsection B of this document. For more enlightenment on the credibility of Barrett in the world of Homeopathy, see Section IV, Subsection C where the judge states that Barrett's testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss  07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to support his credentials against this charge? Whig 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should cite peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals to support all the factual statements made in this article. Opinions can be cited to individuals only if these individuals are notable. We can cite Barratt for opinions, but not facts. Tim Vickers 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New Study on Homeopathy in 2007
Please read and comment on this study.I think it could be used.

Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting

Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment  Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's interesting. I'd like to hear objections. Whig 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd like to hear objections to a non-blinded, non-randomized clinical study in which the outcome is determined by the patient's self-assessment? Seriously? - Nunh-huh 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-assessment is a pretty good indicator with some conditions. Lack of blinded control and other issues make this a difficult study to use, but rather than eliminating it altogether, we might critique its methodology. Whig 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-assessment in this case includes assessment of children by parents. Self-assessment by unblinded patients who choose their treatment based on their beliefs about its efficacy is meaningless. It's a worthless study, and even its authors note that they can draw no firm conclusions about the efficacy of homeopathy based on their data. Nunh-huh 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a fair objection. Whig 07:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, bringing up non-randomized, non-double-blinded studies is just a waste of everyone's time. This one wasn't even single-blinded, and was inconclusive, to boot. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to encourage Sm565, which means taking his contributions seriously. Even if they don't pan out, giving him the reason his proposal was rejected was very helpful to maintaining a good dialogue here. Whig 07:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to encourage anyone? This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project. You have made it evidently clear you do not know the rules of NPOV, you do not understand Wikipedia, you are unwilling or unable to be able to learn about WP and NPOV, you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics. I would ask you to please try to control yourself here and give it a rest. Or better yet, please edit something else.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the way to help is to discourage indiscriminate posting of junk studies. He'd be better off if he could distinguish junk studies from meaningful ones, and agreeing that we need consider only double-blinded randomized studies with statistically significant results would seem to be the best way to achieve that. Continually bringing up worthless studies as though they were meaningful isn't going to make anyone more likely to take his contributions seriously; in fact, it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with this statement.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that double blinds are the only valuable studies. With that said, when the authors of a study are not confident in the outcome, it is probably not very good. Whig 07:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When someone is apparently unable to tell good studies from bad, adopting the position that only double-blind studies are worth considering would keep the noise level down, and thus be worthwhile, even if someone more scientifically literate might be able to tell which other studies might have yielded good data. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is reaching the point where Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I presume everyone is educable, if they aren't trying to disrupt. And we can always use more good contributors. Whig 07:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are among those who is disruptive here Whig, sad to say.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, not everyone is willing to be educated, and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be tutors to the unwilling. We would be glad to welcome good contributors, but people who are scientifically uneducated and yet continue to make ill-founded objections on the basis of their misunderstandings of what useful evidence might be, it must be said, are not those good contributors. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sm565, if you don't have a reasonably good basis to believe that a study is credible and clearly indicative of some outcome, positive or negative, it is probably not useful. Whig 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion: 1 The limitations of the study are stated by itself. It is not a discovery. 2. It is not the editors job to evaluate metanalyses according to the methods used. The study falls into the wikidedia critiria for sources.I think. (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and scienceand) It is large, and published in a respected publishing house. All writers are scientists employed by universities. Why it should not be used? --Sm565 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh..... Q.E.D. - Nunh-huh 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On reconsideration, I think Sm565 is correct. It is a large study, therefore notable. Whig 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not know science, please do not make such worthless comments.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Largeness and notability are not equivalent. Largeness makes a study more likely to pick up on smaller treatment effects, therefore a large study which fails to desmonstrate such an effect is in fact less supportive of those who argue for that treatment's efficacy than a small study which also failed to demonstrate any effect would be. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You continue to evaluate a paper as you are assigned to accept it or not for publication. This not our job here. Since the paper is accepted and qualifies with teh criteria of wikipedia it should be included and criticized it if you wish. But we cannot reject it. It qualifies. We have no excuse other than we dont like the results. --Sm565 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that your POV has blinded you to reality.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot possibly include every study ever published, and so we absolutely must determine what is important to include. An inconclusive study is not important. That we do not "like" the results cannot possibly be the reason, as there are none. - Nunh-huh 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel qualified to disregard this study, however. I would await a more detailed analysis. Whig 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are unqualified, you clearly have no business being here at this article. Please edit something else. Or just wait until you are eventually the subject of administrative action. Please do stop trolling.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are unqualified to assess the science, you can accept the authors' word that no firm conclusions are possible. There is no need to reference this study, as other studies which actually draw conclusions are available. Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Our goal should not be to support or refute the claims of homeopaths, but to document those claims and how they have been tested with what results. Obviously we cannot use every study, but large international studies like this deserve perhaps some discussion even if they are ultimately inconclusive (and it should then so state in the article). Whig 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No - Our goal is to present what all the sides say and report all the qualifying supporting studies with its criticism. This is an objective approach which is common sense. Anything less than that is not appropriate.
 * Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It qualifies according to the written critiria. What else more clear could be added? .--Sm565 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What written criteria? Just because it doesn't qualify for automatic exclusion does not mean it should be included. Whig 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I take Nunh-huh's point, it is inconclusive. So it does not merit inclusion. Whig 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the criteria.  Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications--Sm565 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are adequate sources, and if this study had generated a result that was not inconclusive, it might merit inclusion. Whig 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study has a conclusion whether we like it or not. Include it and criticize it. Exclusion cannot be justified according the above criteria.--Sm565 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How much clearer could the authors be? The study draws "no firm conclusions" "about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment". It therefore cannot be used, as you wish to, to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. - Nunh-huh 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although no firm conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment... Whig 08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not part of the conclusion. No study reports firm conclusions even the negative ones.The say we found insufficient evidence far way from firm conclusions. It is a study with a positive result, it qualifies and there is no excuse to not report it with its criticism. --Sm565 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.--Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor. Can you take this to my Talk page, and you can try to persuade me there? Whig 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would do that.But U think it is very clear.--Sm565 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am willing to discuss it. And moreover, the overall problems with this article right now, which are in my opinion still vast and not remotely worth fighting over a single study unless you think it is the most important study ever that absolutely must be included or the world will end. Whig 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow .--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excess crit
This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm British. Adam Cuerden talk 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A useful comparison might be found with the article Intelligent design. Jefffire 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, after months and months here, I am afraid you do not really understand Wikipedia yet. Because of the WP rules for WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, Filll 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is quite wrong. The article should not be a criticism of anything, but an objective assessment of facts. Not the facts of "why I think homeopathy is quackery" but about homeopathy: what is it? What do the practitioners of homeopathy say? What do the detractors say? What is the proposed method of efficacy of homeopathy? What does classical medical science respond to that? If you are writing a criticism of homeopathy, then you should not be editing this article. You should be contributing information about homeopathy. docboat 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, some good articles to have a look over to get an idea of how Wikipedia treats these controversial subjects would be Intelligent design, Holocaust denial and Animal testing, these articles follow the Neutral point of view policy, with the section of this policy on undue weight being particularly important. All the best Tim Vickers 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim - I think you misunderstood the main thrust of my comment. The approach used by Filll and his ilk is from a basis of antagonism to the article. That cannot ever make for a good encyclopaedia, no matter how much they may fulfil the "requirements" of Wikipeadia guidelines. Biased observers can certainly ride the guidelines well enough, but still the resulting article is POV and hence inaccurate. The article should be about homeopathy, NOT about anti-homeopathy. But yes, your points in general are valid. docboat 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on intelligent design is a good example. It does reveal the position of the Discovery Institute, but it also makes it clear what the mainstream view is as well.--Filll 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK for comparison, why has the article on medicine got no endless pages of critique of its methods and concepts? it should have; let's be fair. Peter morrell 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is what the WP:UNDUE deals with. If most of the reliable sources about subject X are not critical then most of the article should not be critical. However, if most of the reliable sources on X are critical, them most of the article should be critical. Tim Vickers 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The significance of statistical significance
There is a misconception that came up again and again in the discussion above. There is no way even in principle for a study to prove that homeopathic remedies have no effect at all. A positive result can state with a certain degree of certainty that remedies have an effect. A negative study can only say with a certain degree of certainty that the effects, if there are any, are not larger than such-and-such. It is meaningless to say that a negative result is not statistically significant, you can just say that the sensitivity is too small to be of interest (e.g. in comparison to other studies that are more sensitive). Because of this, if remedies have no effect, studies will always be fluttering near the current level of sensitivity - proponents will always see a promising trend that justifies larger studies, and opponents will see the results as consistent with the null hypothesis. (The way I see it is, the studies have gotten sensitive enough that, if there should prove to be a barely measurable effect, it is so small as to be clinically uninteresting. It would be a scientific revolution, but to discuss that we have to get into the chance that the world has been built in such a weird way). The consequence for the article is that we need to concentrate more on the sensitivity of a study than the results (given that no studies show block-busting positive results.) In most cases we are spared evaluating individual studies (primary sources) in this way because there are several reviews and meta-analyses (secondary sources) available. --Art Carlson 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. To be more precise if something is "statistically significant" this is just a way of saying that the results are unlikely to come about by chance. You can work out exactly how unlikely any one particular result will be and when the results cross this border they are deemed "significant".


 * For example, take tossing a coin. You can work out how likely any one string of heads or tails will be. Toss the coin twenty times, if a head is +1 and a tail -1 then the numbers will follow a normal distribution centred around zero. Statistics says how likely any other result would be. If 95% of the numbers will fall between +2 and -2 then we call this our 95% confidence interval. Getting a +5 might be a one-in a-hundred result, and random, but would be "statistically significant".


 * So to test if the coin is really random, you toss it 100 times, add up the numbers and say "My null hypothesis is that this result is random." Then compare the number you get to the confidence interval and say "The result is +1, my null hypothesis is not disproved, since the results are not statistically significant." Alternatively, you can say "The result is +100, this result is statistically significant and my null hypothesis is disproved, the result is not random. Hey, I wonder if this is a two-headed coin?" Tim Vickers 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you toss the coin a hundred times and it comes up Heads 60 times, does that confirm or refute your null hypothesis? Whig 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If your 95% confidence interval was 55 times, a result of 60 refutes the null hypothesis and you can say with 95% confidence that the coin is biased. Tim Vickers 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And if you tossed the coin 40 times and got a result of 24 heads? Whig 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends what the confidence interval is, smaller numbers of tests give wider confidence intervals since there will be greater random variation around the mean. This is why small studies mean so little. Tim Vickers 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct answer is that the null hypothesis is neither confirmed nor refuted in this case, precisely the same results as in the study we were discussing. Whig 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure from this exchange whether there is still a misunderstanding or not. It is meaningless to say a null hypothesis has been confirmed. If a coin is unbiased, the chance of getting at least 24 heads on 40 tosses is about 13%. This is usually considered likely enough to be consistent with the null hypothesis (50% heads), but it is also consistent with the hypothesis that the coin produces heads 60% or even 70% of the time. But if the coin produced heads 75% of the time, then the chance of getting only 24 heads (or less) is just 1%, so this result rules out the hypothesis that the chance of heads is 75% or greater. Applied to the study, we can't rule out that the homeopaths get the answer right more often than wrong, but we can conclude that they get it wrong at least one time out of four. (Calculations done using Binomial Probability Distribution Calculator and a spreadsheet.) --Art Carlson 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Live NPOV dispute
This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

correct.with all the respect for the other editors.--Sm565 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page for a day due to revert dueling. If consensus is achieved prior to one days time, let me know.  If revert warring continues, I will issue blocks to prevent disruption.  I'll not continue to protect and protect.
 * I looked, and I was unable to find... has RFC, or mediation, any form of dispute resolution been tried here? M er cury    17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Please keep in mind that if clear consensus has been established, and folks are editing over consensus, this is also disruptive and blockable.  M er cury    17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you assume anything like that looking at the talk page?--Sm565 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a second admin looking over the page, there appears to be a single editor who is using the NPOV tag as a bludgeon to have his views adopted against consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they are 2 at least.--Sm565 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a nice civilized discussion just consensus has not been reached. --Sm565 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (To the group) Can anyone link a discussion where consensus has been achieved? M er cury    18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Whig) Why are you adding weasel words, and particular reason you going against the manual of style? M er cury    18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I accidentally clicked the wrong button and never meant to revert Whig's addition of the NPOV tag as vandalism. The real discussion is over the wording of the one sentence in the lead, which has been explained as containing weasel words, which I reverted once and which Whig continued to add.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described" vs "many scientists describe"
Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment. This is an NPOV dispute. Every edit that I make must be taken in the context that I am trying to point out the inherent POV of this article in order to replace it with something conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where weasel words are used, I will make them more obvious. This is homeopathic editing, perhaps, but if it causes the sentence to be properly analyzed and discussed and fixed, then it is effective. Whig 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you try to word that with active voice and make is less opinionated? I think that may solve one issue.   M er cury    18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Making them (read: the weasel words) more obvious, instead of fixing them, is not good, fix them, but don't make them worse, more obvious. To do so, is disruptive.  M er cury    18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is not disruptive. It is correct editing practice in my opinion. Whig 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I am understanding you correctly, to deliberately go against a content guideline is correct editing practice? M er cury    18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The content guideline is already being violated. I did not violate it. Whig 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But as you state, you are making the weasel words more obvious. The equates with aggravating the already existing problem.  And aggravating existing problems is disruptive.   M er cury    18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I disagree. Whig 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "I disagree" is not a helpful or constructive response. Raymond Arritt 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to help you understand that I will block you if you are disruptive, and I see your making the weasel words more obvious as disruption. M er cury    18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. What will be my recourse? Whig 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To avoid this, try the options in the dispute resolution. Once blocked, your recourse will be explained to you on your talk page, if you choose that path. M er cury   18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see current RfC. I would be interested in your comments. Whig 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My only comment would be, please take in what everyone has to say, right, wrong, indifferent. If it applies, it is useful insight to your editing behaviour.  The RFC is designed to give you some outside views, so that if you need to change, you will.  I won't comment directly to the RFC.  M er cury    18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We have been trying to summurize the metanalyses conclusions objectively. --Sm565 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described"
Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it passive voice? M er cury    19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here is the full sentence: The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source. You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view.  I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion.  M er cury    19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Both "often" and "many" are weasle words unless the source says exactly that. How Often? How Many? These variables aren't defined and thus are ambiguous. Does "Often" mean 50% of the time? 70% of the time? 99% of the time? Does "many" mean a lot? Does it mean most? Does it mean 99% of scientists? What does it mean?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop. M er cury    19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not see this thread being particularly constructive. I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate.  The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page.  But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect.  M er cury    19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

form of quackery ?I have also argued against that above. It is not supported by the conclusions and suggestions of the cited meta analysis.--Sm565 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not "is sometimes" Try "such and such describes"  active voice.  M er cury    19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery."  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral. So long as all sources are reliable.   M er cury    20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I might can do that. There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here.  Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue.  I may extend protection for that as well.  M er cury    20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style. Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..."  It might be best to balance that point of view however.  Just a style suggestion.  M er cury    19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) There are no reliable sources that describe homeopathy as a "successfull (sic) form of alternative therapy". Any version of the article that describes homeopathy thusly would be in gross violation of NPOV and undue weight. I am willing to address some of the pro-homeopathic editors' concerns, but I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. We need to take the same approach to this article that has worked on articles like Intelligent design and Global warming, for example. Skinwalker 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc. Weasel words are bad, mmkay.  Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one reliable source -One could report and criticize its findings ( using references)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs)
 * I think we determined that was inconclusive, and I would review it on my Talk page. Whig 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Inconclusive, to put it mildly, I agree. As several other editors have explained, it is a uncontrolled, non-randomized, and non-double blind study published in an obscure journal.  Not a reliable source.  Skinwalker 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Obscure journal? ????? It is recommended .....I think.     

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) It is a metanalyses by: 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Graz, Austria 2University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Integrative Medicine Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA 3HomInt, Karlsruhe, Germany 4Complementary Medicine Research Unit; Primary Medical Care, University of Southhampton, Southhampton, UK 5VSM Geneesmiddelen, Alkmaar, The Netherlands 6ClinResearch GmbH, Cologne, Germany 7Tilburg, The Netherlands 8Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland --Sm565 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is NOT a metanalysis. It is ONE study, not a study of other studies.  Do you really understand what you're writing here?  Skinwalker 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right "Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment" . But it is still significant and should be included. --Sm565 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is NOT significant, and it will NOT be included. I am the third or fourth editor to tell you this.  Why do you persist in presenting the same argument over and over again, after you've been refuted?  What you tell me three times is not automatically true.  Skinwalker 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not being randomized is pretty much a fatal flaw in studies of this sort. It is not significant.  Wanderer57 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Being randomized is not one of the wikipedia criteria. ''Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications'' According to these criteria it qualifies. Every good faith editor can see it. --Sm565 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop. We've already put this study in my Talk. It shouldn't be discussed here further for now. Whig 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC):: They asked me,I answered.--Sm565 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, good folks, please stop using edit summaries to talk to each other. M er cury    20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about how to cite many sources calling homeopathy quackery. We don't have even a single such source. The 3 sources cited do not use the word quackery or anything similar in the abstract, and I seriously doubt they use it in the main text. The intro now clearly states that there is a "lack of evidence supporting its efficacy" and that it takes a "stance against conventional medicine". The last sentence of the introduction adds no new content and uses a formulation that is not supported by the sources. Unless some other sources can be found, where notable people or organizations call homeopathy quackery, the sentence should be stricken. --Art Carlson 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV / POV TAG
I'm going to try and keep this one simple as well, so I don't get confused. Why is the POV tag on the article? M er cury   20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the article is written from a "mainstream scientific" POV without allowing the subject even to be fairly described. It is a condemnation of Homeopathy from beginning to end. Whig 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because its main point of view is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Editors refuge to include studies from reliable sources which shows that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect.  The interpretation of the cited sources is not objective. I have documented all these above. --Sm565 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)     


 * Comment: I agree with the first sentence of Sm565's statement above. Whig 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with whigs statement.--Sm565 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for the POV tag. The article is supposed to be written from a mainstream scientific tone as that coincides with WP:WEIGHT. The areas aside from the scientific analysis of homeopathy do a fairly well job of describing it and if it doesn't, then that has nothing to do with "Scientific tone" getting in the way but rather poor wording, etc. This isn't a POV issue but a style or wording issue. I have no objection to including studies showing that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect, as long as they are mentioned in the context of the fact that the vast majority of studies show now medical effect aside from placebo. The interpretation of the sources is not a POV issue either.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT? BBC reports this controversy differently if the editors want to consider it as a reliable source. ( They already use it to condemn homeopathy.) I had suggested  for reaching a concencus -no comments just report the findings as stated from all meta analyses and /or studies upon agreement and this will be NPOV. And its critisisms.

Really simple. --Sm565 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are linking to the BBC where they are writing about James Randi. Whig 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read at the end of page about WHO.--Sm565 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can take one paragraph out of context like that. Whig 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WEIGHT requires we give prominence to the mainstream view, not that we omit the minority view. Whig 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::::If they are reliable sources which define the mainstream view ..yes. But so far most ofthe cited sources they say the subject and studies are controversial.--Sm565 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the current sources are mischaracterized? Whig 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Not all of them though. Read and decide.It is above. --Sm565 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, well we can do that in time. My concerns are not the same as yours, apparently, though we both agree there is an NPOV problem. Whig 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are stating is part of my objection and -of course I agree.--Sm565 21:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::: We have the time to do it properly. Serious articles take time especially if many editors are involved.--Sm565 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your objections hold no water. WP:UNDUE is simple in this regard, and the mainstream viewpoint is clear and well sourced. Furthermore, one can easily supply additional sources if one bothered to backing up the mainstream view. JoshuaZ 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag resolution
I think if we can get that last sentence of the LEAD straightened out, there may not be a POV tag needed for the whole article. We can identify sections that need work as appropriate. I think this article is a lot better than it was a week ago. Whig 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opininion the meta analysis summary is not accurate as well. Other studies should be included not only the negative ones. Critisism of the cited studies is not included but it exists. I will try to work on that this week.--Sm565 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've said that, but if we can correct the LEAD then we can work on the rest of the article. Whig 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--Sm565 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strategy
I think the strategy here is obvious. Two or more POV warriors want to change the definition of NPOV and WP policies for this article and remove every negative statement about homeopathy. They want to remove all criticism of homeopathy from the article and violate all WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guidelines. They want to stretch the definition of WP:RS and WP:V sources.

To exhaust the regular WP editors here, they have engaged in a massive campaign of talk page commentary. This is transparent. It is pointless. You know who you are. We know who you are. You are single topic accounts meant to cause chaos and disruption. And you will not succeed. Please reform your ways and do not force the hand of the community.--Filll 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is such pure fantasy! Where did you dredge that up from? As I see it, they do not want that. I think they want the article to be fair and balanced which it isn't at the moment. A fair and balanced account of homeopathy, and the trials, etc, which also includes the critique of the anti-homeo lobby. Presently about 50% of the article is criticism which many editors do not think is very fair at all. To reduce that does not mean to eliminate it completely. Such an idea is preposterous because everyone knows that the criticism of such a contentious subject is 'out there' and needs to be mentioned in the article. The argument here is really about how big that mention should be. Well, that's my ten cents; the editors you refer to can doubtless speak for themselves. thanks Peter morrell 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have almost completely destroyed your credibility with that statement. 50%? Do you realize we actually have ways to measure this? I suggest you retract this statement before I measure the actual figure. And use intelligent design as a guide. It is probably more than 50% negative, as scientific consensus and the mainstream view demands according to NPOV and FRINGE and UNDUE. --Filll 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Filll stop your destructive tactics. Please do present your measurements. Please understand that scientific consensus is not a measure of accuracy, it is one of the measures of a scientific article, but it is not the only measure of an article. After all, Semmelweiss was right. And he most certainly did not meet the current standards of scientific consensus. Your anti-homeopathic POV is transparent and pointless. Please contribute to an article about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. Intelligent design is a good article, but it is NOT the measure of an article. docboat 15:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With views like these, you should not be editing this article, which falls under the purview of science and medicine. You have to learn the WP policies that are operating here or else you are wasting your time. Intelligent design is indeed a good example of what WP strives to be in controversial areas. It has achieved FA status, a status this article is far far away from because of its blatant biases and other problems. So use intelligent design or evolution or other FA articles as models and guides.--Filll 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Filll - your tactics are obvious, and you are damaging your credibility with these attacks. But that is OK, that is where you are, and we have to deal with it. However, the encyclopaedia merits excellent editors, so one can but hope you rise to the challenge of maintaining NPOV. In the meantime (and you will note I have made no edits on the article, just observations on the talk page) I shall continue to monitor these efforts. WDM is doing an excellent job, so I see no need to jump in and edit. Whatever gave you the impression I had been editing this article? It is these lapses of observation and judgement which detract from your contributions, so I do hope you take time to reflect. Am I being too hopeful? docboat 06:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's neutrality policy everybody's got a POV. However, the reliability and verifiability of scientific consensus on the point that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience is apparent and does not deserve sidelining. ScienceApologist 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Under dipsute sign POV
Why the under dispute sign was removed?--Sm565 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a problem that the final sentence of the LEAD remains in passive voice expressing POV. Per the resolution we discussed earlier, this must be fixed before any consensus that the POV tag be removed from the article. Whig 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem the sentence in question is: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery." and is cited by three different citations. Is there anything dishonest about the statement? ScienceApologist 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dishonest? No. POV? Yes. We don't say that homeopathy is "often described as" a form of quackery because it violates WP:WEASEL. Place this sentence into active voice and attribute the description of homeopathy as a form of quackery to someone or some organization specifically, placing references to support the quote or paraphrase. Whig 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it is not "often described" that way? What is the weasel word in particular? Attribution is fine when we are quoting someone, but when summarizing an idea that is acknowledged by almost everybody (that homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery) appealing to particular attribution as you are doing is just a way of preventing summary style. ScienceApologist 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally accurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.--Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any citations actually call homeopathy a form of quackery at all? Whig 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally inaccurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.--Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any citations actually call homeopathy a form of quackery at all? Whig 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the statement is accurate. It's not an issue of "sources interpretation" at all. There is a lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. This is seen in the citations already in the article. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which equate homeopathy with quackery:

etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/5/12 ????????
 * If I remember well when you did non want to include a large published study reporting  positive results on Homeopathy you said that : www.biomedcentral.com is an obscure journal. I think so.--Sm565 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a source which equates homeopathy with quackery. It is a study you keep trying to insert and which has been repeatedly declined, and it will continue to be declined when you keep trying. Whig 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just showing you how widespread the understanding is. I am fine with the current citations and am just showing you that there are plenty of others which admit to the characterization. ScienceApologist 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the problem isn't the citations themselves (though I might ask about whether they are all reliable sources), but are any of them quoted as saying homeopathy is a form of quackery, directly?


 * Which of those is most notable and says explicitly something about homeopathy being a form of quackery? Can we extract that quote? Whig 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thats one study...where did you get often?--Sm565 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now added two examples from the scientific literature that directly describe homeopathy as a form of quackery and have also attributed the opinion to a prominent group that has repeatedly made this assertion. Tim Vickers 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good progress, Tim. I agree the POV tag can be removed for now. 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs)

How biased is the article?
I have taken the liberty of removing all "anti-Homeopathy" material from the article and making a "pro-Homeopathy" article at which is now 59,911 bytes, compared to the original size of 93,074 bytes, so the current version of the article is at least 64.4% "pro-Homeopathy". This is well above 50%.

I will note that this is a bit misleading since most of the high dilution material is not really anti-homeopathy at all, but I called it that anyway. Not all of the scientific testing is anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. The historical discussion of controversy is not really all anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. So at a minimum, the article is 2/3 pro-homeopathy, and the true figure is likely far higher. --Filll 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean 64% "pro-homeopathy"? Tim Vickers 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes obviously that was a screw up. Thanks.--Filll 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Viewing ScienceApologist's further edits to the file, it is quite interesting to me which parts he believes are actually anti-homeopathy which I do not perceive to be negative at all. Perhaps we all should do our own version of a "pro-homeopathy" edit of the present article. I am somewhat surprised with some of SA's alleged anti-homeopathy pieces of text, frankly.--Filll 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My pro-version (currently up at Talk:Homeopathy/pro) got a pro rating of 59.6%. I tried to be as much of a devil's advocate as possible -- anticipating all possible negative comments that could be made about the text I removed. ScienceApologist 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke or what. We aren't supposed to make a pro- or anti- article here. Just the facts. Whig 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You obviously are not paying attention. Please read the material above. And no, this is not an article that I would put on WP. It is a test case and a strawman to see what the exact balance is. And try to understand where it should be. It is for discussion. We have to measure the alleged problem to know if it really exists. --Filll 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which facts get summarized and described in the article is the issue. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. ScienceApologist 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw, jeez, we could make it much more pro than that -- all one needs to do is ignore the facts, or make them fit the desired outcome. ;) <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like the lead and history section here: ... <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I've moved jim's proposal to talk:Homeopathy/pro2. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am much more impressed with the balance between the pro-homeopathy and the anti-homeopathy material in the article than I was a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to do this measurement and find that there is a good solid measure of anti-homeopathy material in the article. This is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps we need more. Nevertheless, I think the article looks better than it did a few weeks ago in this regard. I also think that the LEAD looks much much better than it did; more compact, and a good solid fraction of it cautioning the reader that there is no support for this practice. I might read it a few more times, but I am ready to suggest I think it might be ready for GA status again. I will consult with other editors first, of course for their input.--Filll 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points. Firstly, This article contains no "pro-homeopathy". Zero. The article contains "explanations" of homeopathy, but that doesn't count as "pro homeopathy". Secondly, If you look at the article as it was when it first came out of the rewrite, you will find that the proportions between criticism and explanation are pretty much the same.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)