Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 29

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

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


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


 * Involved admins cannot participate. Anybody who's been editing doesn't get to enforce. Jehochman  Talk 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please pass the poi. Jehochman  Talk 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, let me clarificationalize the electrode. OM made a statement about "anti-science and non-science admins" and you responded with a remark about "involved" admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How would he know who is non- or anti- if they are uninvolved? What am I, for instance?  Everybody is allowed to have a point of view, but those who are engaged in the content disputes will not be enforcing. If enforcement goes against Wikipedia policies, I imagine that those admins will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Science does not own Wikipedia, nor do the  Alt.Med folks. Jehochman  Talk 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And... and... when I start a sentence it ends with the wrong fusebox... serioushly, I think admins with expertise in science should deliberately refrain from editing certain topics, but follow them enough to intervene in an educated way where necessary. But WP's always gonna be a madhouse until it adopts some sort of non-wikiality "gentle expert oversight", as at Citizendium.  And if not, let it be a resource for popular culture, and leave more academic topics to the grownups at CZ.  Only reason I'm still editing here is that I know people read WP, but in some sense that's just "enabling" a dysfunctional system.  --Jim Butler(talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think different wikis have different organizing principles for good reasons. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be anything but what it has always been, but Citizendium may be a better place for some people and Wikinfo for others. Personally I find the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be a strong point and this is the only encyclopedia project I've found worth my participation. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Article probation means that there is a reduced tolerance for violations of Wikipedia's core policies and other policies. Editors who are disruptive can be banned from editing any articles or group of articles where they may be disruptive, or they can be put on revert limitation (e.g. 1RR instead of 3RR), to reduce edit warring. See General sanctions. Jehochman  Talk 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Activity seems to have reduced somewhat since the probation started. A good thing? Probably --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Utterly amazing. De profundis clamavi ad vos scientia prudentiaque!  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * "From the depths I have called to you, O Science, O Reason!" &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Jehochman Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article shows signs of POV pushing. Could we invite people from WikiProject Neutrality to go over it and provide feedback?  Often, when neutrality and citations are improved, the level of conflict can be reduced. I see references to an advocacy site, www.quackwatch.org.  That does not look like a reliable source for anything except their own views.  Could that reference be replaced with a reference to scholarly work that says essentially the same thing?
 * The article seems too long. Can it be reduced through copy editing, or perhaps summary style? Jehochman  Talk 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

In my view, the main problem that has roiled this page is several people who do not want there to be any negative material in the article, such as mainstream views, or do not want there to be negative material in the LEAD, or want to lump all the negative material in one section at the bottom. As far as I am concerned, none of these is acceptable if the article is to meet NPOV and LEAD requirements, and MOS guidelines.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick clarification on your last point: that is a problem with the process by which this article is being edited; I'm more wondering about problems with the article as it currently exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

 * Just what is wrong with quackwatch.org? For what is it an "advocacy site" besides good science and true, verifiable facts? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch appears to be a website controlled by one person, effectively a blog. While the information might be accurate, I see no evidence of independent fact checking.  The site is asking for donations.  This is not the type of site that Wikipedia normal uses as a reliable source.  If you would like a community discussion of Quackwatch, please feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. JehochmanTalk 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

The quackery question in light of anti-immunization
I remain astonished at the lack of willingness to call homeopathy quackery; please help me understand. The article currently states:


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

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


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


 * It is not NPOV to make value judgments. We can list the notable people who say that homeopathy is quackery and cite a sources, such as Quackwatch, to substatiate those statements.  Why is homeopathy quackery?  That conclusion must be based on facts?  We can present those facts in an NPOV way, citing reliable sources, and let the reader decide.  This is actually more effective and more educational.  Telling somebody that homeopathy is quackery is not as good as showing them why homeopathy is quackery.
 * On the other hand, if homeopathy is not quackery, there must also be reasons based on facts that can be cited to reliable sources. Rather than arguing "homeopathy is not quackery", we should be able to substantiate the benefits of homeopathy by citing reliable sources.  Once again, it is up to the reader to decide what they want to believe. Jehochman  Talk 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

At what point does this cross into tendentitious argumentation? Can someone answer that for me?--Filll (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it crossed that line long ago, but I'm so confused by people who are arguing for pseudoscience and not for quackery that I don't know if my opinion is relevant. MilesAgain (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Vaccinations comment unsupported by sources - Break
Sources that indicate vaccine/homeopathy issues of import: et., etc., etc. There's enough meat on these bones to fill in missing references for a claim like: "some homeopathic providers have negative view of vaccination,[refs] and parents that consult with homeopaths have a lower rate of vaccination compliance for their children.[refs] In a few high-profile examples, homeopathic providers have actively discouraged vaccination[refs] and proper prophylactic treatment for malaria.[refs]" &mdash; Scientizzle 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "These data suggest that some providers of complementary medicine are advising people against government policy."
 * Response letter:
 * "Of the non-compliant mothers [in vaccinating children], 32.6% had consulted a homeopath, by contrast with 10.1% of compliers (P=0.001)...The data show that only use of a homeopath was independently associated with non-compliance....The relevance of a belief that immunizations harm the immune system has been noted elsewhere, and our study quantifies a striking influence of homeopathy in this respect."
 * "No homeopath...advised in favour of the MMR vaccination...our study has confirmed previous investigations, suggesting that some CAM providers have a negative attitude towards immunisation, specifically MMR."
 * "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health."
 * : "two homeopathic doctors who oppose the MMR vaccine are being blamed for a measles epidemic in a small German town"
 * "homeopathy...has nurtured irrational anti-vaccine notions such as the idea that immunisation compromises natural immunity and may cause autoimmune disorders, which have spread from a bohemian fringe to acquire mainstream influence in society."
 * "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health."
 * : "two homeopathic doctors who oppose the MMR vaccine are being blamed for a measles epidemic in a small German town"
 * "homeopathy...has nurtured irrational anti-vaccine notions such as the idea that immunisation compromises natural immunity and may cause autoimmune disorders, which have spread from a bohemian fringe to acquire mainstream influence in society."
 * "homeopathy...has nurtured irrational anti-vaccine notions such as the idea that immunisation compromises natural immunity and may cause autoimmune disorders, which have spread from a bohemian fringe to acquire mainstream influence in society."


 * I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. Anthon01 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair assessment at all - over a quarter of the homeopaths in a local area, and half of those who responded, are not a "few high-profile examples" (Ernst reference). It misrepresents the reality. Adam Cuerden talk 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [allow me to cut in here to respond to Adam...] I don't quite like my word choice for that last line, either...how about "studies on the practices of homeopathic providers have found that some actively discourage vaccination.[refs] Newsnight investigations in 2006 revealed homeopths were not recommending proper prophylactic treatment for malaria[refs], resulting in resutling in malaria infections" or something of the like. My previous wording was mushing together a general rate of anti-vaccination with the prominent stings of homeopaths that revealed gems like "[homeopathic treatments] make it so your energy doesn't have a malaria-shaped hole in it so the malarial mosquitos won't come along and fill that in." &mdash; Scientizzle 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Is there some sort of inconsistency with I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. . I am confused here. Can you clear this up?--Filll (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the confusion. Post the text that contradicts I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. Please be explicit. Anthon01 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just dense but I do not understand. There is or is not evidence that some if not many homeopaths oppose vaccination?--Filll (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. Adam said I don't think that's a fair assessment at all - over a quarter of the homeopaths in a local area, and half of those who responded, are not a "few high-profile examples" (Ernst reference). It misrepresents the reality. He was talking about the 16 out of 23 homeopaths who discourage immunizations (out 63 surveys sent out, 23 responded).[] I responded with How about a large study or survey with several hundred participants? You want to based this on one tiny study? Small studies are notoriously inaccurate.;-).


 * My other response was to the citations Scientizzle posted and his new text. some homeopathic providers have negative view of vaccination,[refs] and parents that consult with homeopaths have a lower rate of vaccination compliance for their children.[refs] In a few high-profile examples, homeopathic providers have actively discouraged vaccination[refs] and proper prophylactic treatment for malaria.[refs] I responded I haven't read the refs yet, but I suspect you are correct. You see Scientizzle changed the text. In fact he used some homeopaths , where the previous text says many homeopaths. Easy to prove some homeopaths, difficult to prove many homeopaths, at least for now. Anthon01 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we need more sources and better sources. I do seem to recall someone who claimed that no homeopaths believed in using Berlin Wall as a remedy.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are various health practitioners and physicians, both homeopathic and non-homeopathic, who advise against vaccinations. Those are true facts. Yet broadly implying that homeopaths advise against vaccinations is misleading, especially when there is a statement from a homeopathic organization denying this stance:  Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I included that link above. An official stance doesn't prevent some from behaving in such a way, obviously... &mdash; Scientizzle 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * based on RS, in the 'uses' section, on the most significant homeopathic remedies (greatest hits) seems justified, especially if we believe that WP is an inclusive encyclopedia and if RS are available to support the inclusion. Does that make me a POV-pusher and deserving of the treatment I received here yesterday? How about the editors who are fighting the inclusion of homeopathy on any plant page, in other word want homeopathy on zero plant pages? Are they consider POV-pushers also or protectors of the project? Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took "homeopathic POV" to mean either pro or anti. Is this the right place for this discussion? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. Do you know of a better place? Anthon01 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DR Lawrence  §  t / e  15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I would also ask who are the editors who are referred to in "How about the editors who are fighting the inclusion of homeopathy on any plant page, in other word want homeopathy on zero plant pages?" I know it is not me since I offered a compromise of 50 or so. I know it is not Science Apologist either since he tried to forge a compromise. Who are these mysterious unknown editors?--Filll (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection
I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite to unprotect the page. If that happens, no edit warring. Article probation is in effect. Jehochman Talk 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is a good idea. The whole talk page is in the grip of rather... questionable questioning of sources. Adam Cuerden talk 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it will be an interesting experiment. I will decline to edit because it is just too dangerous.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kinda like being under the hoop in basketball. Watch out for those elbows. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * that metaphor sems irrelvent to the current situation. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Just trying to inject some humor. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected
Given the article probation is now live, I've unprotected this article. Users that act disruptively will be added to the list of users placed under the article probation and should further problems occur, they will be blocked. I don't see future protection to this page, as the probation should cover most misconduct. Please edit the page sensibly, and keep a cool hat on when you move the page forward with the art of consensus.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another approach to the pseudoscience category issue
The following post was made at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal: "A principled scientist should learn how to explain science. It would be just as wrong to withdraw from editing WP as to withdraw from teaching science courses to nonscientists. There is no need to 'label' pseudoscience, just to explain it. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to give an object description of even the most absurd theory. an objective description will make it plain to everyone but the convinced anti-science POV. There is no need to resort to labels to explain things to a unprejudiced reader. (and no hope at all that a label convince the prejudiced to look at things more scientifically). Homeopathy (for example), explained in any straightforward way, is obvious nonsense, and I do not see what is gained by trying to say it is pseudoscience--it will only give the impression that the scientist is the bigot. Those who resort to opprobrium always give an impression that it is they who are prejudiced. The thing to do with the ignorant is to teach them, and those who want to defend science have the obligation to learn how to do it patiently. DGG (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)" In addition to the above, we also know the following statements of fact: For references for some of the above statements, please see Society of Homoepaths and Ben Goldcare, Lancet author, journalist and medical doctor, and the various references throughout this talk page and its archives. From the above, I suggest the following means to go forward: I am certain that some pro-science people will prefer that a harder stance is taken on the scientific claims, but for those I offer the olive branch of the increased 'belief' aspects and the downplay of homeopathy's own claims to 'science', coupled with the focus upon the ethical aspects. I am equally certain that some pro-homeopathy-is-science people will disapprove, but equally they receive less prominent criticism based off the weight of scientific evidence, and I remind them that most sources at least mention a spiritual connection if not focus upon one  (mentions 'vital life force', but otherwise tries to be scientific in style). In reading around to support my previous paragraphs, I encountered numerous homeopathic organisations that claimed to be a 'science' and did not document beyond passing mentions any form of spiritual aspect. As such, I am not likely to support again the suggestions I am making here. If desired, the 'science' aspect may be detailed more, but this will have to be coupled with the scientific community's responses and patently obvious flaws being noted. If you do not agree to all the article and lead suggestions, please discuss this so that we may sensibly move forward. Most importantly, can we please get agreement on all the above statements of fact aside from the 'spiritual' aspects. All the rest of the statements are strongly supported by all the evidence. LinaMishima (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is significant evidence for the use of the term pseudoscience
 * In general, the weight of evidence is that there is little to no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo
 * Some reasonable studies do exist that suggest homeopathy has or might have an effect beyond placebo
 * The method of action of homeopathy if it does work is not plausable within the current understanding of science
 * Various homeopathic organisations claim to be 'scientific'
 * Most homeopathic organisations, despite claims of science, also talk about 'healing energies', 'disharmony' and other, less-scientific and more spiritual concepts (NB: discovered to be more correctly 'some' than 'most'. This point may be disputed/ignored)
 * Homeopathy does work as a placebo and this is a good thing
 * Homeopathy exists as a CAM, has a strong and interesting history, and has a place in modern culture
 * Homeopathy currently is criticised for the poor ethics of certain homeopaths
 * 1) No pseudoscience category or infobox DGG's comment included above is a sound one, and explains why these are not needed. Also, see the next point.
 * 2) Mention in the lead of critics calling homeopathy pseudoscience We have plenty of references for this, and so a mention at least in passing is warranted.
 * 3) Lead focuses on the history, cultural and ethical issues These are the least controversial issues and arguably the most interesting.
 * 4) Lead should mention some of the 'spiritual' elements The 'disharmony' approach and similar are common enough to form an important part of understanding homeopathy.
 * 5) Lead should mention but downplay the method of homoepathic preparation It is this preparation that is the direct cause of all the fuss. Various homeopaths seem to have differed on the 'strengths' advised. There is not really much to state on this topic anyway.
 * 6) Lead should mention, following homeopathic preparation, that science cannot justify it The logical place to criticise the method of action is where the method of action is forced via the preparation process.
 * 7) Lead should mention briefly the positive studies There has been positive studies, we should acknowledge this fact.
 * 8) Lead should then strongly highlight the weight of evidence against any effect The weight of evidence is against any effect, this is clear.
 * 9) Lead should clearly highlight the major ethical issues A lot of sceptics highlight the ethical problems as their major concern
 * 10) Article should concentrate upon the history and cultural aspects of homeopathy since these are the least controversial, the least changing, and the easiest for an encyclopaedia to document
 * 11) Article should detail clearly the 'spiritual' aspects As stated previously, it appears that 'disharmony', 'life energy' and other terms actually seem quite common. The more clearly we detail these, the less homeopathy in general appears like a science (which means the pseudoscience tag is harder to apply, and science-based sceptics will care more about the ethics than the methods).
 * 12) (something here about preparation, method of action, efficacy and lack of evidence) This point has yet to be formed fully. Aside from the detail in preparation needed to explain the modern process of homeopathy, this should not be focused upon in detail. Similarly to the lead, positive studies must be detailed, however the vast weight of evidence against any efficacy over and above placebo must then be made explicitly clear.
 * 13) Article should discuss the non-disputed benefits of homeopathy Believe it or not, there are some non-disputed benefits of homeopathy which even sceptics will agree with. Increased patient contact time, greater communication and strengthened placebo response are all well documented. These factors allow alternative medicine to provide excellent support for chronic conditions and diseases.
 * 14) Article should go into detail regarding the current ethical controversies surrounding homeopathy There are homeopaths out there who advocate homeopathy alone as a defence against malaria and discourage their clients from seeing doctors and taking regular medication. Other homeopaths argue that AIDS can be treated effectively with homeopathy alone and discourage the use of highly effective anti-retroviral treatements. Less serious issues include discouraging the use of regular medication, not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints, and so on.


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


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


 * As for the use of the term "disharmony" - this is simply another way of saying that the physiological systems are not in a state of "homeostasis".
 * Regarding the criticism of "not referring clients to doctors for certain complaints" - that implies that those utilizing homeopathy are not doctors. Medical doctors and licensed health professionals utilize homeopathy in conjuction with other modalities, including prescription drugs. (Even some of the homepathic medicines, both oral and injectable, are prescription only.) Of course, there are non-physician homeopaths, and all (that I know of) seek to work with their client's treating physician in a cooperative team effort for the greatest benefit possible.
 * As for extreme positions, such as advising against vaccinations, those are maintained by only some homeopaths. Making this a major issue in this article would be inappropriate, since there are medical doctors and other health professionals - who do not use homeopathy - that hold such opinions also, and the articles on their professions do not criticize the entire profession for the actions of a few. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you will notice that I was advocating not using the pseudoscience category. It's right up there in bold, plain for everyone to see. So why you decided to act as if I was suggesting the category be used is completely beyond me.
 * Most homeopaths are not medical doctors. Those with the biggest practices may be, but the common existance of homeopathy courses which do not have a requirement of being a medical doctor to enter makes it clear that more people are likely to qualify without being doctors than those who are. Doctor is a term bestowed for a certain level of academic achievement, and most homeopathic courses seem to be of bachelor level at most.
 * The problem with what you are saying is that it is simply not documented by the evidence that homeopaths are in general playing ball and acting ethically. Within the UK, there has been investigations which have shown homeopaths to routinely not refer patients to medical doctors for matters such as malaria protection. As stated, it is these ethical matters that fuel sceptics the most.
 * As mentioned, the statement of fact regarding spiritual aspects may be discarded as being wrong, and you will note that within these statements, the ethics issue refers to 'certain' homeopaths (a limited, not absolute, group). Given these two points, do you agree with the statement of facts? LinaMishima (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that homeopathy is valid science is ALSO a value judgment. Instead of saying that Wikipedia should strive for a false middle ground on a black-and-white issue, we should obey the stated policies of Wikipedia and report on what the scientific community believes, rather than worrying about Wikipedia itself concluding anything (a violation of WP:OR). The scientific community unambiguously believes homeopathy to be pseudoscientific and false, and any article must reflect that. The talk page is not a forum to argue about this; we are only to report, with citations, what the actual authorities in the field have decided. And there is no lack of clarity there.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ignore Arion's baseless baiting and clear COI. Thankfully I don't recall suggesting that we ever call homeopathy a valid science. Do you agree with the statement of facts as written (free choice regarding the spiritual nature 'fact' that doesn't have much basis any more)? What about the suggestions on how to proceed with the article? LinaMishima (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I was just about to thank you for your well researched and reasonable suggestions, and then I read the unhelpful personal attack upon me: "baseless baiting and clear COI"!
 * I know you were arguing against maintaining the "pseudoscience" category. I merely brought it up because the category is still there at this very moment, and that was the title of this section.
 * Skeptics have used the tactic of questioning the ethics of homeopaths for years. That is no different than their other attacks upon health professionals in other specialties of complementary medicine. Placing this in the lead would be as wrong as placing it in the lead of articles on other health professions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appologise, that was not the most diplomatic of wordings. Hopefully you can see how I reached the assumption of baiting, and the COI is an issue in this debate. But that does not excuse my wording. I appologise.
 * Given the wording of the statements of facts (that certain, meaning specific, homeopaths, are unethical), can I get a plain statement of agreement?
 * I shall go and find references for you regarding the ethics issue. I am afraid that calling the claims 'attacks' does not negate their documented nature. The sources I will no doubt find may seem biased, but judge the actions detailed, not the way those are presented. LinaMishima (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Less biased, highly reliable sources: BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, BBC News, Letter to BMJ detailing brief study, Article in Nature (see the part regarding difficulty getting details of what is taught on homeopathy BSc courses)
 * Ben Goldcare's writings: Published in The Guardian, Published in The Guardian (legal threats to hosting company before rebuttals, corrections, dealing with author directly, etc), Published in The Guardian, Transcripts of the Malaria & homeopathy investigation
 * Other blogs (not fully RS, but worth noting in talk for the record): Homeopath turns to internet regarding cancer, More coverage of AIDS & Malaria issue, More on homeopathy and AIDS, Immunisations and disagreement between homeopathy organisations
 * I will agree that most of these document a single pair of recent cases, however this is what you would expect - it is always easier to source information for current events than those long past. The involvement with the MMR scandal is however a good example of a different ethical issue. The fact that homeopathic organisations cannot agree and fail to enforce their own rules is another key element that points to serious lapses in ethical judgements (Professional organisations should always enforce their rules). Perhaps the controversy is less outside of the UK, but here it is regularly reported. LinaMishima (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Reply: Seems to me that Lina's ideas are fine and would be a good goal to shoot for. If COI is an issue (seems to be) it needs to be addressed.  Also denseness should be checked at the door.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am uncomfortable removing the category. Homeopaths present themselves as science.  Science doesn't support their claims, yet, they still make them.  Removal of the category would seem to be a sort of prescribed back room editor compromise on Wikipedia to make us (meaning every contributor pro & con, to this talk page) but is not in the interest of the reader. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * In return for removing the category, we reduce the prominence given to homeopathy's claims of being a science, so it's not all that bad. LinaMishima (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, being pseudoscience is determined (in part) by how they present themselves out in the real world, not how we present them on this wiki. In a perfect world, these things should work independantly. However, compromise might have to be made here. I'm just not sure what the best compromise is. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I have a real problem with compromise solutions that are based in conflict reduction for Wikipedia, and not based on the reliable sources, the real world, good writing and the interests of the reader. Second, I don't see a support for this compromise from the pro-homeopath side. They want the category gone, but don't seem to be flocking to a compromise solution.  If we remove the category all we've done is betray our Wikipedian principles to lessen the shouting from a vocal fringe minority.  Yuck. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment for SchmuckyTheCat: You do grok that WP:NPOVFAQ sets a specific threshold for categorization?  With or without the category, all the scientific arguments and criticisms will stay.  --Jim Butler(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly endorse: I greatly admire Lina's research, analysis and proposal. Thankyou for putting this on a clear footing.
 * I share Shmucky's distaste for airbrushing articles for the sake of avoiding conflict, though I can see it may be the most practical course.
 * We should consider the guideline from ArbCom ]: is Homeopathy "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"? My impression is that it is considered so, and therefore we should use the category.  Counter-evidence would be something like a number of reputable articles treating it seriously. Subsolar (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse User:LinaMishima's proposal. I too would prefer to retain the pseudoscience category, but there does need to be some give and take, and all removing the category does is make Wikipedia slightly more difficult to navigate; it doesn't fundamentally compromise WP:NPOV, unlike some of what some editors have been seeking.  I agree with Schmucky, though, that we shouldn't proceed with this compromise until we've gotten some signal that it will be respected by a majority of editors on all sides. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unqualified endorse: Clearly quite a bit of consideration went into this, and it's a winner.  I can't see any flaws here, at least nothing of significance (speaking as a generally science- and CAM-literate editor, and not as a homeopathy expert).  Lina's proposal is one of the best I've read in a long time, clear on the details, appropriately broad in scope, and very much based in NPOV and VER.  It never ceases to amaze me how much fine work people are willing to do for free on WP, and I encourage others here to recognize this window of opportunity for what it is.  I've seen a few rounds of CAM article edits, and IMO, it's not going to get better than this:  the article can only get more POVishly hyperskeptical or more POVishly advocate-y, either of which will induce a pendulum swing and more edit warring.  Lina, hat's off to you!  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

New quote from authoritative source and V & RS
editprotected I would like to add the following to the end of the following section: Homeopathy


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

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


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


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


 * Just to make it clear, Barrett is not being quoted in the suggested addition. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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

This comment by Friarslantern is highlighting the underlying problem which remains: We have a large body of people who do not know what NPOV is, or do not know how to interpret NPOV, or do not intend to stay within NPOV, FRINGE. LEAD etc. Until you correct this underlying problem, there will be terrible trouble here.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. It seems there are editors from both POV that don't understand NPOV & NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Hmmm...you could be right considering the types of disruptive controversy against policy we have experienced. I have always interpreted the wording "If....a desired change warrants advance discussion" as referring to "legitimate" controversy. Attempting to keep out sources that are in harmony with policy because one "doesn't like it" isn't legitimate controversy, but disruption, and the article probation should hopefully keep that to a minimum, for the first time in ages. Any "advance discussion" (controversy) should legitimately apply policies as a means of showing how the addition would be improper. Lacking such argumentation, disruption is likely a logical interpretation. The author, the source, and the quote are impeccable. Let's see what happens. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I am the proposer. It is a notable quote, from a notable person, published in a very V & RS (Newsweek). It's about as impeccable as they come and I'm proposing that it be placed in an appropriate section of the article. I believe all polices are being followed. It's an encyclopedic addition that enriches the article. You can try it out and see how it looks. It's a bit hard for me to do at the moment....;-) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, Fyslee... quote is more than fine... and in general, I'm amazed at the signal-to-noise ratio on this page. Whew! --Jim Butler (t) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * That is not entirely true, and Barrett is not the source. (He just happens to be quoted as a reliable source by mainstream sources, for the umpteenth time.) Read the quote above. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, at what point do my predictions (above) of ensuing disruption (already fulfilled above) get recognized and a warning handed out? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you see a disruption? Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


 * True enough. I just want to see legitimate editing attempts that should be uncontroversial to reasonable minds continue. A page protection is not intended to prevent that from happening. This happens to be a very significant quote from a very significant source, Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be good. V and RS, and adds the views of a high-up homeopath. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You said, adds the views of a high-up homeopath. How so? Is Killen a homeopath? Anthon01 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * The link is in ref format, IOW you need to look in the refs section at the bottom. It is probably collapsed, so just open it and then you'll see it. I am indeed trying to make a point, but I am not making a point that involves disruption. Look at WP:POINT. POINT disruptions are an entirely different matter than attempting to use logic and follow policies. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Very good observations, Friarslantern. NCCAM is generally favorable to alternative medicine, but has a mandate to conduct real scientific research (sometimes where none has been attempted by believers before) on various alt med subjects. By "generally favorable" I mean that some of the most active leaders and players are themselves practitioners and advocates, and they hand out funding to other (sometimes unqualified to conduct research) practitioners and advocates, often without demanding accountability. While the research is supposed to be unbiased, it is too much to expect that practitioners who are essentially receiving pay to stay in business for a few more years are going be neutral, and thus the research seems to often have the character of a "we are going to prove it is true" agenda, instead of a "we just want to see what's going on and will accept the results no matter what." Even research results that are rather negative have been published with conclusions that the results were "inconclusive", where a correct conclusion would have told it like it was. Fortunately there are enough real scientists involved and keeping an eye on things that such issues have been criticized and the leaders have been forced to admit that some of their pet ideas have not been confirmed to be true. Criticisms of NCCAM's waste of funds and lack of critical thinking are numerous. In this light, the statement by Killen is remarkably forthright and courageous, considering that it lends fuel to those who have been documenting for years that funds have been wasted on research for subjects of no possible real worth. He is doing what no others have dared to do - cutting off the branch upon which NCCAM (his own agency) is sitting. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled the request, as the edit appears ti have been made already. Sandstein (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the possible role of homeopathy in asthma + dementia
The following sentence in the article should change. '''Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma. '''

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Sounds good to me. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Is the Cochrane Collaboration speaking for their study, or all studies and all science? Did they find any evidence? Or are they making the statement that their study was flawed? Or are they making the statement that all studies in this area are flawed?--Filll (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out that this is a long list, of which I presume that the others can be presumed accurately portrayed, or someone would have objected by now. The sensible thing would seem to be a rider, "and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend..." Or we could leave them out, which may be best. Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads"Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor."Besides being grammatically sub-par, the citations for these three all end the same way: there's a paucity of good trials from which to draw final conclusions. The most balanced way to present this is simply:"The Cochrane Library found insufficient clinical evidence to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for asthma[ref] or dementia,[ref] or recommend the use of homeopathy in induction of labor.[ref]"
 * Asthma: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma."
 * Dementia: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia."
 * Induction of labour: "There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction"

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


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


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


 * I agree that Scientizzle's rewording is an improvement. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Both the asthma and labor studies found no difference between results from homeopathy and placebo, but there's nowt to assess in the dementia study. That one also includes a link to the more general NHS Direct statement which states no results better than placebo. 

In detail, the study says "Around 200 randomised controlled trials evaluating homeopathy have been conducted, and there are also several reviews of these trials. Despite the available research, it has proven difficult to produce clear clinical evidence that homeopathy works. Many studies suggest that any effectiveness that homeopathy may have is due to the placebo effect, where the act of receiving treatment is more effective than the treatment itself."

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


 * All statistical trials are summarized on that basis. The failure to show an effect according to the statistical test does not mean there is no effect. it means what it says: if there is an effect, the studies are not sufficient to show it. Any textbook of elementary practical statistical analysis should clear this up. DGG (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * and I just noticed--it would in fact be possible to show that homeopathic treatments are less effective than other in proper trials, within the power of the statistical test to determine. The use of homeopathy is therefore primarily in those illnesses where it is very hard to show the actual effectiveness of anything. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


 * possibly. we've'll have to look tat it and compare with existing crtieria for a valid, well-designed stud y before we consider referencing it in the encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

missing box and cats
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=188535780&oldid=188534851

The box and cats have vanished. The box and cats should be restored. Quack  Guru  04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been extensive discussions surrounding this issue on this talk page. There is no consensus in favour of adding either, and there is in fact something approximating a consensus to leave both the box off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The box and cats meet NPOV. I want this article to be a good article and not a diluted article. Quack   Guru  04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this characterization of the consensus. I would say that there is roughly consensus to leave the box off, but the category has been on this page for some time and is generally accepted. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with SA (edit conflict). I see nothing resembling consensus regarding the category.  A rather succinct straw poll was conducted on the infobox a few days ago.  The result was somewhat inconclusive, but seemed to lean towards delete.  Silly rabbit (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I probably did overstate things regarding the category. I've struck through and edited my original comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i support the psuedoscience category since evne if you dont believe that homeopathic science is psuedoscientific the fact that a lot of scientsits think that it is is grounds for it to be mentioend in the category. Smith Jones (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As an act of good faith I would appreciate it if you add back in the cats. There seems to be a consensus for it. Thanks. Quack   Guru  04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion over the last 7 days over the "Pseudoscience" category and box. There was no consensus to keep either of them. In addition, QG added a "Fringescience" category today. Adding such perjorative labels onto this article do not help improve it. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. We should not be bringing science down to the level of Homeopathy by categorizing it as any type of science. The Fringe Science cat needs to go. The scientist in me won't abide by the insult. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that, unless there is a source which states that the scientific community believes it is pseudoscience, the cat doesn't really belong, I think it should be left for now. First why not improve the article, to make it neither an attack vehicle nor something which seems like praise. Then worry about stuff that the general reader never knows exists. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For QG and other category-promoters -- Under WP policy at the present time, using the category requires a source. See WP:NPOVFAQ. It's not "obvious pseudoscience" because it's not a tiny-minority absurdity. To say it's "Generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community requires an adequate source. Per discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, there doesn't seem to be consensus that the source we have suffices. If policy matters, we shouldn't use the source. If assuaging the feelings of editors and not causing offense is more important, then I guess we should use it. I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my comments and I do not wish to be uncivil. :-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible... Please read the references. Thanks, Quack   Guru  08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at great length. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 28, Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 27, and Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 26, which are occupied largely with this very debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim Butler has it right. It may be true that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", but unless we can cite a reliable source for that fact, we are not allowed to characterize homeopathy as pseudoscience. Get it, QuackGuru? On the other hand, if you want to challenge the statement about scientific plausibility on the basis of this policy, you might have a good case. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with QG again labeling homeopathy with a category listing it as "Pseudoscience" or "Fringe science". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some who have called it a "pseudoscience" (with attribution and with proper citing of source), but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" or "Category:Fringe science" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon homeopathy by using such perjorative category labeling. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of the pseudoscience and fringe science categories, as these widespread opinions of the majority in and out of science can be easily verified. I don't support the pseudoscience info box as it is ugly --DrEightyEight (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source stating in essence that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", please let us know. Otherwise you can support whatever you want, but I'm afraid the article will have to stick to Wikipedia policy. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject is clearly pseudoscience, but I don't see how it can be called fringe science when it isn't any kind of science at all. Jefffire (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of books that describe homeopathy as pseudoscience however very few (if any) describe it as fringe science Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since consensus doesn't exist, lets remove the category. Why rehash the last weekends discussions. There is no RS the properly supports the inclusion of either the box or the category, as per Art and Jim Butler's comments. Those who favor inclusion, can review Archive26 and look for a source that supports the inclusion. Opinions alone don't cut it. According to WP policy and the extensive discussions already had lets take both of them out until we can find an appropriate source and move on. Anthon01 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

These three two categories have to go until we have consensus. "Pseudoscience | Homeopathy | Fringe science." Anthon01 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a virtual consensus but predictably Orangemarlin has put the cat back on so soon after Art had removed it with good reason. So it's back to edit wars all over again. Thanks OM! great job. Then you talk wistfully about so-called POV pushers. They are all on your side. Peter morrell 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how many sarcastic comments you make or how many of your friends' accounts you can get to show up and vote, homeopathy being a pseudoscience is a FACT, and thus belongs on the article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, I suggest that in future you avoid sarcastic comments of this nature. Addhoc (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for the removal of the box. Now I am convinced by the arguments that it is NPOV for the box to be in the article. See WP:NPOVFAQ. Quack   Guru  19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which item in that section are you referring to? Certain this one would suggest the opposite conclusion: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOVFAQ: Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."  Quack   Guru  19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, good, I figured that must be the one you meant. So now the issue is clear: is homeopathy "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", or does it "have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience"?  Cite sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[5][6] and its "theory is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge."[7] Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11] and it is considered to be pseudoscientific.[12][13][14][15] A lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".[17] Also read the references. Thanks, Quack   Guru  19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty familiar with that paragraph, but I haven't read all the sources. Is there one that is a reliable source for "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", or is that an WP:OR synthesis of the various sources?  The latter won't do to settle this kind of debate between the obviously different points of view.  By the way, it's helpful that you make your own POV plain as "QuackGuru" so we don't have to guess where you're coming from; with some people, it's hard to tell. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, with all the noise on the talk page I must have missed it. What is the RS that says that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"? The references that currently exist in the article, helpfully re-cited by QuackGuru, are all, as far as I can tell, individual opinions, not statements about the scientific community. Or is there some reason you believe that this policy does not apply here? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

claims that homeopathy is pseudoscience
Above someone requested evidence for the claim that scientists claim that homeopathy is pseudoscience. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/1 does just that. Please, everyone who thinks that scientists do not believe that homeopathy is pseudoscience, please read it. It is short. To the point. And yes, that is how scientists think. Really. Maybe scientists are wrong, but that is what they think. They say: "By criticizing homeopathy, we hope to illuminate the general distinctions between science and pseudoscience." They use homeopathy as an illustrative example of pseudoscience; pointing out specific features that make it a pseudoscience. Please don't wiki-lawyer this away. Wikilawyering is disruptive. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If properly referenced, neutrally constructed statement is tendentiously removed from the article, please report who is doing this at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents, with diffs, and one of the administrators watching that page will consider whether a ban is necessary to stop the disruption. Jehochman Talk 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Art Carlson's objection seems to be that reliable sources don't specifically claim that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Unfortunately, they call it much worse:
 * Leading scientists in the UK urge NHS to stop funding homeopathy, two different sets of them.
 * Doctor: "It's witchcraft"
 * Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, claimed homeopathy was ‘putting people’s lives at risk’,
 * , David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, "It's completely nuts," utterly asinine, "world-class meaningless bollocks." "gobbledegook"
 * same link quoting Richard Dawkins, "religion and homeopathy come in the same category"
 * , the treatment caused "cultural and social damage" and was "unsupported by evidence".
 * , "They won't call themselves faith healers, of course, or shamans or juju men. They will present themselves as 'homeopaths'" "homeopathy as quackery given by and for the feeble-minded" "To endorse homeopathy on the NHS is to endorse state deception"
 * , "The Royal College of Pathologists, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society have all spoken out against plans to allow manufacturers to make therapeutic claims about their products." David King again, "criticised the Department of Health for supporting the use of the technique."
 * Royal College of Pathologists: "deeply alarmed" "moved away from science", Medical Research Council: without "rigorous and objective evidence", 12 national societies have raised fears over patient safety and accuracy of information more: 600 doctors and scientists have also signed a statement which says homeopathic medicines should not be allowed to make "unsubstantiated health claims" and that the policy is "damaging to patients' best interests".   Lord Dick Taverne, chair of Sense About Science: "regulation of medicines has moved away from the science"
 * various doctors: "applaude your scientific community for their outcry" "makes about as much sense as weighing witches against ducks" "categorising these changes as an abandonment of science" "Lord Warner himself agreed in the debate that it isn't, because these products are 'in a different category'"
 * "an outcry from much of the scientific and medical world", Lord Dick Taverne again, "abandonment of science" "equivalent of witchcraft"
 * James Randi, "irrational" "quackery" "Our prize is available to claims of pseudo-science" "I do not expect that homeopathy will ever be established as a legitimate form of treatment"

Now, it may seem a little unfair to throw in James Randi at the end, but he specifically uses the term pseudo-science, and of course, he offers US$1,000,000 to anyone who can show the difference between homeopathic water and tap water. Since most scientists don't study pseudoscience and therefore won't be making any specific claim I'd say it's totally valid for someone who DOES study pseudoscience, and puts up reward money to establish credibility, to take their claim that homeopathy at face value - and as a general statement from the "scientists POV".

The rest of those quotes were UK based, but thats because the UK medical establishment has been abandoning gov't and trust insurance funded homeopathic treatments at an extremely rapid for the last few years - so it's been a big press item and it becomes easy to quotemine. You cannot discredit those quotes though, as they represent the major bodies of medicine and science in the UK. Since we don't seem likely to put a category of "witchcraft", "quackery", "bollocks", or "religion" onto this article, I think it would behoove the pro-homeopaths to compromise on the term "pseudoscience". It's obvious mainstream science does not accept homeopathy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * You just cited a bunch of sources of individual and group opinion, not a single one of which is a sci-consensus source. (See here for some of those.)  Of those you list, some are V RS's and can be cited in the article.  None of them justify category:pseudoscience according to NPOV.  Word to the wise: If you want to IAR, go for it, but don't be surprised when people who disagree with you want to IAR too.  That can mess with AGF and come back to screw up articles later.  Pick your battles over what you want to IAR over.  --Jim Butler (t) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my remarkably asinine comments that reflected a lack of reading comprehension. Of course this one suffices, and kudos to the Cat for sourcing the category:  In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public". Threshold breached; categorize away.  cheers, Jim Butler (t) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. At this point, we can add the box back in too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=next&oldid=188534168 Thanks, Quack   Guru  20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no consensus on box. You don't need a series box for every label, even if the label is correct.  Or do you want 10 series boxes cluttering up every article at the top?  Common sense.  --Jim Butler (t) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But apparently people are still deleting it from the main article based on the fact that there is an "ongoing discussion." Apparently, if you add correct and cited facts that make homeopathy look bad without discussion, that's a violation of some unwritten "discuss all edits before making them" rule, and if you add them after discussion, that's a violation of some unwritten "do not change anything that is under discussion" rule. It's almost as if the pro-homeopathy editors are making up rules in order to create a system where no one can say anything bad about homeopathy. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that and the reason for adding the categories was "by definition" which is transparently false and POV. It is clear that homeopathy is regarded as pseudoscience by "mainstream" scientists, but I think the issue has to go deeper than that.  Mainstream is one of those "by definition" or self-delimiting tautologies that doesn't help.  Obviously people who think of it as science, or otherwise valuable, are not "mainstream" scientists.  The source above sounds again like the opinions of the authors and a few other attributed opinions on related topics, but not a clear reliable source for a conclusion synthesized from scientists more generally.  Surely there's a better source if this is the point you want to make? Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Royal College of Pathologists, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society, 12 national societies have raised fears, 600 doctors and scientists have also signed a statement. YOU CANNOT REFUTE THIS OR CALL IT A HANDFUL OF AUTHORS OPINIONS. PERIOD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * By the way, Randy, you asserted above that "homeopathy being a pseudoscience is a FACT". Again, I thank you for not hiding your POV, but please do let us know if you can back that up with reliable sources, making it verifiable per wikipedia's definitions. That is the issue, not what things you hold to be facts. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is another thing that the pro-homeopaths need to stop doing: being presented with dozens of citations, and then saying "where are your sources?" Just ignoring everything the reasonable people have said and wishing it away. It's a tactic that you can see at multiple points on this page, always from one side. Is this sort of thing going to be dealt with by "article probation"? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merriam Websters ": a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific". See all those "not science" quotes above? See all these people on this page (yourself included) who are erroneously regarding it as scientific? If you can make a homeopathic scientific claim, James Randi has US$1,000,000 for you. Outside source, Definition. Fact. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Folks, can I remind you all that this article is under probation, and the fast-paced reverts that some editors are performing are the kind of behavior that the probation is supposed to prevent? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, I wasn't sure what probation was about. But doesn't it also mean that we shouldn't be racing to make changes when they are still under discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the existence of words does not constitute a "discussion." All of the people with citations are showing that it is absolutely undeniable that homeopathy is a pseudoscience and is considered as such by all reliable sources including the scientific community. The flailing pro-homeopaths are doing nothing but saying "nuh-uh" and playing Wikipolitics. That is not a "discussion" about whether the pseudoscience category belongs on this article. It is a clear consensus and a legitimate basis for action. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is moving us toward a solution, but we're not there yet. SchmuckyTheCat provides a list of people saying bad things about homeopathy. This does not surprise me. I say bad things about homeopathy myself. What is missing is even a single RS that says that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". The article cited by WAS 4.250 might be able to lead us there eventually. It says, "Homeopathy’s editor acknowledges that the most widely held theory for homeopathic action involves the placebo effect." We need to check out the original quote, but considering the source is the opposite camp, it might do. There is also the article emphasized by SchmuckyTheCat (and others). If we have a look at the original statements by "the Physiological Society, the British Pharmacological Society, the Society for Applied Microbiology, the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences", we might be able to make a synthesizing statement about the scientific establishment. Until that time .... --Art Carlson (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right. It is really pretty cut and dried in a case like this: Homeopathy has a following, and if we can't get adequate sourcing for a statement that it is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, then we cannot include the cat.  That is the rule. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Those who continue to ignore the plain Enlish meaning of the word pseudoscience, and claim there are no sources, when numerous reliable sources are already present in the article, will be held responsible for disruption and banned from this page. A group of POV pushers cannot redefine the English language, nor can they stonewall against consensus. Wikipedia determines consensus not by voting, but by the merits of rational discussion. Jehochman  Talk 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have adequate sourcing that it is witchcraft and buggery - but I guess not pseudoscience. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Doesn't buggery have something to do with male homosexuality??? I consider this remark bizarre, unprofessional, and offensive. Abridged talk 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See Homeopathy also qualifies as a pseudoscience. Thanks, Quack   Guru  22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble finding any discussions of homeopathy by reputable scientists that don't describe it as a pseudoscience. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not going by plain English meanings, but by the relevant ArbComs. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What do we have a consensus on?
The various comments regarding the "Pseudoscience" and "Fringe science" category listings at the bottom of the article illustrate how difficult the discussion on improving this article seems to inevitably become. In my observation, it appears that people keep discussing two different things without making a clear distinction:

(1) whether to mention "pseudoscience" in the article

(2) whether to keep the "Pseudoscience" and "Fringe science" category listings at the bottom

My position is:
 * (1) It is appropriate to place a quote within the article that states that homeopathy has been called a "pseudoscience" by a specific scientific organization - not "QuackWatch" - (with proper citing of source)
 * (2) It is not appropriate to create the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" or "Category:Fringe science" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon homeopathy by the use of such perjorative category labeling. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Categories don't make value judgments. They're navigational aids. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are two different issues, I agree. Pseudoscience should be mentioned in the article, as it is clearly V and from RS. Pseudoscience and fringe science should be included as Categories as it meets the criteria for both of these navigational aids, that also reflects the consensus view (in wikipedia and the real world) --DrEightyEight (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If your argument is that categories such as Category:Pseudoscience, or, for example, Category:Holocaust_deniers, Category:American_fraudsters, Category:White_nationalists, or Category:American_rapists don't belong on Wikipedia because they may be perceived as "negative" or a "value judgment" EVEN WHEN TRUE AND CITED like pseudoscience for homeopathy is, then your argument is a general one about the way Wikipedia works. There are hundreds of categories like that, which literally thousands of people have deemed appropriate for literally thousands of articles. This talk page is not the place to argue that Wikipedia should self-censor in order to avoid hurting people's feelings.

"Categories which could create the impression of being value judgments are not allowed" is YET ANOTHER example (what is this, the fifth one now?) of the pro-homeopaths MAKING UP RULES THAT DO NOT EXIST in order to Wikilawyer their way into advancing their views, because they are simply unable to use reasonable arguments and citations to do so. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arion 3x3, except that it seems to me that the cat Fringe science belongs. The pseudoscience cat has not been sourced, so far as I know. If it has been, to the satsifaction of the ArbComs, please show the source to me. Otherwise, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include it to either find a source, or accept that it does not belong. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * you have it backwards USER:Martinphi. Category pseduscience has been sourced above, and i havent seen ayone use it in fringe science. Homeopathy is not and has never claimed to be a fringe science and the psuedoscience tag is much more approrpiate in the first place. Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it sure hasn't been sourced above. A sci-consensus source is needed, per WP:RS.  See here for examples.  --Jim Butler (t) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * does the Royal Society of Scientists that User:Schmuky the Cat referenced sthat above count as being a sci-consensus course is needed? Smith Jones (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a statement by the British Government's most senior scientist.  I don't see that he is speaking for anyone else.  It also basically indicates that the NHS kind of accepts Homeopathy. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For Smith Jones: Struck my comments (per section above). I had an attack of cerebral atrophy and didn't carefully read every source Schmucky The Cat gave.  Of course that source suffices, when they say they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public".  That's close enough for our purposes, cf. WP:SNOWBALL.  Fine by me.  I think we should let it stay and move on. --Jim Butler (t) 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It definitely does not meet the ArbCom decisions, nor does this- and those are probably the best sources. But we could move on, as it is an issue which can be dealt with after the article is NPOV. At the most, it is saying that H is not supported by studies. But that is not a real statement of pseudoscience, even if something which speaks only for Britian could be taken to represent science in general. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. . . . Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical."


 * Please take the above quote from WP:Consensus into consideration, as well as the Five Wikipedia Core Polices. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I think that the category pseudoscience is inappropriate for this article on homeopathy. That category should be reserved for articles for which there are no good scientific trials that verify its value or efficacy.  As for homeopathy, there IS a body of basic science research as well as a body of clinical research, most of which tends to show a biological effect and a therapeutic benefit to homeopathic medicines. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention.
 * (Annals in Internal Medicine


 * For those of you who want to explore some interesting theoretical issues about “the memory of water” or what scientists today prefer to call “the structure of water,” see: Chaplin, Martin, Water Structure and Behavior,


 * Another 3rd party source is: Domenico Mastrangelo, Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy. Med Sci Monit. 2006 Dec 18;13 (1):SR1-8 17179919.


 * Despite some people's tendency to assert that homeopathic principles are not a part of mainstream medicine, this article published in a leading RS suggests otherwise: Eskinazi D. Homeopathy re-revisited: is homeopathy compatible with biomedical observations? Arch Intern Med 1999 Sep 27;159:1981-7.


 * I further assert that homeopathy should not be considered a fringe science. It has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested).  Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans.  This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines.


 * Based on these statistics, it is inappropriate to consider homeopathy a "fringe science" or "fringe medicine" or "pseudoscience." Dana Ullman Talk 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dana, there is no question homeopathy has a significant following and is the subject of research. WP has particular policies and the relevant one here is WP:NPOVFAQ.  That gives a threshold, "generally considered pseudoscientific", and to meet that on WP we require sci-consensus type sources, i.e. a statement from a mainstream body of scientists. This one meets that criterion, quoting the Royal Society of Pathologists.  Personally I don't think categories add much to WP at all, and interestingly Citizendium (where you might consider editing also) doesn't use them.  What I think is more important at this point is for editors to embrace WP:WEIGHT, fairly depict all properly sourced views, and get the text of the article right.  best regards, Jim Butler (t) 08:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Jim that the Royal Society of Pathologists can speak for Scientific Consensus. Pathology is a branch of medical science, to be sure, but it is not the scientific community. &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the abstract in the Mastralengo article is: According to the western medical establishment, homeopathy is both "unscientific" and "implausible". Can we use this as evidence that the scientific community regards homeopathy as pseudoscience? Apparently even homeopaths acknowledge this in the literature. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ. We are NOT doing this again. Number one, THE TALK PAGE IS NOT A FORUM FOR DISCUSSING THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT. Number two, we have gone over this thing about reputable studies, repeatability, placebo effects, and so forth a million times. You are not going to make any progress by rehashing it yet AGAIN, nor are you going to change the way chemistry and biology work. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience because it meets every definition of the word and because reputable scientists consider it as such. Therefore, the category belong here. It doesn't matter how many walls of text you can paste or how many studies from the Journal of Experiments Which Are Never Repeatable Under Neutral Supervision you can point to. It should be a closed topic, but some people just can't get it through their heads that they are POV-pushing for baloney. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Danaullman, Anyone who tried to use a link showing water memory as valid is going to be laughed out of the discussion. Just sayin'. It says more to prove the pseudoscience point that anyone involved is still talking about it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Randy, my references were to studies that were replicated and to meta-analyses in reputable RS journals. As for Schmucky, I actually prefer to use the terms "structure of water" to the "memory of water"...but if you still think that this is an closed case, I want to remind you that science and medicine are really verbs, ever evolving.  Dana Ullman Talk 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you call it. There's a million dollars waiting for anyone to demonstrate it.  Go prove it to them, not me.  It's not an issue for this talk page and it's not immediately relevant to any discussion on improving this article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This article in Annals of Internal Medicine doesn't address the issue of whether homeopathy is a pseudoscience. It says that some studies have shown that homeopathic treatments have unexpected effects. Homeopathy is classified as a pseudoscience because, as NCAAM says, "a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science..." Just because a few studies show that homeopathic treatments have unexpected results doesn't magically make homeopathic theories into science. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on Pseudoscience category + Neutrality issue.
I would like to ask the editors and the adms the following question:

According to many reliable sources Homeopathy is considered to be a controversial subject. many scientists regard it as pseudoscience and others find the results of the studies promising ( even if they regard them inconclusive or unconvincing ), positive and encourage the scientific community to be open minded.  

Examples (there are much more) : ( for the whole text please click on the links ) 1. Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. 

2. ''The authors conclude that the small number of randomised clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.'' 

3. ''Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy Interpretation : Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy''. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=45586

4. ''NCCAM ‘s funding research on homeopathy. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#q10'' .

Why the following wiki rule  is not applied in this case ?

'''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.'''--Area69 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I heartily agree that we need to start following Wikipedia policy guidelines, such as the one quoted above about the use of categories. There is an inevitable "slippery slope" effect once "Category" labeling of articles that some do not agree with gains steam. The average Wikipedia reader does not interpret such perjorative labels as being there for "navigation" - but as the official view of Wikipedia regarding the subject matter of the article.


 * Here is an example of a biased perjorative controversial "Category:Pseudoscientists" placed on the article for Stanisław Burzyński:   What's next? Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

IF those four points represented the sum total of reality on the subject, instead of a personal POV selection, then you might have a point. It doesn't, so the question is moot. There is plenty of information not included in that selection to support that it is self-evident that a vast majority in the mainstream medical and scientific community consider homeopathy to be nonsense and pseudoscience. If there is any subject that qualifies as pseudoscience, I can hardly think of a more notable one than homeopathy. The ArbCom on pseudoscience is the proper wikirule to apply here, and not the one above. In other cases where there is serious division within the scientific community, it would apply and the situation be a different one than when dealing with the classification of homeopathy as the total pseudoscience that it is. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers
The "self-evident" clause should have ended this discussion long ago. Something that is literally used as the textbook example of pseudoscience is pseudoscience; something that relies on water having memory is pseudoscience; something that cannot be argued for without accusing the other side of being paid agents for drug manufacturers is pseudoscience. That's self-evident. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dont you agree that according to the above reliable sources there is a controversy?--Area69 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Waiting to hear why--Area69 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You don't know how science works. Single studies show bizarre results all the time. An inalienable part of the scientific method is that results be REPEATED, REPEATED, AND REPEATED AGAIN to account for the inherent randomness in nature. You could find a single study that shows literally anything, it doesn't mean science or scientists are confused about whether these things actually happen. You cannot cite primary sources in a vacuum without acknowledging the consensus of the scientists themselves as well as the methods of science as a discipline. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All the above are metanalyses not primary sources. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). They say that there is a controversy.Did you see it? --Area69 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely the most disingenuous thing I have seen on this page. They say there is a controversy BETWEEN scientists and homeopaths over the issue of homeopathy being completely implausible and unproven. And you are using the existence of the word "controversy" to pretend that the page is saying there is any controversy within science over homeopathy! Unbelievable! This is why no progress can be made on the talk page--homeopaths are incorrigible about misrepresenting sources and rehashing old arguments in this way. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First I dont belong to any group.
 * Second I m just reporting what they say: that there is a controversy.Here is what they say

''Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? '''Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics''). --Area69 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)'''


 * Area69's reading of this statement is tendentious. The statement "a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics)" is very clear: homeopathy is not scientific. The "controversy" comes in because a surprising number of people believe in the efficacy of homeopathic methods despite the fact that they're not scientific. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I m not explaining why they used the word controversy. I m just reporting it.If they wanted to say something else they would use a different word.But they didnt. They use the word controvesry. Dont you agree? --Area69 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All the questions have been answered. Read the references in the article for more information. The box and cats are good resource tools for the readers. Quack   Guru  02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Area69, I suggest that you stop and think seriously before asking such questions. Questions about policy are good, but selective parsing that appears to be advocacy isn't proper. Is it helpful and not disruptive to "just report" without thinking about whether it is reasonable to so report? A question needs more preparation and serious thought before being posted here. If the existence of controversy can be used to keep a subject from being categorized, then no insanity of the worst kind can be so labelled. Questions related to who, why, and whether the controversy is reasonable or just stubborn refusal to follow the evidence, or inability to understand evidence, are very relevant for consideration in this regard. Unreasonable controversy is keeping quacks working, corporations making scam "medicines" without any consequential effects, and enormous resources being taken out of people's pockets, and funds diverted from legitimate research. This is serious business, so sources need to be used, not misused selectively. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy RFC deleted
You cannot change policy through discussion on an article talk page. If have deleted the RFC notice. It appears to have been a form of creative disruption. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Navigation
I noticed a bit of recent edit warring over the addition of a pseudoscience menu. Putting on my web developer hat, is there are reason this article does not have the Alternative medical systems menu installed? That menu includes homeopathy as a major item. Just because the article is in Category:Pseudoscience does not mean that pseudoscience is the most appropriate navigation menu. Somebody looking at this article is not necessarily interested in reading about time cubes. I would think they are more likely to be interested in other alternative medicine topics. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternative medical systems looks more appropriate than the pseudoscience box. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly that this is the correct nav box to add as an aide to navigation. I also think that the sentence about x, y, and z consider h-pathy to be pseudoscience should stay in the article for balance.  Abridged talk 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the alternative medicine navbox is more informative, and so likely more useful, than the pseudoscience navbox. I vote for including it.  Silly rabbit (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Quack   Guru  18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All "alternative medicine" is a subset of pseudoscience anyway. Is there any reason we can't use both boxes? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We can use both boxes. It may be more relevant to include the pseudoscience infobox later in the article in the Homeopathy section, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Alternative medical systems box is a good addition, but the pseudoscience box placed lower in the article is not helpful to improving the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We can combine both boxes together. I think that may work. Quack   Guru  19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look me in the eye and tell me if you are trying to improve the article, or if you are trying to gain more prominence for your preferred view? Can you show me any featured articles that have multiple navigation boxes like that? Jehochman  Talk 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit,, does not appear to have consensus support, and seems to continue a long, slow moving edit war. I strongly suggest you revert it because while there is strong justification in policy to place the pseudoscience category on this article, there is no consensus to add the pseudoscience nav box. Jehochman  Talk 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Being an admin does not give you the right to make content choices. There is real world evidence in reliable published sources listed above that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. POV pushers who try to use original research to deny that are causing disruption on this page. Ban them, not people who are improving wikipedia by improving this article. Many good articles have multiple nav boxes. The point of a nav box is to help readers navigate to other articles that may interest them because they are similar in some way. Deleting them to promote a POV is disruption. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I cong see ant reason why the use of the alternative medicines box is not consensual. NO-one here has objected to the use of ane dit box. Smith Jones (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. The alternative medicines box has been agreed.  The pseudoscience menu has not.  Quack Guru substituted alternative medical systems and inserted a bunch of pseudoscience links.  That is not what the consensus agreed to. Jehochman  Talk 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "consensus" means that everyone involved agrees enough to not argue anymore. You simply can't get that on this page until you ban the people who are here for non-encyclopedia purposes - ie to promote homeopathy or to promote anti-homeopathy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * okay fine but ti think that in the inetersts of maintaining peace on the Wiki we shoudl overlook that until later. its only a single tag/box and furhter debate can be derailed until later. i would rather suffer with a possibly libelous tag on the homeopathy article temporarily than end up geting this whole article deleted from the Internet because of continued tendintious editing. Smith Jones (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to "libel" a concept. Please observe the No legal threats policy and cease trying to short-circuit discussion on this page with strategic tactics that are against the rules of Wikipedia. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

. and please stop accusing users of acting in bad faith, its getting really annoying.

The pseudoscience box strikes me as more of a way to brand homeopathy with a scarlet letter than to aid the reader. Navboxes are very obvious visual elements of the page. This is different from categories, which are (despite all the fighting that goes on about them) visually unobtrusive. Jehochman is right to say that there's no consensus about the pseudoscience navbox, and continuing to add or remove the box is edit warring. Personally, I don't think that the pseudoscience box should be included, but the matter should be calmly discussed, rather than being the subject of an edit war. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy is pseudoscience, the sources were posted on this, the debate is over. Nitpicking every attempt to reflect that in the article on a separate basis is stonewalling nonsense. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * REGARDLESS of the measons why the stonewalling continues, the fact is that we dont ahve consensus and we dont want to rsik an edit war by adding in such a clearly tenditious edit box. It would be better to put the Category:Psuedoscience in for now and put the Psuedoscience box in later one once the climate of hatred and anger is subsidded. Smith Jones (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we back to this again? You can't just have one group with all the Wikipedia policies, all the facts, all the citations, and all the logic on their side, and the second group putting their fingers in their ears and saying "nuh-uh I don't agree," and then call that a "lack of consensus." This sort of bean-counting in ignorance of who is correct is what is meant by "stonewalling." Randy Blackamoor (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There was fairly broad agreement - over many days of discussion - that the pseudoscience box should be not be included - yet someone keeps adding it. That does not seem to contribute to a friendly cooperative spirit of community editing. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * to be honest, that is cot true. there was vigorious debate on the talk page and in edit summaries during the early battles of the edit wars that the box should or should nto be included, but nowhere i have seen a statement asserting the the box should not be included by every one who edits here. Reember wikipeida is not a democracy and even if some people agree to remove the box doesnt' mean that the issues and opinions of the remainders should be discounted, scorned, disgraced, spat upon, and/or ingnored. WP is built on WP:CONSENSUS, not on w. Smith Jones (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be appreciated, is that you focus on the article and how to improve it instead to argue about "wikipedianesque majoritarian tendeicies" (sic). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, id like to people to stop hurling snide remarks about my typos and acknowledge that i am trying by best to work with other users to make this article better. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you made any contributions to the article? It is great to engage in discussions, but after all what is needed is material and good sources. That is what an article is made of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i have a long list of diffs:

1 2 3 4 5

and these are from the month of Jaunauary alone -- i could find more if i had the patience. i have slowed down my editing due to probation to avoid causing any furhter conflict and in an effort to mellow out to atmosphere on this talk page and on the article itself. I also created the articles on Jan Scholten durnng my work for WikipRoject Homeopathy and worked extensively on the articles Jan Scholten and worked on the article for homeopathic repertory (which is now merged with this article]] and homeopathic proving as well as editing anonymously for Materia Medica. Please do not quesiton my dedication to working construcitvely on this and related articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Why the duplication and alteration of Alternative_medical_systems? If there is a template, it should be used rather than copy its source to the article and modify it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I have requested peer review of this article. See Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * is this article stable dnough for an effective peer review? it seems likely that large chunks of this article might be rewritten and it might al be refocused after probation expires. Smith Jones (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Our goal should be to improve the article.  It is currently a good article, so it's not that bad.  Jehochman  Talk 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you have a good point. i was just making sure that oyu were taking into acocunt the unstable nature of a probation article in your decision. i dont have any other objectiosn to a peer review. Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of requesting peer review here -- are you doing it in furtherance of the disputes displayed here? Also, clarify: I thought the admins involved in overseeing the probation of this article would stay uninvolved (unless of course it involves furthering the goal of resolving the disputes that caused the probation in the first place, or enforcing the probation)?  Please clarify.  Friarslantern (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose is to help improve the quality of the article (something I am not prevented from doing), and to bring in objective, outsider perspectives (which may help improve the editing environment). Does anybody here not want to improve the article? Jehochman  Talk 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that last comment is in good faith. Friarslantern (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How!? What makes you say that ?!?! Smith Jones (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See rhetorical question. Jehochman  Talk 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. my quesitonw as rhetorical too. Smith Jones (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the homeopath perspective
Some homeopaths, who are a minority in the medical field, contend that many studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect other than placebo, and that placebo-controlled, randomized, and blinded clinical trials are not the best research tool to test homeopathic effects. Please bring the appropriate sources. Thanks, Quack   Guru  18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm is not helpful. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither is seeing sarcasm where there is none. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Explain why the first comment was not sarcasm, please. What are all the fact tags for, if not sarcastic effect. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, it was not sarcastic. Somebody has added their personal opinions to the article using fact tags as a crutch.  If a statement is controversial and not supported by citations, it should be removed, not tagged.  Once sources are found, it can be re-added.  That's the general rule. Jehochman  Talk 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this paragraph is basically fine, and needs citations where the fact tags are placed. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i think that the tags should be placed at the end of the relvent pragraph to avoid the ugly mess that is created when tags are slapped every atwhere at random. Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, inline tags are best to keep from having a string of tags at the end. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. placing all the tags at the end is not by original opinion. I only said that one tag should be placed at the end since the whole paragraph is unsourced claptrap and a source that addresses one of them shoudl easily address them all. and if it is clear that he sources have not way of being verified in a timely manner, they should be removed until a source can be found. Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When you post something, could you provide a bit of context, so people are not completely lost? I did not understand why you posted that.  To me it looked like a sarcastic remark about homeopathic practitioners. Jehochman  Talk 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree with user:jehochman about the importance of context in describing an issue. Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion here seems to be in taking what Quack Guru wrote sarcastically. Take it literally, what's wrong with it? It can't be posted to the article space without citations. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. The lack of references is so obvious, I thought it was sarcastic.  Jehochman  Talk 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be basically correct as a matter of fact, however, so it should be possible to find appropriate RS & V citations. &mdash;Whig (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of reference fixing, and it is astonishing how often a statement needs to be adjusted a little bit (or a lot) to match what the references say. For maximum accuracy, it would be better to find the references first, and then craft the statement. Jehochman  Talk 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<<< Here is one reference: A meta-analysis [8] and three systematic reviews [9–11] suggest that in ‘good’ quality trials, homeopathy has a significantly greater effect than placebo [8–10], although the strength of the effect is disputable [11] and engenders much debate.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is another: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have these sources been incorporated? I cannot find that sentence in the article any longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of that statement would not be supported by the sources provided as yet, and the phrasing is simply awful, serving only to give WP:Undue weight to a bold assertion. The NCCAM report on homeopathy gives a summary of metaanalyses up to the date of the report, and the only unambiguously positive one is the Linde 1995 study which the authors later disowned the conclusions of. I have no objections to saying that homeopaths point to the few positive studies, or claim that science is unable evaluate homeopathy - the last could easily be sourced to Lionel Milgrom, who does claim that. However, that sentence, as it stands, is pure POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden talk 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Find the references first and then simply tweak the sentence and wording. Or just explain the homeopaths viewpoints or claims. It must be backed up by reliable references and carefully worded. Quack   Guru  19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not acrtively editing this article, just providing sources that can be used as requested, so fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"controversial" in the lead
It's quite clear that reliable sources establish that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. It's also clear that there's a fair amount of controversy about homeopathy, particuarly in Britain. However, I don't think that the lead should start "Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine..." It's not necessary to stuff conclusions down the reader's throat at the beginning of the article. We should assume that the reader is able to digest the material in the article and come to his/her own conclusions. For me, this is not a problem of neutrality, it's simply one of encyclopedic style.

I'd prefer that the lead go something like "Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that employs remedies made from substances that, in undiluted form, cause symptoms similar to the disease they aim to treat." That way, we start off with a concise, non-evaluative definition of the subject, and move on from there. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We could do that, but the word controversial is not biased. It satisfies some users here.  It makes it perfectly clear, so that in case the reader doesn't know that alternative medicine is controversial -and some might not- then we tell them.  And, it isn't a conclusion, just a statement of controversy.  Personally, I think it is very good just where it is. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word "controversial" should not be in the very first sentence. The fact that there is controversy is obvious to the reader as he or she comes to the discussions of clinical trials. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Definite disagreement. We have seen this discussion from some of the same editors far too many times. There is now an article probation that should put a stop to this stonewalling and repetition of endless attempts to whitewash the article. Please stop it. I suggest you read this and understand that the pseudoscience category is approved and continued attempts to hide or push down the controversial nature of this subject are disruptive. There happens to hardly be any subject in alternative medicine that is more controversial, and the whole debacle and controversiality of this whole editing environment happens to be yet one more proof of it. The probation needs to be enforced. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, I hope you're not accusing me of stonewalling or whitewashing. Because I think it's obvious that homeopathy is pseudoscience, and I've said so on this talk page. I just don't think the article needs to say so in every sentence. In particular, I think the first sentence of the article should be a simple definition of homeopathy. Let's assume that the reader is intelligent and capable of getting through the first four paragraphs of the article--anyone who does so should realize that homeopathy is a non-scientific practice, to say the least.
 * By the way, this edit changed the beginning of the third paragraph, and I think it was much stronger as "The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge." I think this sentence should be changed back. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, don't worry. I was carefully excluding you in my thinking when I wrote "some of the same editors". Maybe I should have said it, and am doing it now. Sorry about the confusion. You have not been among those commonly considered as the usual suspects. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Perhaps you're right.  I just removed a clause which, although it could (or its negative) be in a reasonable version of the sentence, was in the reverse context.  However, I don't think changing it back (once) would be a violation of the imposed article probation.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not. There's been quite a bit of reverting that has gone unsanctioned, and in any case if you made the change you're talking about, it would obviously be in good faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the change to the third paragraph, because Martinphi's edit had softened criticism and dislocated some references. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and said this several weeks ago (years ago?? ;-) ). It is already called "alternative"; adding controversial piles on the slant here in a way that I feel is clearly not normal encyclopedic style.  Just as in a debate, a topic is put out first and defined, then the debate begins.

[For the record, I am on the fence about whether I think homeopathy works or not (it worked for me once, but it involved treating a malady that reportedly is very reactive to the placebo effect) but am warmed by many forms of alt. med. -- and quite cold to others. And, also for the record, I don't think WP is wise to be labelling anything pseudoscience (instead of quoting others calling it such) (and I'd say this about topics that I myself feel are clearly pseudoscience]

But even if it were a topic that I was diametrically opposed to and disgusted by how it had nevertheless made inroads into societal sanction -- for example, creationism or intelligent design -- I would never advocate calling them controversial (or, for example, contentious, or discredited, etc.) in the first clause of the first paragraph of the lead. While appropriate for persuasive writing, it is not appropriate for a piece of expository writing. I doubt you'd ever find a respectable reference work that would put that in the first sentence (or at least the first clause): first define the thing, then comment on social effects of it. I also feel that it negatively affects the regard that WP is held in to allow such language to stand.

I am open to having my mind changed on this... but, for example, in creationism and intelligent design, the first sentence is dedicated to simply setting out a nutshell definition of the topic.

And please, I know h. is controversial -- I don't want to hear "but it IS controversial and that NEEDS to be stated!"... of COURSE it needs to be stated. Not in it's current position though.

I realize that some "pro-homeopathy" people here support it because... well, I'm not really sure why -- I've only been dealing with this article since Wikidudeman was attempting his re-write, and I guess it was important for some reason.

I believe that using "controversial" in the first sentence of the lead ultimately detracts from the respectability of this article, and of WP in general. I don't believe you will find such language in the opening sentence even of respectable scientific references.

Additionally, Fyslee: only speaking for myself, I heartily object to the tenor of your objections above, and feel your language just adds insult to injury for someone who in good faith objects to language and labels which are in the current article and have been for a while. In other words, you're getting your way, how bout toning it down? Friarslantern (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One reason the POV pushing persists is that editors on both sides are warring to push their favorite POV instead of allowing NPOV. The way it is used here, "Controversial" is a weasel word.  It represents POV pushing.  Wikipedia should start by explaining what homeopathy is,the reasoning behind it, and the criticisms with sourcing.  Instead of branding a subject "controversial", we need to specifically say who is opposed and why. Jehochman  Talk 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, "controversial" is helpful: It clearly indicates that the subject is under dispute, e.g. not mainstream (WP:FRINGE), but without forcing us to go into too much criticism before we define it a bit better. Adam Cuerden talk 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, placing "controversial" in the first sentence makes the tone of the article a bit shrill. Criticism of homeopathy starts in the third paragraph. I know that people have short attention spans these days, but I think we can trust most readers to make it through the lead. If someone reads the third and fourth paragraphs and doesn't come away with the impression that homeopathy is controversial, adding the word to the first sentence isn't going to help them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the essence of NPOV is show, don't tell. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Breaking my own rule to contribute here, the vast majority of readers will only read the first sentence. Readers should be able to get a rough idea of what homeopathy is from reading just one sentence. We should not be dictating that readers must read past the first paragraph, or the third and fourth paragraphs, or a given section in the body. We should just blandly describe the material, which is what the word "controversial" does without offending anyone or casting any aspersions. Also, if this subject is not controversial, what is? Sorry if this offends anyone.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, if you think a comment may offend people, you should moderate yourself before posting. I hope our users are reading more than the first sentence. That seems to be an overly pessimistic view. Jehochman  Talk 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried a more neutral description but unfortunately that is not allowed. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to characterize it? Fighting against NPOV is not helpful. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is there against a neutral description? What part of that edit do you consider "Fighting against NPOV?" Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 16:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately that was not allowed." I'll ask again, why do we need to characterize homeopathy in the first sentence?  Can we not just say what it is without making any sort of value judgements? Jehochman  Talk 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If most people agree that Jossi's proposal is an improvement, why not make the edit? You can always come back later and suggest additional improvements. I hope that editors will go out of their way to find common ground, and to end the warring that has hindered this article. Jehochman Talk 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why homeopathy is not controversial
Let me take a different tack: "controversial" is way too accommodating an adjective for homeopathy. There isn't any controversy amongst the homeopaths over it and, frankly, those who are not homeopaths generally dismiss it out-of-hand as nonsense. As Wikipedia's own page on the subject states: A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Hmm, there is definitely active dispute here at Wikipedia talk pages, but need I remind everyone, Wikipedia talk pages are not reliable sources! In point of fact, there is no controversy at all in the same sense that there is no "controversy" over evolution (thus the misnomer teach the controversy). The parties in this case are not actively disagreeing, arguing, or debating. Rather the scientists and medical professionals dismiss homeopathy out-of-hand and the homeopaths try to claim that they are actually backed up by their inane interpretations of science. No, homeopathy isn't controversial; it's just magical thinking like creationism. So let's take a page from creationism and really call a duck a duck.

My quick attempt:


 * Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that relies on the belief that substances which cause symptoms similar to certain diseases can be administered as remedies for those diseases if they are extremely diluted, sometimes to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy. Homeopathy was created by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century and continues to be one of the most popular forms of alternative medicine, despite its lack of scientific basis.

Hopefully you get the idea.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement--it includes a clear definition and some concrete criticism. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could certainly live with that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that SA's exposition is reductio ad absurdum. While I agree that the lead needs improving, the proposed wording is not neutral enough, as it defines the practice as a "belief". This slightly tweaked wording would do the trick:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good but is it easier to read if diseases is singular, for example, "substances which cause symptoms similar to a certain disease can be administered as remedies for that disease if they are extremely diluted". ? David D. (Talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs to be "a certain disease" Adam Cuerden talk 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, changed now. David D. (Talk) 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the revised wording by ≈ jossi ≈. The change of "belief" to "premise" is an example of how one word can change the tone of a statement from POV to NPOV. I would, however, have preferred adding the word "present" to have the sentence end: "despite its present lack of scientific basis." Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... that would push it on the other direction, a subtle POV. Let's keep it simple, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree on keeping it simple, and I reiterate that I support your proposed wording. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a premise; it's a belief. A premise is a claim that is presumed true for the sake of arguing to a conclusion. In this case, there is no conclusion the claim is attempting to reach. It's simply a "claim". Therefore, it is not a "premise". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "idea"? That's pretty neutral. Adam Cuerden talk 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't know why belief is so controversial, but at least it's an idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, why can't we mention that the dilutions sometimes proceed to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy? It would be nice for that to be up front. Any reason not to include that in the sentence? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One concern that I have with including that is that it wouldn't include the pro-homeopathy "rebuttal" (i.e. water memory). Including the fact that some homeopathic remedies include no molecules of the supposedly active substance is going to make the typical reader go "Well, that's incredibly stupid."  If we're going to include that damning fact in the lead, we should at least also include homeopaths' explanation for why it isn't stupid.  I think people will still be able to make up their own minds.
 * Besides that, I'm still not all clear on how widespread the zero molecule thing is. Unless it's pretty common, I don't think it belongs in the lead. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Filll has been documenting it with User:Peter morrell in a sandbox. It's surprisingly common. By simply stating a fact, we aren't positing any POV at all. We know that there are homeopathic remedies on the market which have basically none of the substance advertised in the remedy. That's a documented fact. It's an important fact too because it lets people know how far removed from the mainstream homeopathy is. I'm not making a POV-statement about this (maybe you like being far from the mainstream), it's just a way to frame the issue so that readers know what they are dealing with. As for homeopathic "responses", I haven't seen any. They don't tend to worry about the mechanisms of their remedies. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Their response is "water memory". I agree that it's not much of a response, but I think it needs to be included if the zero molecule thing is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the response on these talk pages by certain homeopathic supporters is that it is due to water memory, but in general, the response is: "it works, we don't know how, but it works". There are other explanations for this too. See torsion field for one particularly outlandish one. Water memory is generally not discussed very much by people hawking homeopathic wares. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the fact that pseudoscientists want to explain how two chemically and structurally identical substances can have differing properties is not relevant to the fact that many homeopathic remedies have zero molecules of the supposed "remedy" contained in them. That's something left for analysis later in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't you just link to the existing article on magic? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Blackamoor, please be less inflammatory, or I will be forced to remove you from the conversation. Jossi's attempt at an NPOV lead is helpful, and seems to have support from both sides. I recommend follow up on that proposal. Jehochman Talk 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that changing premise to idea helps, but I really don't see any justification for not including the fact that many homeopathic remedies do not contain a single molecule of the substance. The tit-for-tat water memory argument just doesn't work because water memory is a supposed mechanism to get around atomic theory and is therefore one step removed from the fact of most homeopathic remedies not containing molecules of the substance listed on the label. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that covered extensively later in the article? Leads are supposed to be concise.  Also remember that perfect is the enemy of good.  Given the heavy conflicts over this article, I ask all editors to make an extra effort to be agreeable whenever possible. Jehochman  Talk 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see "extensive" coverage as being necessary. What's wrong with having a single clause that states: "sometimes to the point of no molecules being present in the remedy." I like this because it explains what "extreme dilution" means. Otherwise, it's too vague. No one (not even homeopaths) disputes that this is the case, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My new proposal:

Integrates many different proposals into one.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i like the way that's frased, but is there any reason why the first sentences have to be so long?: i understand the reason why the 'sometimes to the point...' part of the sentecnes needs to be in the article but it could easily bve a sentence by itself, with perhaps a refernces to water memory added on. Smith Jones (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Much prefer jossi's version, without the weaselly "sometimes to the point...". Either "idea" or "premise" seem equally acceptable to me, and naturaaly I will accept consensus there.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still prefer the concise version formulated by ≈ jossi ≈. The lead section should summarize the content of the entire article. There is no logical reason (that I can see) to get into a detailed analysis of molecular content, especially in the first sentence. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever version used if dilution is discussed then succussion should be mentioned. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no homeopath believes that dilution without succussion works. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, how's that? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I made another change, see if you like it. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Zeroing in. We need to attribute the neologism to the homeopaths, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "dynamization" or "potentization" cover succussion and dilution? That may be an easier way of putting it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Made another change. Since the reader may not know what dynamization is. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is important that we define this for the reader: it is defined later on in the article. We don't define "dilution", after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not liking this version, as it seems to be omitting information that the reader might be interested to know in order to make it seem less believable, and putting words in scare quotes makes the point even more strongly that these homeopaths are not to be believed. Which you might think, but that isn't NPOV. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stripping out all mention of succussion is not getting closer to NPOV. &mdash;Whig (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we need to avoid neologisms. Succussion is an invented term and therefore cannot simply be placed in a sentence as such. I replaced with a synonym "shook", but we can pipe to the relevant section. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a 200+ year old word can be a neologism, but I agree it is best to avoid confusing readers and your edit is fine. My only concern with your text at this point is that we cannot say for sure whether homeopathy has a scientific basis or if it does not unless we have an authoritative source that speaks for multidisciplinary consensus. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is based the hypotheses that illnesses are cured by small doses of substances that cause the same symptoms as the illness and the hypotheses that the smaller the dose, the stronger the cure. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TimesOnline is not a RS for defining homeopathy. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * jossi's version is better. It isn't really accurate to say it lacks scientific basis.  It lacks scientific confirmation as more than a placebo.  But if you give someone a sugar pill or a water medicine, and he gets well due to the 30% of a lot of medicine which is placebo, you are scientifically justified in saying that the thing works.  So, it does have a scientific basis, but that basis (and a fully confirmed one) is that it works on placebo, but on no other confirmed basis. Anyway, saying that it doesn't have any scientific basis isn't really true. I accept this version, however, if others do.


 * However, I do not like the criticism paragraph in the lead. I say this in the hope that skepticism will get its due in the article.  If it sounds like an attack, then it will be ignored by the reader as merely an attack.  So I accept that paragraph as it is with regrets, not for the proponents of Homeopathy, but for the skeptics. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify that my own edits of ScienceApologist's text weren't to endorse that version, only to help the wording of including succussion. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I get nothing out of " But if you give someone a sugar pill or a water medicine, and he gets well due to the 30% of a lot of medicine which is placebo, you are scientifically justified in saying that the thing works. So, it does have a scientific basis...".  Please clarify.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't a very clear question. If it works, it works. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too profound for me, I guess. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, most people would not say that it was the placebo that "worked". What "works" is the human imagination and the power of suggestion. The placebo itself had nothing to do with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are problems with the placebo theory, inasmuch as healing crises are opposite to the placebo effect. The entire theory of homeopathic treatment is different from how most drugs are studied, which makes it problematic presenting criticisms from the pharmaceutical side without also presenting the homeopathic perspective. We should be including both and presenting them neutrally. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about the subject matter. Please focus on improving the article. The question on the table is whether Jossi's proposed edits have consensus support? Reviewing this discussion, I believe that they do. Does anybody disagree? Jehochman Talk 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that the following problems are not addressed in Jossi's lead:
 * Use of the word "premise"
 * Use of the plural with respect to diseases.
 * Unexplained removal of the point that homeopathic dosages may contain no molecules.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with the unsupported lack of scientific basis statement. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whig: we are not discussing our personal viewpoints... rather, we are describing what sources say. Let's focus on the basics, OK? We just need a simple and well written lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SicneApologist i disagre with your points. the use of the word 'premise' is an irrelevent nitpick; the word 'premise', 'belief', 'idea', or 'concerpt' are equally useful in descibing the views of homeopathic physicians like myself. the use of the plural can easily be repiared once a lead is agreed upon, iether by someone here or a friendly WIkiGnome flitting about the Itnernet fixing typos and other egregrious acgrammatical errors. I agree with your last point that the lack of molecules should be references in the lead but is ee no reason why it has to be in the very first sentence. Each sentence should be about a specific topic. Sentence 1 should describe what homeopathy pruports to be, and sentence 2 should be about the homeopathic dosages containing no molecules and possibly a link tot the water memory scientific theory. onc ethose are corrected, then we will have consensus unless you or anythone else have further objections. Smith Jones (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Simth Jones, are you maybe splitting hairs? 'Premise='' a claim, a proposition, an assumption, a postulate, hypothesis. All valid ways to describe the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * not sure what you mean there jossi. I SAID htat the word 'premise', along with 'belief, concept, idea, claim' were all equally valid wayts of describing and ther e was no reason to fuss right now over witch one was used. Smith Jones (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a witty response, but I'll abstain. No point in getting banned for pointing out ... nevermind.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are learning, that is good Jim. It proves that probation works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Muy bien, amigo, muy bien. I've noticed that your English has very distict Spanish elements, just as my Spanish has very distinct English elements.  Pero, mi respuesta fue un poco sarcástico. Que es la vida.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)