Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 28

Protected (again)
I've had to protect this article again, I was initially going to block the offenders, but quite frankly, there's far too many of them and this has been going for a couple of days, making blocks for earlier editing problems punitive, whilst it being unfair to the people that get blocked simply because they were the last to edit. The protection lasts a week, after which time I expect discussion rather than revert warring. I'll be watching the article closely, and hopefully next time I can catch it a little sooner - but please note, any future conduct that even remotely looks like disruption on the page will result in blocks.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How would you suggest reaching consensus where the parties are clearly unable or unwilling to discuss in good faith? PouponOnToast (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly suggest you at least attempt mediation with the mediation committee, or several parties are going to have their wiki-time greatly reduced. Either that, or request a third opinion, or RfC and all agree to abise by the result.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryan, it would help if you placed warnings at the talkpages of the parties you are obliquely referring to here with the appropriate diffs. Most people probably think that it's the "other guy" that's causing the disruption and not them. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm planning on doing that tonight, I just haven't got the time to go through the mess at the minute. I would however like to make it clear that this applies to anyone editing the page, if there's anything which I, or another uninvolved admin see as disruptive, it will lead to a block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that administators who "don't have the time" should be weighing in on these situations. That's when we get bad decisions that result from poor research. Please find another administrator who does have the time. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, would you like me to stop writing my MSc dissertation to solve this petty dispute? Hmmmm, it aint gonna happen I'm affraid. I said I'll look into it later today when I have my social time.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, if you are writing your dissertation then some other admin can look at the issue. There are over 1000 of them, right? This article was recently protected for over a month.  If editors can't put in as collaborative then block them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * (further) it doesn't take any time at all to see User:Leave Power Behind was trolling. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I didn't protect the page because I didn't have chance to look at it then, I protected it because there were simply too many users that would need to be blocked, and because of the time frame, many blocks would we punative. I'm merely going to investigate who's talk pages I need to go to and knock it home to them exactly what's going to happen the next time they disrupt.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You believe that such will result in more than an exortation not to edit war and be disruptive, and a statement that NPOV means that all notable views must be expressed? Specifically, do you believe a semi-perminent (more than a month or two) decision can be reached regarding the pseudosciene category and box via those procedures? If you believe such, I am happy to go through said procedures, but let me state upfront two things:


 * I know that such procedures will fail to reach a semi-perminent decision.
 * I know that such procedures are a waste of time and
 * I challenge you to state that you believe differently.


 * In fact, I would like to make a friendly wager with you - I will jump through whatever hoops you want, and will do so with complete and total openness, honesty and attempt with great dilligence to complete with good faith all of the requisite steps, but when such jumping fails to reach any sort of perminant solution, you will resign your admin bit, never to be replaced. Deal? PouponOnToast (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Without consensus, it should remain off the page. Anthon01 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see disruptive editors remain off the page, but unfortunately there is no way to enforce the consensus with adminstrators who do not act. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * considering that they're is still a figorous debate going on, i dont think that their is anythingt hat the admins can do to "enforce" consensus that has not currently been reached. I too would rather have disruptive editors remain off the page, but so far i have not seen any disruptive editors -- only editors that have a difference of opinion wregarding which issues should be brought up in the articl eand which ones should not. Smith Jones (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the subject needs to be discussed in detail within the article, I am getting tempted to allow "Alternative medicine" to fulfil the role, since almost all alternative medicines are similarly heavily disputed and many can be rightfully called pseudoscience yet are not tagged as such. Reflexology is tagged, but Acupuncture is not (despite various studies into complex placebos). LinaMishima (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the strategy of repeately fighting without stop has led many scientifically minded editors to consider walking away from the work they do to maintain the encyclopedia in a valuable and useful state. You may wish to read User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. I personally intend to boycot all articles with fringe problems in the month of february and will encourage others to do so as well. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Already there, Poupon, and I have been there myself in the past long before that piece, with writings of my own that I now cannot remember rhe article location of... LinaMishima (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a page on searching WP? Anthon01 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific data on the biological effects of homeopathic preparations
There has been significant research in recent years indicating that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have definite biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters.

Carcinosin 200C & Chelidonium 200C

"Efficacy of the potentized Drug, Carcinosin 200 fed Alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." Surjyo Jyoti Biswas, Surajit Pathak, Nandini Bhattacharjee, Jayanta Kumar Das, Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 1, 2005, 11(5): 839-854. 

Arsenicum Album 200C

"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." P. Banerjee, S. J. Biswas, P. Belon, A. R. Khuda-Bukhsh (2007) Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series. A 54 (7), 370–376. 

Lycopodium 200C

"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" S. Pathak; N. Bhattacharjee; J.K. Das; S.C. Choudhury; S.R. Karmakar; P. Banerjee; S. Paul; A. Banerjee; A. Khuda-Bukhsh. Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, West Bengal, India Forsch Komplementärmed. 2007;14:148-156

This research data should not be dismissed and ignored. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you stop posting reams of this stuff here? Just give references and say why you think it should be included. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to the full text of any of these articles, so I can not personally comment on the methodology used. All the trials had placebo groups (although it was unclear in two of them how appropriate the placebo choice was). The first and second articles had much stronger conclusions than the third article, it must be noted. None of them provided information regarding the sample sizes in use, and the first study lacked a control group receiving no treatment (which is an important requirement as well as a placebo group. Thankfully with mice, ethics is not such an issue with this). These are but three studies, however, and they do not counter all the studies pointing in a different direction, nor do they address the many other issues. And finally, as RDO states, posting all this information here in this manner serves little purpose but to inflame. If you wish the details to be added to the article, then we can look into that. Please note that whilst I have been willing to concede that more research is needed and methods of action could exist, those who argue in favour of homeopathy's efficacy seem to generally just insist that it is so and not even begin to concede that it may be as the larger, better, studies have shown and as the current understanding of science indicates. Being willing to accept all possibilities and discuss them is a hallmark of science, insisting upon your viewpoint is a hallmark of faith. LinaMishima (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Being willing to accept all possibilities and discuss them is a hallmark of science" and that has been my point all along. Being closed-minded and insisting that homeopathy cannot possibly be true - despite evidence to the contrary - is not an example of the scientific approach.

I posted this information:


 * because you asked for it
 * because I would like to have it summarized and presented in a section of the article on Scientific research supportive of homeopathy (I have posted numerous references to valid scientific research, with the intent that this be done, only to have it lost in a mass of back and forth postings on this page.)

Also, I would point out that the article Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? clearly states about the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis:

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to pass judgment on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why are you so intent on turning it into a battleground? Can you please not post large quotes from studies, but cite them properly, as I asked you before. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find interesting that the very letter mentioned above states "These conflicts, coupled with the existence of some high-quality trials that did not show a benefit with homeopathy have caused many pharmacists to conclude that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery." PouponOnToast (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This probably explains the selective quoting. I think it should be made policy on this page that full references be provided, and anyone found misrepresenting a source like this gets a severe ticking off (I don't know how or what, and it'd probably make things worse anyway) --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arion please refrian from selective quoting. it makes us look bad and causes other editors to destrust our edits even in good faith. WP:QUOTE.Smith Jones (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite the evidence to the contrary, there still exists the problems of method of action (but we shall not look at this again), and all the quality evidence against the efficacy of homeopathy. Most of the evidence in support of homeopathy has a number of major flaws, however some (which may include the articles you refer to) are of a good standard. The 1997 meta-analysis which found in favour of homeopathy, for example, was found to have given undue prominence to the lower quality studies, and when re-examined reveals a different trend . The Shang 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet also finds in favour of placebo effect. This article has been criticised for the exclusion of 102 of the homeopathic studies (it should be noted that they compared this result to a similarly excluded set of conventional medicine studies), however careful reading makes clear that is not the exclusion that is the issue (which the biased data sets clearly warranted - see the BMJ article again), but the lack of a defined and repeatable procedure for selecting what to include. The trend for the larger studies, when combined with the BMJ guide on meta-analysis forms a very strong analysis. If you need a copy of any of these articles, please let me know.


 * The idea of a section entitled "Scientific research supportive of homeopathy" is a poor idea, since firstly it is not good practice to separate arguments from eachother in separate sections, and secondly the title does imply a biased view. However the similar title of "scientific research into the efficacy (effectiveness) of homeopathic treatment" could used, and both contain the apparently positive animal studies and the clear results of the meta-data analyses and larger studies. Similarly, any section talking about the method of action should be titled "scientific research into the method of action", rather than "existance of" or "impossibility of".
 * Regarding deciding which research data can be in the article, we have a concept of a reliable source. Were possible, a randomised double-blind placebo and controlled study will trump any lesser methodology. This is not my personal opinion, but that of the entire medical establishment, and wikipedia should use the same basis for determining the reliability of a source. The Lancet is also a far better source than the journal Homeopathy for matters of clinical effectiveness (obviously, for matters of homeopathic technique, patient-homeopath relations, and so on, Homeopathy is prefered).


 * Finally, I would like to make a note about your style and approach here today. I understandably ask for a reference for the claim of significant biological effects, as references that I found made it clear that placebo effect does occur in animals, and I was genuinely curious as to if the studies featured a placebo group. As you have seen, upon later seeing that the studies did, I respected that and the results they reached. However initially, rather than respecting my request and taking it as the good faith curiosity it was, you launched into how I was obviously inventing convoluted explanations to deny the truth of studies I had not yet had a chance to read (and hence even comment upon), you call upon Occam's Razor as an attempted support, and then cry "a method of action does exist!" despite it never being argued once by myself as part of that discussion so far. In response, I pointed out the obvious issue with calling Occam's razor, and then called you out on your attempt to describe a possible method of action (something I would not have done directly without your prompting). Your response to my reasoned argument was to change the subject again back to the studies that I had originally asked for. There is something very dubious about such a style of debating, I'm sure you will agree, however I am sure this is all simply because you needed time to research those references, but wished to point out another, unrelated, fact first. LinaMishima (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved editor may I try to make a suggestion?
I lurk here a lot but lately there's been so much activity that it's hard to keep up with who says what and where most of you stand and what you are disagreeing on. So I would like to suggest that everyone leave their keyboards alone and go to the top of the talk page and read what other's are saying. I actually believe that a lot of you are debating things that you are actually agreeing on but you are not hearing what the other editors are saying. Take a time out to just read the talk page and maybe even reread the article. If necessary, make notes, not on this talk page but on your own pages, on what you feel you are in disagreement with and what you are all agreeing to. I really feel that what is going on here is no one seems to be listening anymore, well I should clarify, maybe some of you are listening, and it's hard to tell to be honest. Then after everyone involved rereads everything then make a new subject title and list your differences and your agreements. Maybe this way you all can see what everyone is trying to do with this article. When things get so involved and heated in articles likes this one, it becomes really hard to see what is actually going on with everyone. Like I said, I am not involved and I don't really care one way or the other about things, I just find that a lot of editors are getting so upset and unhappy that the happy editing has been lost. I don't know if this will help or not, but seriously, what harm can be caused to try this out? I hope my coming here with this suggestion doesn't upset anyone because that is not what I am trying to do at all and I apologize if what I say here upsets anyone in advance. I am just trying to help calm the waters and see if doing something like this would help advance everyone into a calm and reasonable discussion rather than the constant warring and everyone being so upset. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick scan of the talk page indicates that at least 37 of the current 67 sections are the result of discussions regarding or devoted to either the wording of the article lead, the pseudoscience category, or the pseudoscience/disputed science infobox. Clearly things have become far out of hand, and these three issues are dominating over other potential improvements to the article. LinaMishima (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it would be a freakish and unsuaul torture to make some reread the entire page all oer again. I was there for most of thewhole discussionand I remember vividly the points tat were made and those are the ones that LinaMishima:User just liste.d We have already resolved the pseudeoscience category debate and the lead-wording issue seems to have been temporarily fumbled by either the allopaths or the homoepaths (its hard to tell now). If we could get the article unprotected by avoiding an edit war and achieving any kind of conesnsus then it will begreat. Earlier I listed several meditation techniques that wec ould use to mediate this debate and I noticed that a lot of users categorically refused to even consider them. Another administartor Ryan Postlethwait mentioned some of these techniques again and they were again refused. I am not sure how much more of this we can keep up and remain and effective encyclopedia editorial unit. Smith Jones (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have already resolved the pseudoscience category debate? What planet are you living on? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The underlying issue is that some people want to write a real article based on real facts, and others are not acting in good faith and not interested in promoting a neutral point of view, by acting as apologists for homeopathy. They will use any tactic they can to keep this article from becoming a reality-based perspective on a pseudoscientific fraud, including endlessly arguing in circles, using the talk page as a place to argue about the article's subject, or just typing in a private language and demanding that others decode them. Until the unreasonable people are removed from the article, neither the discussion nor the article itself has any hope of reaching consensus, let alone a reliable level of quality. These people know that any properly cited, properly factual article about homeopathy will unambiguously state that homeopathy is not science, not true, and promoted exclusively by scam artists, and thus they will do anything to keep the article from being good. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Randy, please remember of course that it is mostly a pseudoscientific fraud, that not all homeopaths are unethical (some recommend regular healthcare as well, and certainly not all advocate homeopathy as the sole treatment for aids), research is being carried out by a few and occasionally it raises points in need of further research. In general terms, however, it is lacking in basis of course and many are unethical, and most the current theory is pseudoscience, and as such that is what the article has to document. but it does not serve anyone's purpose to insist on homeopathy being black or white... it seems to be a very dark grey to me, and we can cover the lighter touches as well as the dark :P Simply calling it all junk and bad is as equally helpful to resolving this as calling it all perfect (although more accurate in the former). LinaMishima (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon, what good has come out of homeopathy in the last 50 years? In the beginning of its use, homeopathy was excellent because the allopathic establishment was more likely to kill patients than cure them. Certainly, laying out in a homeopathic hospital being treated with water was better than being subjected to the horrific things that passed as "medicine" in the nineteenth century. Since then, homeopathy has stuck firmly in its roots and not gone anywhere while modern medicine is able to address in a systematic, scientific fashion the causes and remedies for disease. Homeopathy relies on innuendo and vague untested principles to justify itself. That's not science: that's pseudoscience. Sure most homeopathy is not going to do a damn thing except for give a patient a placebo effect. So it's not going to hurt someone to take a homeopathic cure except it gives them false hope, encourages magical thinking, bilks them out of money, and can, at times, mislead people into avoiding tried-and-true medical solutions. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The middle-classes in the developing world who happily use doctors for real medicine seem to get peace of mind from homeopathy :P You know I agree with you, SA, I just also agree with Ben Goldcare when he says that homeopathy wouldn't be a problem if they would stop false claims and start acting ethical (especially with respect to serious things like malaria and aids) . Sugar pills and counselling are awesome as long as they don't pretend that they're somehow based in science. And of course, there has been some slight studies done to show some idea of an effect and it would be inappropriate for any scientifically minded person to dismiss any evidence or claim out of hand (we shall just contrast it with all the other studies and point out any failings in the techniques used, and the complete lack of plausibility). To start dismissing things only helps a fringe group argue that there is a conspiracy or cover-up, instead claims must be dragged to the fore, into the light of truth. LinaMishima (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with having an article on homeopathy that fairly, neutrally, and completely describes all you list above. There are others at this article who have a different agenda, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Given the editing behavior of some editors here, which prefer edit warring and reverts rather than finding common ground, I propose that all involved editors agree voluntarily to 1RR, that is one revert per day per editor. Please sign your name below if you agree. If there is no such agreement and editwarring continues, the article may go back to protected state, or editors that exhibit disruptive behavior may lose temporarily their editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * I agree to abide by 1RR in this article:
 * --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PouponOnToast (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Have been.
 * Art Carlson (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Friarslantern (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) With the understanding that it takes two to tango.
 * User:area69 With the understanding that it takes two to tango- correct.! If there are unjustified reverts I will not comply though. --Area69 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Violated . PouponOnToast (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With many reservations (e.g. the response by User:area69), but I will try it. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Too many POV-pushing edits are being made which violate this and nothing has been done by the administrator organizing it. Therefore I withdrawl my pledge. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting something, I assume that we can delete a specific addition we disagree with, editing the same time a different paragraph.That does not count. Correct?--Area69 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you're proposing (combining a revert with an edit), it would qualify as gaming the system. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the correct term - I m not proposing it though. Do you want me to give you examples ( from editors who signed the 1RR ? --Area69 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are correct, Jossi is the one to go to. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look and you will decide . --Area69 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MAybe I m wrong though. So if gaming the system will not be allowed. I agree.

LOL. So two of you agree, as long as you don't find a dancing partner! Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The personal views of the editors are only important in as much as they can be backed up by reliable sources. Or not. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to join the 1RR group
I cordially invite Orangemarlin, Aburesz, and Anthon01 to join other editors in their 1RR pledge. It will make for an excellent show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01, a final invitation to join the 1RR pledge. Without such commitment by involved editors there is no chance to make this work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So far I see this being applied unevenly, as Fyslee(2) OrangeMarlin(3), TableManners(3) have reverted 2-3 times in a short time span and none of them are getting warning from you on their talk pages. I am hoping to see even-handedness. I also am not sure what 1RR really means since different admins apply this rule differently. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the 1RR sections here and hadn't been aware of them at all. For the record, my two reverts were to two totally different matters. 1RR is a nice way of dealing with edit wars, but it isn't binding, and Jossi would have no basis (regarding my two separate reverts) in policy or actual fact to warn me of anything. I'll just stick to wikipolicies and stay away from 3RR situations, which is my usual practice. I usually pull out of such situations quickly if I realize where they are headed, which means 1RR or 2RR. If a consensus doesn't back up my revert(s), then why should I insist? That never works. If they were proper, then other editors will back them up and preserve them. Discussion is much better than edit warring. -- Fyslee / talk 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A step further
I will go even further. I have not reverted here for a long long time. I will let it just go in the mud, since that is what the powers that be favor I suspect. So lets let it collapse and turn into promotional tract for a pseudoscience. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way or is perceived as uncivil.--Filll (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't want that to happen and would fight against that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By their fruits...--Filll (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. See below "rewriting the lead". My goal is NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly and will continue to say, I think all those who believe in science, allopathy, the scientific method, double blind tests etc should recuse themselves from this article and let everyone else edit it unfettered. Then after 6 months, the results should be reviewed by outside bodies and internal bodies etc to see if it is NPOV and if it meets the needs of the readers and Wikipedia and so on. Why not? If you support me on this, I will push it extremely hard and promote it as hard as I can. I think we should do this. Let's try it as a test case. --Filll (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, by promoting this kind of baloney we can help improve the human gene pool. Think about that. We should also give our support to bretharianism.200.104.203.106 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should the pseudoscience infobox remain
So much fuss is being made over the inclusion of the pseudoscience infobox in article. Rather than keep debating this, I suggest subjecting this to a straight-up vote (even though voting is evil) so that everyone involved can make clear to everyone else exactly where they stand. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I think the infobox adds little in terms of content, is not widely used elsewhere, and finally may not have sufficient support in the article for its inclusion.  Silly rabbit (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it succeeds here it will be everywhere that the creators of the box consider Psci. Anthon01 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a violation of NOPV policy. --Area69 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not used widely elsewhere, and the content is better stated in the article lead. LinaMishima (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain I believe it has been deemed uncivil and offensive for people to vote anything besides "Delete" and I am undecided so therefore I cannot express an opinion. I apologize if the word "abstain" is offensive or uncivil in any way and I apologize to anyone I might have offended by this post.--Filll (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the reasons I already stated. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is against policy in the same way that the category is, and in addition is not particularly helpful. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Art. It looks like a scarlett letter. Anthon01 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it serves a valuable purpose. MilesAgain (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete It's a hot word, and as such may unintentionally obscure the overwhelming evidence that homeopathy is, without doubt, pseudoscience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Let the article speak for itself to characterize and describe homoepathy without the hot button label. When I left wiki months ago this is what editors on this article were arguing about.  Now I'm back and this is still the big issue.  Let's get past it.  Abridged talk 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep follows Summary style. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this vote as much of the discussion on this page is overly-representative of the opinions of true-believers in homeopathy. I think that these voices necessarily need marginalization in order for us to arrive at NPOV. By my count, discounting these votes of the true believers we have two "weak deletes", two "deletes", and two "keeps" as of the timestamp. There is also a considerable chilling effect seen that needs to be taken into account here per User:Filll's response. Hardly a resounding judgment against. People arguing we should remove the infobox to avoid controversy are not practicing good editorial technique. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it should be excised from the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I am happy with the category pseudoscience as I think it is unobtrusive, accurate, and allows people to find all such articles via the category. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The straw poll above is about whether the infobox should be in the article.  The general consensus, although somewhat weak, was to remove it.  Inclusion in the category is a different issue altogether.  Silly rabbit (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Readers can follow the wikilinks to explore the subject. There is no need to assert a viewpoint by virtue of a template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What "viewpoint"? NPOV? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need to hammer out a policy over use of series boxes with contentious names.  Thanks to the ArbCom, have a policy (WP:NPOVFAQ) on when to use category:pseudoscience.  We are hashing out how to handle lists of pseudosciences now.  Since homeopathy is not as obviously a pseudoscience, per sci consensus, as other topics like intelligent design, it may be poor NPOV to plaster the article with the highly-visible PSEUDOSCIENCE SERIES BOX (not shouting, just simulating graphic effect there). cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually I tend to share Jim's POV on this one. It is so much like the category tag that I think they should basically be treated in the same manner. They should be reserved only for those cases where the category tag is obvious to all and is preserved by a consensus of editors, and backed up by the ArbCom decision, IOW inclusion in the first two (out of four) groups. Using that line of reasoning, it is just as appropriate on this article, as it is on astrology, which the ArbCom's used as an example AND the category tag should also be here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't base this whether the article is categorized as pseudoscience or not. But the pseudoscience/disputed science infobox is confusing. I think it's not good to have a box with "Core tenets" of couple of lines for complicated and disputed topics, I read what was there for homeopathy and I think it wasn't clear, and it was unsourced too. I hope this box wouldn't be used anywhere, I looked around and the first article I hope to remove it from is Reptilian humanoid, even if that box has the title "pseudoscience" I don't hope it's stated as part of biology in the next line. That's original research and just makes the box to contradict with itself. It's better to state any disputed things in the article text referenced to reliable sources. I think this kind of infobox doesn't help the quality of the articles. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe science (or arbitrary break)
I just took the damn thing off. It's ugly anyway and frankly not worth the trouble. Please note my edit here, particularly regarding the category... &mdash; Scientizzle 15:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, you are a genius. Category:Fringe science could work nicely, I think. LinaMishima (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is evidence that it's fringe? MilesAgain (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "fringe medicine"; the New York Times wrote that homeopathy falls "outside mainstream healing"; "Homeopathy is a practice popular in Europe but is considered "fringe" medicine in the United States."; Time called it fringe science"; has even written about "links between homeopaths and other ‘fringe therapies’" (my highlighting) having used cited sources that apparently discuss the topic as fringe.
 * These were evident after a two-minute search and there's many more. I'm not going to dedicate too much more time to this cacophony of opinion-slinging, just wanted to offer a possible, reasonable, sourceable middle ground. Homeopathy sure the hell ain't mainstream science, and "pseudoscience" only leads to caterwauling of incredible magnitude, so "fringe" seems a possibility. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work! It's accurate and extensively verified while avoiding the p-word. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the p-word? Are there any verifiable sources which dispute that homeopathy is pseudoscience? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with "pseudoscience". Above, I was in favor of the category (though I find the box to be a formatting blight). What I've shown here, however, is that there's a pretty solid case for Category:Fringe science as a minimal level of Wiki-categorization while the arguments over Category:the p-word continues. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See below for why homeopathy is not fringe science. It isn't science at all. It is pseudoscience. No reliable source says that homeopathy is fringe science. Plenty of reliable sources say that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Plain wording is a must so as not to confuse the reader. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you at all. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not concur that it is "genius" to take off one insulting derogatory category and replace it with another. "Category:Fringe science" is not acceptable and a violation of NPOV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is appropriate but it is an improvement. Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I take the above comments as prima facie evidence that everyone who agrees in the scientific method, scientific publications, mainstream science, allopathic medicine, etc should leave this page and let the truly "unbiased" editors make it a proper "NPOV" article according to their own views since those are clearly of more import than those of anyone else and they WP:OWN the article in spite of not having contributed hardly a thing to its creation. I apologize if this post offends or is perceived as uncivil in any way and I apologize to anyone who might be inadvertantly offended by it.--Filll (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting Peter Morrell as a justification for applying the perjorative term "fringe" is not accurate. He placed the term in quotes to indicate that there are individuals who label homeopathy with that insult, not to indicate that it is a legitimate term to use. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of Peter's intent is, bluntly, WP:OR. It's not even necessary, considering there's plenty of other sources available that consider homeopathy a fringe science at best. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree to the use of the "fringe science" label. As a scientist, I am deeply offended that you bring any part of science down to a level that might include Homeopathy. I can abide by "pseudoscience," as that makes it clear that it isn't science, but calling Homeopathy "fringe science" is just insulting to science. (You get the point of how useless these types of comments are yet?) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, the "Alternative Medicine" category is equally insulting to medicine. Pretty much every article that sports that category should have it stripped. Medicine has suffered enough, thank you very much. I will not let you lower it to the level that includes Homeopathy. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Arion -- Reality is the ultimate insult: much better to bask in the glow of the fantasies engendered by the essence of magic mushrooms, and secret twigs and potions of poison ivy. Ah, the pretty colours.
 * Infophile raises a very good point. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Insulting homeopathy or my intelligence with juvenile humor is not appropriate if we are to work together as serious editors towards a consensus. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any insult to homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, your response to me pointing out how pointless complaints about civility are is to accuse me of being uncivil? Excuse me while I go and introduce my forehead to my desk three or four times. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't: there's sufficient cerebral necropathy extant here already. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to you, Infophile. I was referring to the "bask in the glow of the fantasies . . . " comment by Jim62sch. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to Fringe science as homeopathy is not science. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the lead
Thanks Dicklyon for your comments about the lead section of the article. I had suggested back in December 2007 that the mainstream medical criticisms be detailed in their own section (with only a brief mention in the lead). I also propose that a section about the research that supports homeopathy be detailed in its own section. The lead needs to be shorter, provide a brief summary of the article, and not give undue weight to the critical viewpoints. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as many other things that are suggested on this talk page, this violates WP policies and WP:MOS. I do not mean to offend anyone in any way by this post and I apologize to anyone who might perceive this post as uncivil or offensive.--Filll (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch. Are there any editors willing to discuss this and reach consensus before editing the page? The current section of the lead reads My first proposal is  What say you? Anthon01 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While thanking you for your attempt to reach consensus, I must respectfully say "no." You're deleting important qualifiers. Furthermore the intent of the "no plausible mode of operation..." bit is clear, and is unacceptable. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I asked for a discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead size is fine. It's currently about 350 words. George W. Bush is ~384; Science is ~385; Gandhi get ~361; ~364 for Windows 2000; Today's featured article is at ~399.
 * Word choice can certainly be improved, but just aiming to trim the scientific (i.e., default NPOV) POV from the article seems a bit...disingenuous. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. My intention is to improve the lead as per WP:LEAD. How about picking the first qualifier that you would like to replace, lets discuss it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthon01, I think we're actually in okay agreement--word choice is perfectly appropriate to improve--I actively welcome it. Perhaps I misinterpreted Aburesz's opening of this thread as more of a 'trim & partition the criticism as much as possible' sort of stance? That I'm not okay with. You seem to be on a perfectly welcome track. I have to sign off for a while, but I'll try to help in couple of hours... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Anthon01's proposal would be more NPOV by stating:

I respectfully remind everyone that this article is about homeopathy, pure and simple, not about "homeopathy and how it is seen within mainstream medicine". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. But would agree that my version is a huge improvement as per WP:LEAD and MoS recommendations? Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are currently unsupported by the collective weight of clinical studies is not a accurate statement. Some metanalyses have shown positive but incoclusive and unconvicing  results,  some not. Why dont you use  the words which the researchers use. It will solve the problem. --Area69 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you propose? Anthon01 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This section discusses leads on WP. It states It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, because the lead should make the reader want to read the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Under [| new style], it says News writers try to avoid using the same word more than once in a paragraph (sometimes called an "echo" or "word mirror") We have 5 echoes in the paragraph. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(FOLLOWING NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVED) We have 5 echoes of the word science in the paragraph. (see bold text in current section of the lead above.) (NOTE END) Anthon01 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's find every paragraph that uses "homeopathy" more than once and eliminate the excess usage of that word. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for ridicule or sarcasm. We may need to do that to some extent. I notice area69 doing that by replacing homeopathy with 'it.' Your suggestion isn't a response. If you are not willing to discuss this that is fine. I ask for editors who were willing to discuss the paragraph. Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Your proposal was not to use the same word more than once in a paragraph. I pointed out a word that is continually used more than once in a paragraph. I'm a bit taken aback by adopting your suggestion, only to be attacked for doing so. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. I think its a good rule to follow. In some cases it may be unavoidable. Anthon01 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That formulation is unacceptable, since saying that homeopathy has "no plausible mode of operation" is incorrect. The scientific consensus is that homeopathy operates through the placebo effect. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide the reference that says this. Anthon01 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with reducing the length of the scientific criticism section of the lead without also reducing the overall length of the lead. Too-vigorous a pruning may reduce the apparent weight of the section within the lead, implying a reduced weight to the criticism. The current ratio (3 sentences to 14 total, by my count, and 1 paragraph out of four) seems about right. The rest of the lead could do with a little trimming also, so this isn't a big problem. LinaMishima (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. That said, sometimes one sentence could balance 10 others. Anthon01 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Category - according to Wiki policy
Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to this criterion, this article should carry the Pseudoscience tag, for three reasons: 1) the underlying theory is ac hoc and undemonstrated; 2) the underlying theory and practice are both unsupported, and indeed contradicted, by science, although practioners claim the method is scientific; and 3) the great majority of scientific sources have attested to the pseudoscientific character of homeopathy. Thank you for using WP policy to clarify this contentious issue, Arion. Also: as an interested party, shouldn't you recuse yourself from editing this article? Naturezak (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any connection between your three arguments and the policy cited? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident that homeopathy is pseudoscience; according to this policy, the Pseudoscience tag is appropriate.Naturezak (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were self-evident, there wouldn't be so much discussion. I think "self-evident" is meant to be more like Mars is self-evidently a "Planet of the Solar System". --Art Carlson (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be just as surprised to find people dipusing the planetary status of Mars, as I *am* to find people objecting to the labeling of homeopathy as pseudoscience. Homeopaths claim that their method achieves unverified results according to physically incredible means. The retreat from initesimals to "water memory" is ad hoc, but advocates continue to claim this is just science we don't know yet. Nothing I've read -- and I've read volumes on the subject -- and nothing I've seen on this discussion page contradicts this basic characterization. If the term "pseudoscience" is to be reserved for methodlogies which claim to be scientific but which are not, homeopathy must be one of those.Naturezak (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and be surprized, but don't go into denial. The term "pseudoscience" is not "to be reserved for methodlogies which claim to be scientific but which are not". It is reserved for topics that, as established by reliable sources, "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". --Art Carlson (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for 2 sections on scientific research
I have started a new section, so as not to engage in a "style of debating" that changes the subject right in the middle of a debate.

(1) this analogy was only dealing with chemical composition (not whether an "Enya CD" visually looks the same as a blank CD).
 * I believe that the best way to improve the article is to discuss changes before they are made to the article. Most editors who have commented on this page in the last 7 weeks have been adament that there is no evidence that higher potencies (above 12C) have any biological effects. If we can just get over that hurdle, then we will have some grounds for respect for homeopathy and a greater chance for fairness and neutrality in the editing and improvement of this article.
 * I agree that a section entitled "Scientific research into the efficacy (effectiveness) of homeopathic treatment" is better wording.
 * I agree that a section entitled "Scientific research into the method of action" is a good idea.
 * I stand by my analogy about the 2 CDs, since the argument as to why homeopathy should not be taken seriously (and should be insulted with the label "pseudoscience") has been repeated numerous times on the basis that it's only water, and chemical analysis will reveal only water (above 12C potency). I wrote an analogy this morning of 2 CDs that are chemically identical, yet one can be a blank and another can have encoded upon it an entire library of data. My response to comments about that analogy is:

(2) True, the mode of encoding CDs involves heat; my chemical composition analogy was not dealing theories about the potential mode of transmission in homeopathic preparations. I merely was pointing out that the 2 CDs are chemically identical (which has been one argument used against homeopathy).

(3) Regarding the objection that water as a soluent in "potentization" (dilution & succussion) is not solid and a CD is solid: in the 21st century most of us understand how matter actually is not as "solid" as previous concepts of the last century supposed.

There are considerable numbers of research studies that have been and are being performed in other countries that have yet to be translated into English. Unfortunately, there are very few recent ones in English. The ones that have been done have often been flawed in their design.

For example, in the 2005 meta-analysis that everyone is pointing to, the reality is that all these trials were not structured according to the well established principles of homeopathy. Just look at the Shipley, Jenkins et al, trial 11 that was the most negative for homeopathy: Rhus tox 6x was tested for osteoarthritis and found to have no effect. What everyone needs to know is that Rhus tox is almost never used by homeopaths in osteoarthritis cases (more for rheumatic problems or fibrositis). Other remedies like Causticum, one of the Kali remedies, one of the Calcarea or Natrum remedies might have been considered, but not Rhus tox. This is as wrong as a medical doctor prescribing a muscle relaxant for "pink eye", finding there was no effect, and concluding that mainstream medicine is ineffective. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to what standard are *any* principles of homeopathy "well-established?" Standards of efficacy, standards of verifiability, standards of truth, standards of accord with scientific theory? Naturezak (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Arion is refering to individualisation of the treatment for the patient involved. Trials can be designed to include this, but it raises costs to that of an entire 'pharmacopoeia' worth of remedies and placebos. To be honest, that is exactly the sort of trial that is need, but is rarely if ever performed. LinaMishima (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any scientific basis for claiming that "individualisation" is a neccessary component of homeopathic therapy? Certainly the molecules purportedly involved in homeopathic preparations don't have any way of knowing whether the dilution was administered perfunctorily or in the context of a properly long and deep patient-homeopath relationship. As DrEightyEight says, this is just a shifting of the goalposts and is no substitute for answering the question. Naturezak (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They claim that you need to individualise as there are often a number of different underlying problems, and that's what matters. To not allow this will cause claims of bias. When testing someone's claims, one should allow the fullest extent of the claims to be used that does not then render the testing process biased or otherwise flawed. In this case, individualisation can be allowed when doing a randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial, as all it would require is that each homeopathic remedy in their stock have a number of different copies which may or may not be the placebo, but an allocation list is used to ensure that a given patient gets entirely placebo or entirely remedy. The aim is to test the full extent of their claims, and if one can do so and still get viable results, it should be done. LinaMishima (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You get directly to my question, then: is there any scientific basis to the claim that homeopathy is ineffective EXCEPT when individualized? For that is the corollary implied. Naturezak (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a plausible basis to individualisation, and it is used to a degree in conventional medicine (pharmacogenetics, contra-indications, and so on). Most large non-individualised studies do not show in favour of homeopathy. Anyhow, don't ask me, I'm not a homeopath or even someone who believes it can work. I simply don't see a problem in designing a study that allows for individualisation and hence removes a common complaint about studies into the effectiveness or otherwise. LinaMishima (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think individualised trials have been conducted, and mentioned here. They showed no effect if I recall correctly. But whatever you do the goalposts get moved. I think the two sections idea is very bad. There should be a scientific analysis section, and it should be balanced (ie, give more weight to the predominant scientific view) --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Potencies above 12C, it must be noted, have only animal studies at most to show efficacy. Sadly many smaller studies in humans have failed to follow proper scientific methodology, and small sample sizes are always advised against, and as such meta-analyses have to eventually either set these aside or correct for their bias (which can also be towards placebo, of course). For details on correcting for this, see the BMJ article once more. I will agree that it is wrong for large studies to be conducted in a manner which prevents normal homeopathic treatment, however the only change this can do to the result is to change it to inconclusive, not to a supportive result.
 * Regarding your CD analogy, your second and third points clearly displayed a lack of understanding of the arguments as to why it is a poor comparison and why it is strongly believed that no known method of action exists and is supported by science. It's a complex area to understand though, and your key point - that it is not all just about the molecules, was understood. I shall have a think to see if I can figure out a better one (I doubt it is possible, however, but I will try).
 * What we need is for the pro-science group to accept that studies currently do not completely rule out any possible result (which I think they will generally accept), but also for the pro-homeopathy group to accept that currently, quality studies do not rule substantially in favour yet either and many indeed (but not all) point towards it simply being placebo. Both sides need to agree that the important aspects here are the extended patient time and the placebo effect, and these do have a strong, measured and proven effect. Both sides also need to agree that current studies are not large enough, not methodological enough and not in keeping with certain claims enough to allow any complete conclusion to be drawn. Homeopathic supporters must also agree that whilst there is speculation on a possible method of action, no speculation as of yet matches with our current understanding of science, hence rendering them implausible. All sides must also agree that research is ongoing from both conventional medical researchers and homeopaths.
 * The article itself would do best focusing upon the history of homeopathy, its cultural impact, and the ethical issues that have arisen in recent years, rather than any supposed evidence or method of action (which will need mention, however should not become the entirety of the article). LinaMishima (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Okay, let me put it this way: Say I have two CDs, one blank, one Enya (what the hell). What test can be performed to determine which is which? Easy. Put them in a CD drive which can read them. If you go beyond consumer-level technology, you can test the CDs to show that one has an array of pits scored into it while the other doesn't. It's simple and known how they differ, and we have technology that can handle it.


 * Now, let's say I have two samples of water. One I poured out of the tap. The other is 15C diluted whatever (diluted with tap water for consistency), succussed in a glass bottle (and whatever other ritual is necessary). How would you tell the difference between the two? Even if you agree to the homeopaths' contention that this will treat some condition, it's at best a statistical effect (and small at that). So having people drink from these samples won't do much good. What else could be done?


 * Look at this another way: We developed CD technology which stores information on a disc in a certain manner. We also then developed technology which could read this information when encoded in this specific manner. Now, for homeopathy, the method supposedly stores information in water in some manner, but no technology was created in order to read this information. Instead, it's fed directly to a human. What is the chance that the human body was pre-made able to somehow understand this information and then know exactly what to do to treat certain conditions? What mechanism in the human body does this information reading and then translates this into a cure for whatever ailment is appropriate?


 * If you don't mind, I would appreciate some answer beyond "We don't know how it works, but look at [studies, provings, etc.], it does! We've gone over repeatedly already why no study has shown convincing evidence for Homeopathy. What I'm asking here is specifically how it is supposed to work, not whether it works. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this the right forum? As is obvious, the physics and chemistry at work here is not understood by supporters of homeopathy. You have seen that I have already written a long debunk on this earlier, but I would rather leave this topic be. A wikipedia talk page does not exist to convert or save people, it exists to help the article. I suspect that discussing this in depth will not help improve the article, and will only aggravate homeopathy supporters and make them less willing to co-operate as they will feel persecuted. If you want to do that, fine, just do it elsewhere. LinaMishima (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did go a bit far there, but my goal was simply to try an alternative explanation for why the analogy doesn't work. The only way I could see it being made to work was if the human body could somehow play the role of the CD player, so I asked how that might be. This is getting a bit far from the article, granted, but it does tie back in eventually once you untangle all the threads that led here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Response I agree with Lina that this page is not for such general discussions. I have been trying for 7 weeks to suggest specific proposals to improve the article, have it discussed, and then hopefully act upon an agreed consensus.

However, I will respond to Infophile's point about human physiology responding to diluted substances. Mainstream medicine is using that principle all the time in vaccinations and allergy shots. The only difference is the dilution levels and lack of succussion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, there are more differences. In vaccinations (lumping in allergy shots), the amount of the substance is small but detectable. You can run tests to detect whether it's there outside of the human body. Additionally, the mechanism through which these work is well-known and documented. In homeopathic preparations past ~12C, there's nothing there but water, there's no way to detect the difference, and there's no known mechanism for action. Certainly, if you were to continue to dilute vaccinations, they would stop working. This apparently isn't true for homeopathic remedies. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are such massive differences between vaccinations, allergy desensitisation and homeopathy that to say it is the same principle is completely false (similar, maybe). Vaccinations use small does to prevent too strong an immune response, but must use enough to ensure that an immune response occurs. Allergy desensitisation starts with small doses and gradually builds up the levels applied to cause the body to accept the triggering material as normal and not a hazard. It also must work with a measurable amount of the triggering material. And it must be stressed, there are other forms of allergy treatment that work in different ways. With both of these, the entire chemical and biological process is completely and thoroughly understood, and based upon a measurable but controlled dose of the substances in question. The immune system is really quite fascinating, I recommend you read into how it works. LinaMishima (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Err the two CDs would not be chemically identical. Assuming you meant bulk manufactured CDs rather than home recorded ones (which would be comparatively easy to tell apart) the different surface areas introduced by pitting vs non pitting would produce chemical differences over time. Hard to detect mind.Geni 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In our clinic, I have for the last 27 years been using homeopathic remedies (at 6C to CM levels) to desensitize patients who have allegies - successfully. Homeopathy is really quite fascinating, I recommend you read into how it works. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) What is your control group? 2) Why are you editing this article if you have a pro-homeopathy POV? 3) Why should we believe anything you say? 4) Why do you think a talk page is a forum for general discussion of an article's subject? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1), no control group is needed to use a therapy, only to determine its true effectiveness. If it works it works, what matters more are the ethics of the presentation and the rest of the practice. 2) and 3) are perhaps reasonable points (although 3 can be applied to everyone). We are all somewhat guilty of 4). LinaMishima (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It still stands however that the differences are real and significant. I have read into homeopathy, there is no means for it to work, but it can appear to work (which may or may not be homeopathy working). As long as your patients are benefiting from this, and you are acting ethically (ensuring medical care also occurs, not making dangerous claims, and so on), I have no problem with this at all and might even approve. I would advise that you make a statement on your userpage of the above, just to make sure all editors are clear about your COI. LinaMishima (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It works through the placebo effect! By the way, nice job at rapidly changing the focus of the argument, Arion. One wonders why you might feel the need to do that... --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't vote on NPOV, undue weight, verifiable references, etc. Science is pretty clear.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is so much patent nonsense in here I do not know where to begin. Just because by one measure you see no difference between the blank CD and one with a recording, or a blank bit of audio tape and one with a recording, or levorotary sugar and its enantiamorph dextrorotary sugar, does not mean that is not another measure by which they are different. And of course we have many such methods of determining differences. In the case of homeopathy, we have no such methods of determining differences, and have no hope of developing such methods of determining differences, and have never had such methods of determining differences. A HUGE difference. Of course, if I taste the blank CD and the nonblank CD, they might taste the same, but if I use a CD player, I have a method that shows they are different. And where is the evidence that a glass of pure water and a glass of 10M homeopathic remedy are different? We have looked and looked and looked, and no one has been able to confirm a difference. So until there is some way found to confirm a difference in a repeatable mensuration event, as far as we can tell, there is no difference. You are welcome to invent such a method of course, but that is WP:OR and until you get it published in a WP:RS, we cannot include it here. But thanks anyway.--Filll (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Carpe diem
We have been blessed with a week of protection. Would anybody like to use it constructively? My suggestion is to see to what extent we agree on what Wikipedia policy and guidelines say in the category issue. You may believe that the policy is misguided, or that there are good reasons to deviate from it in this case, and we may ultimately disagree about how to apply it, but shouldn't we at least be able to agree on what it is? I would like to ask the other editors a few questions: Of course we don't agree on these points, but since they are all taken directly from policies, guidelines, or ArbCom decisions, I would really like to hear whether the critics are not aware of these points or honestly read them differently. Thanks. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we agree that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to add content, in this case the pseudoscience category?
 * Do we agree that proof in Wikipedia always means reliable sources? ("End of discussion" is not a valid argument.)
 * Do we agree that it is required to show not merely that "some critics allege [homeopathy] to be pseudoscience", but that it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"?


 * I don't disagree with any of those points, however, they must be applied evenly and across the board. Specifically on the third point, we must also agree that it is required to show not mereley that "one study showed an effect" but rather that "the scientific community acknoledged an effect through multiple studies." The problem here is with anecdotal reference to individual studies of questionable merit and accuracy. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Poupon, with respect to showing an effect and anecdotal references. Please elaborate based upon the evidence. LinaMishima (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Over and over again the response to meta-studies and well referenced respected journals saying things has been "This article in substandard-journal-nobody-publishes-in-impact-factor-0 says that in a controlled study on three dudes in india Homeopathy WORKED TO RELIEVE HEAD PAIN." PouponOnToast (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, thank you. I became confused over the assumptions needed to understand your otherwise sensible point. My apologies. LinaMishima (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When attempting dispute resolution it is advisable to avoid loaded questions. In your framing of the questions, you suppose that the burden of proof lies with proving that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. However, this has been done repeatedly and extremely strongly. Those sources which do not state this explicitly state the definition of pseudoscience. The burden of proof now is on the homeopathic community to prove that it is not a pseudoscience. Please see my earlier posts on this matter, which feature complete logic that I am not going to replicate here. Furthermore, it is unclear if you are intending this to apply for only the categorisation, or for the entire article in general. A far less loaded and more neutral set of questions may be formed, and other questions still may be asked, and until this is done, this section will be nothing but another addition of fuel to the fire, never intended to reach any form of compromise. LinaMishima (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... comment please. According to WP, "Pseudoscience is any alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific but does not adhere to the scientific method", right? So, in order for homeopathy to be labelled "pseudoscience", we would have to find that both:
 * A) homeopathy claims to be scientific or made to appear scientific, and
 * B) homeopathy doesn't adhere to the scientific method.

Right? I just want to know if there is agreement NOT on what the answer to the question "Is h. pseudoscience?" is, but to what one has to show to label something pseudoscience.


 * Second, in point A), above, what does "scientific" mean: already verified by science, OR verifiable (if the right studies were done) and (somehow), plausible ... (OR, something else)? (point B above is quite a bit more specific than A: "adheres to the scientific method").

For starters. Friarslantern (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Point A is weakly defined because it does not encompass only one set of actions, but rather a list of possible indications that, in conjunction with each other, form the appearance of the trappings of science. Obviously if something is already verified by science, it has had to adhere to scientific methods at some point and hence is not pseudoscience. Verifiability is another odd one, since one can put forth a verifiable claim (heals people better than placebo) but then refuse to test this claim according to the scientific method. Good indications that something appears to be a science are qualifications, some form of testing and studying (remember, for this step quality does not matter, that is for B to determine), a proposed method of action, professional conferences, the publication of journals about the subject, claims of evidence based work (evidence based work may or may not follow the scientific method), an insistence upon your members being of equal status to those within another scientific profession, an insistence of your work being of an equal status to that of other sciences, attempts to persuade government funding bodies for science to fund you (including tax relief), acting in a professional manner based upon knowledge rather than spiritual understanding, arguments that are apparently based upon logic rather than social, moral and spiritual values, the appropriation of terms from scientific fields, the attempt to use the research of other scientific fields to support your own, and so on. It is normally plainly evident when something adopts the trappings of science, and many such groups make life simple by stating that they 'are' a science rather than a belief. LinaMishima (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, "Homeopathy is an effective and scientific system of healing" LinaMishima (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Art. I agree with you. Lina: I am missing the point of this discussion. Is this an attempt to define homeopathy as Psci in order to put that in the article? Please clarify. PT: I generally agree with you also. One objection might to the conclusions of meta-analyses; we would have to look at them with a critical eye, on a case by case basis. Anthon01 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion that has been dredged back up. See my reply to Art for my commentary on their post, my above is with respect to Frairslantern's query as to my previous arguments regarding the definition of pseudoscience and how such an assignment may be challenged. They asked me to clarify the meaning of "appears to be scientific", and so I did. I hope this explains the post and makes the discussion make more sense. It should be noted for the record that the logical basis of the use of the term pseudoscience to describe the opinions of prominent critics (and arguably the scientific profession as a general whole) has yet to be challenged properly. Again, see my previous posts on this matter for the three grounds upon which a challenge may be based before attempting to do so. LinaMishima (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For more information on my previous arguments, please see this section, which states the arguments at least twice and they received only a cursory challenge (a request for evidence that homeopathy claims to be scientific). LinaMishima (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd already read through your comments before asking my question. I don't see how that helps us write anything in the text. I can see how it might support the inclusion of the category tag, but besides that I'm not sure what else. Anthon01 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon please rememer to sign your posts more often. Smith Jones (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

@PouponOnToast: I note your agreement on the category issue. On the issue of using secondary sources, I agree with you strongly. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

@LinaMishima (and partially @Friarslantern): I know my questions are a bit loaded and I apologize. I barely have enough time to follow this discussion, much less craft my contributions to the degree I would like. At the present I am only concerned with the pseudoscience category (and perhaps the closely related questions of the pseudoscience info box and "categorical" statements in the text that homeopathy is a pseudoscience). I gather from your response and previous posts that you agree with my first two points, although you are afraid they might be misinterpreted. I am afraid we disagree substantially on the third. My reading of policy is that we are not called upon to determine whether homeopathy really is pseudoscience, which seems to be the thrust of your posts, but rather to determine who holds it to be pseudoscience. Do you understand the distinction I am trying to make? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contaminations should be mentioned when discussing extreme dilutions
If you repeatedly dilute some substance over and over again, you don't end up with pure water containing none of the molecules of the substance for a trivial reason: (purified) water will still contain all sorts of molecules at extremely low concentrations. I think that CO2 will be the largest contaminant, but you can expect to find many atoms of virtually all the stable elements of the periodic table in a litre of the purest sample of water that can be made. :) Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst this is a very true point, and indeed similar arguments cause trouble with any attempt to use 'information' concepts to explain homeopathic methods of action, this is not something we can simply mention.
 * Firstly, WP:V must be met, we will need a source discussing the contamination of common homeopathic solvents. I actually went looking for one earlier today, and failed to find a simple chart of the impurities for distilled water! I would have thought such a chart would be common, but apparently not. We would also ideally need a source discussing how this relates to the claims of homeopaths.
 * Secondly, homeopaths make no claim that I am aware of that no contaminants exist (indeed, some rely on contaminants from test tubes to explain the actions!). Without a verifiable source stating how this aspect causes problems for the homeopath's claimed effects, and without a claim from homeopaths as to the purity of their remedies, such an insertion would be a simple breach of NPOV and NOR (for we would have to speculate unfairly with regards to the opinions of homeopaths). LinaMishima (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:LinaMishima raises a good apoint. hwoever I think that we are focusing too heavily on Internet sourcs. While they are easily verifiable and very numerous, a lot of them have extremely large oversights such as the one he or she mentioned bbove. I am planning to go to a nearby homoeoeopathic library in a few days and I will try and look for the informaiton that has been requested. Hopefully its they're or I can find it their somewhere. Smith Jones (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between an oversight, and an absence. The most likely cause for not finding the chart was not that sources overlooked it, but that I, no longer versed in the study of chemistry, was not looking in the best place (I really wanted a chemist supplier's data sheet). LinaMishima (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i never siad that the sources were absent, only that it might have been overlooked by Internet sources that you looked at that where focused on another aspect of chemistry. if you or anyone can find an Internet source sthat covers this, that would be fabuluos but while you are doing that then I see no reason why I should nto look for a print sources that does ot the sexact same thing. Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that one has to do some literature research to find appropriate sources to back up everything what we write here. However, a simple source about trace contaminations in distilled water would suffice if we just want to mention that 100% pure water does not exist in practice without making any statements about homeopathy. This article mentions the extreme dilutions quite a few times, and people can then wrongly get the impression that it is possible in practice to make a solution that contains less than a single molecule of a given substance with almost 100% probability.

Many people (even many scientists) would be surprised if you told them that there could exist superheavy stable isotopes of some common heavy elements, like e.g. gold at concentrations of one part in 10^14 or so. See e.g. this article and the refs in there. This is a rather persistent unawareness that I've encountered. Count Iblis (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
I came here from Requests for arbitration and expected to see a mess. In my view, Homeopathy is not bad.....I congratulate all the editors who have worked on this article. Sure, there is room for improvements, but I see there are hard-working editors here making good faith attempts to improve the article. Keep up the good work. I also see that there are some real POV warriors here who are making much noise but contributing little towards constructive editing. Some editors either need to take a break from this topic or else calm down and take a step away from belief that their "side" must win the edit war. My advice is that editing center on making >95% of the article be devoted to well-referenced description of the history and practice of homeopathy. This includes both critical scientific studies aimed at placing homeopathy into the perspective of conventional evidence-based medicine and on-going sympathetic attempts by alternative medical practitioners to find ways to assess what they view as the full complexity of their approach.....a complexity, and concern for individualization that is hard to fit into the rather limited structure of conventional scientific studies. I suggest that <5% of the article be devoted to the contentious debate topics that animate this discussion page. The criticisms of homeopathy must be included, but they cannot prevent Wikipedia readers from obtaining an understanding of the practice of homeopathy. Present the evidence in a clear fashion and then step back. "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions". --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies on undue weight and fringe theories make it explicitly clear that we are NOT to try to balance the findings of actual science with "alternative medicine" or what homeopaths have decided their "theory and practice" is (which keeps changing in order to sidestep criticisms, so cannot be pinned down) or other gobbledygook. Do the rules mean anything around here, or are we just going to get a parade of "uninvolved" editors who are suspiciously sympathetic to homeopathy arguing for yet another new set of rules for every single article? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most "uninvolved" commentators are not basing their opinions on what the article should or should not contain on verifiable or reliable research. Rather they are presenting an opinion based on their own limited understanding and knowledge: a regrettable situation that has arisen on Wikipedia where people feel qualified to comment on articles without researching the content first. This just means we have to be extra dilligent in explaining this pseudoscience with impeccible sourcing and exquisite prose so that it is beyond any "uninvolved" reproach. Imagine something coming to intelligent design and saying, "The criticisms of intelligent design must be included, but they cannot prevent Wikipedia readers from obtaining an understanding of practice of intelligent design." Such a person would be dismissed out-of-hand as not being based on reliable, verifiable sourcing. We need an article so ironclad that we can dismiss such comments out-of-hand. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which is never going to happen if homeopaths can edit the article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's sidestep the controversial stuff, and simply point out that any article that's currently locked down for a week, soon after having been locked down for several months, and I think there was another full protection in between the two must count as a mess. I think that it's actually far rarer for ANYONE to be able to edit it than for it to be unlocked of late.Adam Cuerden talk 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * undue weight. I'm not sure of the relevance of the comments from Randy about "undue weight" (above). If we were editing at AIDS then we would be concerned about "undue weight" when we tried to decide how much to say about the use of homeopathic remedies for treating HIV infections...I think the AIDS and HIV articles get the balance between conventional treatments and homeopathy right (based on the available clinical evidence). However, Wikipedia readers who come to Homeopathy need to be provided with a factual description of the history and practice of homeopathy. The "findings of actual science" do not provide most of the material that can inform the Wikipedia reader about what constitutes the history and practice of homeopathy. Yes, part of the history and practice of homeopathy is shaped by "findings of actual science" and that influence must be described in the article. Again, I think the current version of the article gets the balance about right, although I think there is some room for improvement. Randy is free to feel that the practice of homeopathy is "gobbledygook", but such sentiments cannot be allowed to prevent us from providing Wikipedia readers with a full account of the practice of homeopathy. suspiciously sympathetic. My sympathies lie with the Wikipedia reader who deserves an informative article about homeopathy. The views of critics of homeopathy constitute only a small part of the story of homeopathy. I find it disturbing that a Wikipedia editor would be suspicious of a fellow editor who has only called for the Wikipedia Homeopathy article to continue to emphasize the history and practice of homeopathy. The expression of such suspicion suggests that there might be some alternative goal for some editors such as hijacking the Homeopathy article in an effort to turn it into Criticisms of homeopathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The views of critics of homeopathy constitute only a small part of the story of homeopathy." Ludicrous! First of all, there is no factual way to describe what homeopathy actually is or how it is supposed to work from a credulous perspective, because the proposed mechanism for how homeopathy works is constantly changing in order to deflect criticism. On this talk page alone, there are 20 different ad-hoc explanations for how homeopathy is supposed to work. Second, the point of a page on something whose only real importance is as a scam is to talk about it as a scam--how it arises, why people believe it, what its legal status is. Talking about homeopathy as an actual medical practice would be like writing a page on Nazi racial theories devoted solely to a meticulous and uncritical recapitulation of Nazi racial theories and not making the effect of those theories on history the major focus. 128.172.158.104 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, JWSchmidt (can I call you JWS), thanks for bringing a logical, rational and intelligent understanding of what this article is about. I agree with you that this article should describe what is and the history of Homeopathy.  However, the one area of undue weight that we must not allow to happen is that the article makes any description that it actually works from a medical standpoint.  If the Homeopathy promoters and believers want to make a description of a dilution that is essentially distilled water has any clinical effect, then undue weight requires us to place the huge bulk of references that state that it doesn't.  That's where the problem arises.  I agree a fork to Criticism of Homeopathy is a great idea, and it will shorten this article (I can grab a cup of coffee waiting for it to load).  So, if the Homeopathy promoters are wiling to have an article that describes the history of it along with what it is, and include NO clinical effects of it, then we can move on with a short section on criticism, with most of it being moved to a POV fork.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment "people feel qualified to comment on articles without researching the content first" (above) seems at least partially directed at me and I take it as a failure on the part of ScienceApologist to assume good faith. I've edited Wikipedia for enough years to shrug off and not take personally such non-constructive talk page commentary, but I find it disturbing that any new participant at a Wikipedia talk page discussion would be "greeted" with such a lack of good faith. ScienceApologist, you have no understanding of the depth of my knowledge and experience on this topic. Your apparent effort to label me as ignorant and poorly informed seems motivated by your an over-ridding desire to push your personal biases and POV. Such "greetings" seem characteristic of editors who are self-conscious about the nature of their POV pushing and who over-compensate by having to attack anyone who is not on their "side". Are you trying to imply that Wikipedia cannot include information on any topic that is not supported by "research". What kind of research are you talking about? The policies you link to are about the kind of research into sources that all Wikipedians engage in, but the tone of your comment seems to suggest that you would prefer that scientific research results determine the content of Wikipedia articles. Are you trying to suggest that Wikipedia cannot describe alternative medical practices unless scientific research shows them to meet some standard of efficacy? Are you trying to say that if a subject includes pseudoscientific elements then Wikipedia no longer has an obligation to write an article that fully informs the reader about the topic....we are in some way to stop, put up a sign that says "pseudoscience" and say our work is done? Please explain exactly what you are trying to say because your comments sound like you are only interested in placing the label "pseudoscience" on homeopathy rather than providing a neutral article that describes the full complexity of the subject. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that you haven't engaged this editor before? The sign goes up at the front door, before the reader gets a chance to be invited in. Anthon01 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not that it is an alternative medical practice, but that many sources and supporters insist that it is a scientific one, a definition which carries a certain weight to it and requires certain methods to be followed, which homeopathy in general does not do and is well documented as such. Acupuncture, Hydrotherapy, Reflexology, and Reiki do not claim to be sciences at all, unlike homoepathy. Even if we avoid calling homeopathy a science, we do run the risk of readers making assumptions based upon its obvious trappings of science, such as the concept of homeopathic proving. That is why I have suggested downplaying such material, so that false assumptions are not made. The general article as it stands is in a reasonable state, however I would like to see an expanded history, a reduction in the length of detail regarding preparation and provings, more focus on the non-remedy parts of treatment, and a better ethics section. Some material from the current science section may be moved to more appropriate sections, the two research sections can also be combined and shortened but also talk of the value of placebo effect added.
 * Please remember that the whole big debate here has been over simply the category, an infobox, and the wording of the lead. Regarding the lead section, it is intended to be a summary of the entire material present, and as such efficacy and ethics will need to be mentioned as these are real aspects of the subject at hand. LinaMishima (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * for the editor from "128.172.158.104": Is your proposal that most of the history and practice sections in the Homeopathy article be removed, basically just leaving a statement saying that homeopathy is a medical scam? --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "the one area of undue weight that we must not allow to happen is that the article makes any description that it actually works from a medical standpoint" <-- I'm in favor of basing claims for efficacy on published evidence. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Published by who? Homeopathic journals post all positive papers, many of which rely on anectodal evidence. "It works because my patients feel better!" is not science, yet it is a claim of efficacy in published evidence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Note that there is nothing wrong in stating that it makes patients feel better, that is of course a good thing. Medical efficacy (as opposed to perhaps spiritual or some form of happiness efficacy) should be defined by the same measure that the medical industry uses (or should use) - quality trials in peer-reviewed journals. LinaMishima (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Homeopathic journals post all positive papers" isn't true. I'm with you JWS. A number of well meaning editors, I suspect unknowingly, use WP:OR to support their positions. I also think your recommendation that the article needs to be about homoepathy first. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "How big is the problem of publication bias in alternative medicine? Well now, in 1995, only 1% of all articles published in alternative medicine journals gave a negative result. The most recent figure is 5% negative. This is very, very low." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2 SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Proposal to improve things
I think before this becomes any worse, we need to come up with some rules of engagement, considered widely by the entire community interested in these things. Adam Cuerden proposed an Arbcomm ruling, which might not happen at this writing, by all appearances. As an alternative, I suggest that we consider convening a mediation and work on forging a Memorandum of Understanding or comparable document that all can sign on to, and then display as evidence of community consensus on homeopathically related article talk pages. Editors arguing tendentitiously and disruptively against the MoU would then be subject to normal administrative penalties. Hopefully we could come to some agreement and compromise about how to handle this situation so we can all be productive instead of fighting each other.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I was trying for when I proposed that people all find in agreement of the following statements of fact:
 * There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
 * In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
 * Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
 * The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
 * Regardless of how homeopathic remedies may or may not work, extended patient contact combined with a strong placebo effect (on top of or in place of any actual effect) are good things that have real benefit to a patient
 * Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
 * A few organisations also talk about more spiritual aspects of homeopathy and how it can cause spiritual healing as well as physical
 * Homeopathy exists as a CAM
 * Homeopathy has a strong and interesting history
 * Homeopathy exists within modern culture and does benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)
 * Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths
 * At the time I considered these a fair mix of scientifically accurate points and those which respected the value that homeopathy does have within the modern world and understanding of the history of medicine. You will note that this list is a little refined compared to the previous posting. I think the above list may serve as a basis for an agreement of shared understanding. LinaMishima (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to sign that list, but I don't see what good it's going to do. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By everyone agreeing to a list of facts, we gain a common ground to work from and hopefully we can stop debating the contents of the list (which we do a lot) and focus the debate upon the article itself. Plus, having us all agree on something, anything would be a nice change :P LinaMishima (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd sign up to it. I do have a reservation about the "extended contact" point though. I don't think it's good to lie to or mislead patients, even if it makes them feel better. Professional medical doctors in the UK certainly aren't aloud too. But this is a pedantic point, as your point doesn't mention claiming it will help for any reason other than positive belief. So, in a roundabout way, yes I agree to all the points. Misleading patients is probably under ethics anyway, and left out of other sections to get most support - and that's probably a good thing. A mention of the significant body of evidence showing no effect beyond placebo is probably going to cause pro-homs to not sign, despite it being true (Edit Conflict) --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that you are saying, but that can be dealt with elsewhere, it really is an ethical issue. It is my hope that the acknowledgement of some positive results will help them feel included within these statements of fact. LinaMishima (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, this should be "*Homeopathy ... appears to benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)" -- this would include perceived or inferred psychological benefits. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Psychology is the basis, as I understand it, of the patient placebo effect (rather than the reviewer placebo effect, the expectation in a reviewer of data of good results), and the placebo effect does cause measurable changes. That is why I selected that wording, since it is basically/generally/effectively true, and it is more likely to win the support of the pro-homeopaths in this form. LinaMishima (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, but that's OR. There's no such thing as spiritual healing, so if you want that POV in there, it's back to arguing.  CAM doesn't exist, that's just terminology non-scientists use to insist that it is medicine and science (kind of like Creation Science.  So all that is being proposed is how to get Homeopathy promoter's POV placed in the article.  Thanks, but really, we've been down that path.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BUT, everything else you propose is outstanding. Delete the garbage about faith, CAM and placebo effects, and I'm on board.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about anything spiritual. I was referring to nothing more than the Placebo effect and Counseling with the line regarding those benefits (and as you know, those are real and do make a difference). The other line regarding homeopathy's spiritual claims are claims that some organisations actually make (and are obviously not medical claims). CAM has to be mentioned because that is homeopathy's official designation, however much some people may prefer 'Quackery' for all such things. We cannot declare them otherwise, sadly, without being OR, but we can point out the claims of pseudoscience. LinaMishima (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated below, I accept some of these, agree wholeheartedly with others, and am doubtful about some. For example, my biggest concern is that homeopathy can do harm in that it can stop some people from seeking appropriate medical treatment in a timely way for some time-critical problems. I have other misgivings about this list as well, as it is worded, in a "take it all or leave it all" approach. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, when I read it benefiting "some people" I immediately think of the homeopath who is prospering from prescribing a medication that is essentially water.--Filll (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The harm you talk about is an ethical issue, not one with respect to homeopathic practice done in accordance to most homeopathic organisation's guidelines. So your worry will be covered, however as part of the ethical problems present. LinaMishima (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I think you should clarify this statement "There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience," as Art, Jim Butler, myself and others or as per someone else. We all agree that it fits under Questionable science based on RS. Please clarify this statement. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. We still haven't seen a source which satisfies WP:NPOV/FAQ in terms of calling Homeopathy a "pseudoscience". This term can and is too easily misused for us to treat it any lighter than the criteria which the ArbCom has laid out for us. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How would something like "Critics of homeopathy commonly refer to it as a pseudoscience", coupled with a "Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best" and "Some researchers into homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods" work for you two? We have strong evidence for all three of these. LinaMishima (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Some critics of homeopathy" and "Researchers in homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods" sounds fine. I would have to see references for "Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best" Anthon01 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources of criticism we have detailed here also go into at least passing detail of the failings of homeopathy, and some certainly go much further. It should be noted that for those who know the scientific method well (and hence best able to judge this), it is a trivial act to notice homeopathy's failings, and as such they are rarely published in depth. Such a statement is non-negotiable, as there is plenty of evidence. Rather than dispute this here (as that would only antagonise), let other editors who support this view attempt to find the evidence first. LinaMishima (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I am well versed in the scientific method and recognize areas where the research falls short, but still insisting that no OR is included in the list. If it's not in the source we can't make it up. Additionally, the references on ethics you cited before do not use the word ethics. If we can't find that explicitly stated the word ethics should not be used. If a RS is found for either of these and no OR is required then I am in support of its inclusion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Falls short" is a massive understatement. Ethics is also the appropriate grouping title for all those sources, for it is obviously the common combining factor between them. And I know for certain that some of those documents distinctly did talk of ethics and ethical problems. The below link certainly does. LinaMishima (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still hoping other editors will trawl through sources to help out here, but I have one detailed listing so far by the respected Ben Goldcare " [P] ushing their product relentlessly with this scientific flim-flam" (flim-flam, literally deception). Please do not take this quote at face value, read the article and how he carefully details before this point the practices of homeopaths in comparison to clinical doctors. LinaMishima (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your or my estimation of Homeopathy's research shortfalls doesn't count. If the sources say it then we are fine. I also went through the BBC links and didn't find one mention of the word ethic. Anthon01 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources are documenting the research shortfalls well, and similarly "most scientists scoff at current homeopathic practices" (scoff, "Treat with contemptuous disregard"). What would you call what the BBC articles document, then? LinaMishima (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


 * What exactly does LEAD mean?


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

We need all these sorts of things answered and agreed to, or else this will be an infinite argument.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have split this off into a subsection, as I would like to gain agreement to the above list and I don't think having this as a direct part of that discussion helps. With respect to your points, the first one is irrelevant here entirely, as it relates to other articles. The second and third relate to all the dispute we have been having, but we might be able to avoid deep debate over these things as long as everyone remains calm, understanding and accepting (I don't think they are actually being debated, but rather often it is the facts at hand that are the subject of discussion). Similarly with the last point, we can agree on how to use reliable sources by using the most appropriate ones for the subject at hand.
 * Let's see were we can get to without getting bogged down with these sorts of issues again, shall we? LinaMishima (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And along those lines, lets set up a voting structure for the points you list so we can see who signs on and who does not, with a simple 'Accept or Reject if at all possible, and then separate the discussion into another area.--Filll (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * File me in the accept column (not that I've been the most active of editors on this page, mind you). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should note that Fill is suggesting indivual votes on each point, rather than the set as a whole. However I shall keep in mind your opinion of the statements. LinaMishima (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's give it some time for a few more responses first. Additionally, requiring acceptance as a group or as a set of groups would be better than individual approval or disapproval of each one. The set was designed to be approved a set, with certain points being paired with others, and other points being present to reduce the perceived impact of the list for certain people. If there is any individual point you disagree with, please let me know. LinaMishima (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry by the time you posted this I had already completed the strawpoll. The problem is, I agree with some of your points, and not so much with others. So it is a bit problematic. I expect for homeopathy proponents it will be even tougher to accept the whole thing.--Filll (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why it is a collection of points that work together to form the whole. I see your problems were with the existance of some evidence, and with the benefits of the placebo effect. The claims of evidence are mostly with respect to the animal studies Arion 3x3 posted earlier, and I had to accept these in general. In contrast to this point, however, is the stronger statement regarding the weight of evidence being against any effect. I believe that pairing to be an accurate reading of NPOV and WEIGHT, and neither side has their evidence ignored or discounted. As for the benefits of the placebo effect, those are actually matters that some critics like Ben Goldcare stress - that homeopathy is wonderful for having longer patient appointments and causes a good placebo effect. The evidence is there for these points, so we should concede them. It's a good method when negotiating to find such common ground. I agree, of course, that I don't know if the homeopathy supporters will actually accept this list, but I have tried to accommodate them and praise appropriately. We can but hope. LinaMishima (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is moving dangerously toward an editorial method in which consensus is replaced by voting. Naturezak (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It's moving towards a system in which we
 * 1. evaluate the possibility of achieving consensus on a set of starting points, and
 * 2. achieve a consolidated and succinct list of where editors are coming from at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As Sarcasticidealist states, this is not about voting on the article, but agreeing on a common ground to work from. If someone disagreed with a point and was not happy at compromising via having the other points also present, I would work with them to try and find another acceptable wording for everyone. LinaMishima (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no common ground, unfortunately. As long a there are the promoters who "believe" or attempt to convince us that anything based on faith can be "proved", then we aren't going to get anywhere.  According to every section and subjection about NPOV, we can put about 300KB of data about how Homeopathy is junk medicine, and maybe a couple of kb on the history.  That would be neutral and not give undue weight to Homeopathy promoters.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you support the list, though? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have specifically avoided voting on anything here. Verifiability, notability, NPOV, undue weight, fringe theories, all can be confirmed with verification.  No vote is necessary.  This is a bit of pushing us into something that isn't going to work.  We'll still argue about what is science, what is faith, etc.  So, no I don't support the 1RR above, I don't support arbitration or mediation, etc.  I support verifiability, NPOV, etc.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The list needs to define specific things of disagreement with the current text. Those are the points we can work on, and may not be very long. I mean, there are pretty obviously two camps here.  What problems with the article do the anti-homeopaths see?  Or is it just a bulwark defense of what is there now?  What specific criticisms do the homeopaths provide?  Looking backwards, I see lots of words but nothing specific except "MAN THE WHOLE THINGS IS BIASED!!"  We can't answer that and it's not constructive. If the list amounts to "don't put in a pseudoscience category, and can we do XX verbiage in this location" then we can move forward.  SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with OrangeMarlin: there isn't any need for voting here. The problem with the editing of this article, in the six months I have been monitoring it, is that sensible edits are reverted by individuals with COI, and that attempts to secure consensus for those edits afterwards are drowned in discussion by individuals with COI. Naturezak (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's your solution? By which I mean "what should good faith editors and admins do to fix these problems?" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of getting an agreed statement of facts was so that once people had agreed to it, discussions could not be drowned out with disagreements which are covered in the statement of facts. I cannot predict how well it would work, but it does give greater leverage over disruptive members, as their disruption is clearer. LinaMishima (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Please do not use made-up derogatory terms like "allopaths" in an attempt to delegitimize rational, pro-science people.03:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Blackamoor (talk • contribs)
 * It is not derogatory. Anthon01 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that in this entire discussion section the supporters of evidence-based science have been entirely accommodating and generally willing to show compromise by agreeing to the points listed, whilst those who prefer their flim-flam (to quote Ben Goldcare) have mostly attempted to pick further holes in their favour. LinaMishima (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * Actually, when you said "We could take a cue from the Evolution, Intelligent Design (both are FA's) and their assorted articles and just immediatly remove all nonsense" it was pretty transparent that you meant any statement implying a belief in the reality of homeopathy was analogous to a belief in things like creationism. I think that betrays a very clear POV, and that's why this article has such a hard time converging.  You want the article to reflect primarily the POV of the detractors from the topic, rather than just describing the topic on its own terms.  I think NPOV calls for a different balance.  Look at the comment by User:Shot info above, for example; he thinks it's NPOV versus homeopathy; that's just stupid. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if he's not willing to say it, I will. Any believe in the reality of homeopathy is exactly equivalent to a belief in creationism, with all the dishonesty, disconnect from reality, and completely malevolent influence on society that holding such a belief implies. People who believe in either creationism or homeopathy are WRONG, by definition cannot be acting in good faith or be intelligent, and have no place editing any encyclopedia which purports to be a compendium of facts. If you think being told that your obviously incorrect beliefs are incorrect constitutes a "personal attack," then you need to get new beliefs.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * cough* Thats a LOOOOOOOOOOGN stretch and completely wrong.  Shot info (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You would be best served by rereading the policies pages. And perhaps trying to read statements before jumping to conclusions.  But you are right, we totally shouldn't adopt a policy that has lead to two extremely contentious (even more so than this) topics to be promotted to featured article status.  Lets keep up this mess!  Baegis (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * If you want to consider 5 million patient visits insignificant, that's your trip. I realize it's not big, though at one time in America it was close to 1 doctor in 6 that was a homeopath, according to some books I've consulted; in India it's still about there.  I don't think I believe your numbers about people who believe the moon landings were faked; at least, I've never met one of those. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Five million is insignificant compared to one billion. "A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided." That's referenced data according to our own article.  Those are the numbers.  Claiming homeopathy has more support, or calling it significant, is sympathetic bias on your own behalf - not what we base Wikipedia articles on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

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

I present to you my final attempt at wording a statement of fact. The evidence is scattered throughout the talk page and the archives for all these points, and is generally strong and clear. I am afraid that the wording of some has became more harsh, but still within the evidence we have. I am not willing to be so compromising any more, you have had your chance and wasted it: It is possible that some of these points could be toned down, but that will not be through me. I have had it with this subject that has been causing me bad dreams. I doubt this discussion has been much fun for anyone. I realised tonight that life is not about what is not fun, and so I am leaving this discussion. My continuing presence on wikipedia will only be for the sake of the episodes and fictional works discussions, which must be resolved suitably before I will feel comfortable editing any articles here again. I do not care for debate over what I have written here. I understand that you may not like the 'accusations', but they are documented and evident in the previous discussions on the page. Any back-peddling, denial or criticism of these observations will simply be ignored by myself. It should be apparent that I believe that the evidence here shows that no serious discussion is ever actually intended. You may get the last word, but I will still win - for I will be elsewhere, actually enjoying myself and making things of real value happen. I do not wish to be contacted or bothered about this discussion again. I apologise for doing this to those who have acted reasonably and with knowledge of science, especially to Sarcasticidealist and RDOlivaw and doubly so for what I am about to request. If any of my points within any part of this discussion need clarification, I ask that Sarcasticidealist and RDOlivaw be allowed to do so. I trust their views, and their collective opinion is to be my final word. If desired, they may offer a more neutral toned version of the above list, for it was edited in the heat of the moment. They may contact me regarding this, but I request that no-one does. This subject has caused me too much harm as it is, and I wish to withdraw now before further damage is done to well-being that no amount of shaken water could ever fix. LinaMishima (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Critics of homeopathy commonly refer to it as a pseudoscience
 * Homeopathy is regularly claimed to be a science and scientific, including by most notable homeopathic organisations
 * A few organisations also talk about more spiritual aspects of homeopathy and how it can cause spiritual healing as well as physical
 * Homeopathy's claim to be a science is generally questionable at best and fraudulent at worst
 * Homeopathy is widely based off research conducted without the proper scientific method being followed
 * Some researchers into homeopathic techniques are attempting to apply proper scientific methods
 * In general, the vast weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
 * Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
 * The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not remotely plausible within the current understanding of science
 * Regardless of how homeopathic remedies may or may not work, extended patient contact combined with a strong placebo effect (on top of or in place of any actual effect) are good things that have real measurable benefits to a patient
 * Homeopathy exists as a Complementary and alternative medicine
 * Homeopathy has a strong and interesting history
 * Homeopathy exists within modern culture and does benefit some people (regardless of how it benefits)
 * Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths


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

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


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


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


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


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

I thought this was an interesting addition to Lina's list: It addresses the concern of those who see homeopathy as a pseudoscience, but it is formulated as an invitation to document in what way that is true. When asked why they believe homeopathy works, people tend to answer that they have seen or experienced it working, not that they are convinced by the RCTs. The article could report this, and also briefly explain why science discounts anecdotal evidence. Those supporters who do look at the studies tend to place more weight on positive studies than negative. After all, lots of things might go wrong and wash out a real effect, but it only takes one good experiment to prove something. We could report this argument, followed by a brief discussion of false positives, through statistics but also other effects, and publication bias. There are other points that could be brought up, like the reliance on provings that are almost never done double blind. Is there any chance of getting both sides to accept a concept like this? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy is widely based off research conducted without the proper scientific method being followed


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


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


 * I dispute the contention that homeopathy is not practiced as tested in the trials. You can argue your way out by the definition you choose of "qualified homeopath" and "real ... homoeopathy", but the fact is that a lot of practitioners and patients are doing something they call homeopathy that would make Hahnemann turn over in his grave. This diversity is hardly presented in the article but should be. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I made it sound like we diametrically disagree, which we don't. Adding information on diversity also makes it easier to explain why most (not all) existing RCTs do not falsify some forms of homeopathy (i.e. classical/individualized homeopathy), which is what you are after. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Back in the days before most of you were born, the article had a section on Diversity that went like this:
 * There is, and always has been, considerable diversity in the theory and practice of homeopathy. The major distinction may be between what can be called the pragmatic and the mystical approach, but it should be remembered that there are not two distinct groups, but a spectrum of attitudes and practices. An early advocate of pragmatism was Richard Hughes, while the most influential mystic was James Tyler Kent. The pragmatists tend to be open to "whatever works", whereas the mystics tend to rely on the research of one or more authorities. There is still considerable diversity in both camps because the pragmatists usually define "working" based on personal experience and the mystics use various sources as authorities. The pragmatists tend to see homeopathy as complementary medicine and are more willing to co-exist with conventional doctors. Many in fact are conventional doctors. The mystics, some of whom are also conventional doctors, see homeopathy as alternative medicine and have more confidence that homeopathy can be used effectively against all diseases, with the caveat that many potential remedies have not yet been proven. The pragmatists are more likely to be interested in proving homeopathy in the framework of mainstream science. They will talk about the "memory of water" and stimulation of the immune system. The mystics see less need to justify their methods with conventional criteria. For them, homeopathy acts on a vital force that is, so far, not accessible to science. The pragmatists are more likely to prescribe (relatively) low dilutions in multiple doses, and sometimes use more than one remedy at a time. The mystics often use higher dilutions, but generally prefer a single remedy and sometimes a single dose. In the extreme form, pragmatists will even accept over-the-counter homeopathic remedies, but the mystics will always insist on an individual prescription. The mystics may see themselves as "classical" homeopaths, although the historical accuracy of the term may be questionable. The pragmatists see themselves as "scientific", even though they are not accepted by the scientific establishment.
 * This section was not without its flaws and controversy, but it is the sort of thing I think could be added to improve the current version. Actually, there are a number of points in this old version that I have a fondness for but have gotten lost along the way. What's the word from Peter Morrell? Is this close enough to being accurate that it can be fixed up? --Art Carlson (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Explanation of the neutral point of view
I respectfully suggest that all who want this Homeopathy article to be an "anti-homeopathy article" written to convince the reader that a particular view is the correct one read: Explanation of the neutral point of view. Arion 3x3 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest that you click on the link you gave everyone and scroll down a bit to the section entitled Undue Weight. That might help you better understand how this article should be constructed.  Baegis (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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

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


 * Fairness of tone does not seem to be a problem. Other POV aspects, such as emphasing the (few) studies that show (any) effect of the treatment(s) over the many studies that show no effect over placebo, are more of a problem.  And WP:WEIGHT does imply that we should emphasize the majority view (that it's scientifically implausible and unproved by any standard), not the view of the majority of practitioners.  Minority views can receive expanded treatment in alternative articles, but should not be emphazied in the principle article on a fringe subject.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The wording used in WP:WEIGHT is not "emphasize the majority view", but "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint", whereas the minority view itself "may be spelled out in great detail". --Art Carlson (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

COI is irrelevant here, for the most part
I disagree with WP:COI being deployed in this situation. Probably our most valuable asset here is User: Peter morrell, who was a practicing homeopath for many years and now writes, does research and lectures about homeopathy. Without him, we would be in much worse shape on many issues. Except the difference is, Peter knows and understands and works within NPOV and other WP restrictions. And that is the difference. We can have homeopaths here, they just have to play by the same rules as everyone else.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that being a homeopath doesn't preclude you working on this talk page or this article, unless the section is about you or you want to add refs to yourself (ie, normal CoI rules should apply). --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Peter's take on the world of Homeopathy, but he is smart, and understands the history of this field better than anyone on here. As with most experts, they still need to follow the rules of NPOV, etc., which he does.  Whoever brought this up, it is silly.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I raised this issue at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, so we can centralize any discussion there. As it stands, I don't believe there really is a COI issue in this case. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * What? You want a sentence that says that NCCAM reliably reports that some people believe that scientific explanations of homeopathy are not necessary? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was so dismissive. I thought the statement was self-evident, but maybe it isn't. In particular it speaks to the question raised repeatedly here, of whether homeopathy claims to be science (and can therefore be pseudoscience). According to this statement, at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science (and don't care). --Art Carlson (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it now ... Art's irony-frisbee sailed right past what's left of my brain... --Jim Butler(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't see where it says at least some supporters do not think of homeopathy as a science. Some people don't believe that science is all-knowing, therefore they try harmless remedies even though the scientific proof is lacking. If it 'works,' that all the proof they need. There is a whole lot in conventional medicine, that has yet to be proven via RCTs. Medicine goes forward anyway. Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Correction, Jim, it is smaller in the US than practically everywhere else on this planet. Take Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba even, all 'on your doorstep' and all with big homeopathic presence. Great masses of seriously deluded folks. Peter morrell 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) ... yes, agree, bigger outside the US. Quite big in India, isn't it?  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Going back to the main point: As I recall, there used to be a section dealing with the NCCAM in extreme detail - though it may have been another article - but it was very cherry-picking, quoting only the positive statements, leaving out the others. In any case, such a wishy-washy document doesn't seem all that useful, particularly as, reading around the NCCAM pages, one gets the feeling that parts of it are really formulaic - e.g. they seem to be phrased in very similar ways for very different therapies. Adam Cuerden talk 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, Appendix II is interesting - the only unambiguously positive metaanalysis is the Linde 1995 one which the authors later disavowed the results of. Adam Cuerden talk 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam -- yes, it's not so much important to quote NCCAM per se as to somehow fairly represent the minority views they depict (as represented by the last two bullets here). NCCAM is a good source that such views exist, and that they're more than tiny-minority; not suggesting more than that.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on RSN for NSF source
In archived talk, I posted:

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

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


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


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

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


 * Rewind a bit to where this was first raised as an issue: It has to do with the presence or absence of the Pseudoscience category on this article. That's one case where we can't simply note according to whom it's pseudoscience. There was an agreement that if some organization on the scale of the NSF were to declare Homeopathy (or any subject) pseudoscience, then the category would be merited. So the question was, could this instance qualify for that situation? Now, even if not, it's still a matter of debate whether the word of a lesser organization would be sufficient, and what minimum we do set. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very unusual for NSF itself to take a formal position on anything. Even when reporting uncontroversial research that they've sponsored, they couch it in terms like "A recent paper by A.B. Smith and C.D. Jones finds..." A better place to look would be the National Academies of Science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

Throwing in the towel
Well, I've had enough. The last straw was rewarding barnstars to pro-homeopathy editors for not being entirely in the wrong in their harassment and vexatious complaints. This article is off my watchlist. The "probation" nonsense is an utter sham. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, to paraphrase an editor above, "it must be working". ROFL.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Bottom line here, and this is likely not your fault, is that if the barnstar were seen by all as merited, there'd be no dispute: as it is, it has cost us one good editor. Perception can, and often does, outweigh "reality".  The same is true regarding the purpose of the probation.  Did you know that the Charles Darwin article is now on probation?  Unreal, yes?
 * Well, it can get worse. Obviously, we all need to rein ourselves in a bit, but this probation may have some very unintended consequences for WP. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I don't recall saying you did anything wrong in this case.
 * As for jumping the gun, see Administrators%27_noticeboard &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I'm certainly not about to drag this conversation out to extreme lengths. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


 * I quite agree. Both articles that should be in subcategories, and articles in related categories, such as Alternative Medicine, would be placed in the category by this template.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made this change, and then I saw your "this might de-categorise articles we want categorised" comment. I'll leave it up to you what to do, but I think putting it back isn't a good option. Manually cat'ing them seems to be the only option (using what links here, and finding relevant articles?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking "What links here" for the box should get all the ones that should be catted but ain't. Adam Cuerden talk 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)