Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 41

Neutrality dispute tag ?
But lets wait for Vassayna to suggest a solution about tagging the article.--JeanandJane (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I added the tag to the article already. I read the the Wikipedia policy at WK:NPOVD and this situation applies. This only means that discussion and efforts to resolve the neutrality dispute are ongoing but have not yet been resolved. Looking at the policy guidelines, we could have added this long ago. In any case, let's see if we can resolve this. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree with this but it is better an admin to protect it so we dont have edit wars and have a really creative and productive discussion to improve it. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear suggestions for improvement and changes for the above paragraph.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on my user talk page about the matter of tagging:. Please stay focused on productive discussion of the content. --Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite the editors again to make specific suggestions to improve the neutrality of the article and don't remove the tag until the dispute is over according to policy--JeanandJane (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is just that most editors think that the lead is NPOV (so do I), well sourced and well phrased. It explains both the scientific and homeopathic view, and doesn't use POV wording to describe either of them. The ideas that homeopathy may work through electromagnetic energy or quantum mechanics are already in the article and are far from being generally accepted, so I don't think it needs to be in the lead.--Six words (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According yo policy there is a dispute on the neutrality. (If this quote is good enough for the AMA it should satisfy also Wikipedia policy for RS and neutrality. I think it is reasonable.--JeanandJane (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to what policy? Is it not presenting both views? Does it give undue weight to a minor view? Does it use POV language?--Six words (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I see no justification for the NPOV tag in anything written here. What I see is two editors with an interest in rewriting the article to give a favourable POV (as they are homeopaths) disputing the consensus of editors here, and the scientific consensus more generally. Verbal chat  15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User Verbal fails to assume good faith. Could someone please advise him to do so? According to policy the tag should be there since the neutrality of the article is disputed. --JeanandJane (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposals are not receiving any support. Please make proposals of smaller individual changes (just one line of the lead, for example) and then justify the change with references and reasoning for discussion. I replied also on the thread you started on Vassyana's talk page. Verbal chat  15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read our discussion. It is above. You continue to pretend that are my views only since more than one editors dispute the neutrality of the article.  Act according to policy and respect the rules about the tag. There is no point to continue the discussion if we don't respect the rules of the discussion. Lets see what Vassayna has to comment. I m confident that Vassyane will not ignore the rule. --JeanandJane (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC) WK:NPOVD--JeanandJane (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, you are not acting in good faith, and are ignoring the entire discussion of bias, with three specific sections already identified, and additional contentions below:


 * 1. Lead: Homeopathy, 3rd paragraph is bias and inaccurate on many points including misrepresentations of RS (see many pages of discussion and no resolution).
 * 2. Section: Miasma & disease, 2nd paragraph is heavily bias (discussion & no resolution)
 * 3. Section: Methodological and publication issues *heavily* biased (I have provided evidence already near the end of section Changes to lead: Homeopathy).
 * 4. Section: Research on medical effectiveness highly biased and inaccurate; it completely ignores Kleijnen 1991, European Commission 1996, Linde 1997, 1998 and Mathie 2003, by not using the same prominent format listing "In 2001..."
 * 5. Section: Research on medical effectiveness referencing Altunc 2007. Altunc's results (reproduced at the end of Talk:Homeopathy) clearly does not support the statements made.
 * 6. Section: Ethical and Safety issues, 3rd paragraph duplicates paragraph two in Miasma & disease with the same bias.
 * 7. Section: Medical and scientific analysis, 1st sentence is vague and bias and needs to be clarified.


 * Verbal and Shoemaker's repeated reversions of the neutrality tag (only these two thus far—but I suspect this behavior will continue if engaged, with the strong anti-homeopathy quorum eliminating the risk of WP:3RR to it's individual members by reverting as a block sharing the burden of WP:3RR) are in violation of WP:NPOVD. The policy specifically states not to revert until resolution is achieved. We have not discussed this to resolution. I would also encourage you and others here to read WP:EDITNINJAS, specifically:


 * The ninja is an accurate but polite description, useful in place of more antagonistic terms which can be regarded as epithets. Edit ninjas are users who move from article-to-article, making edits, often in violation of WP:NPOV and they are often successful by working together in clans. They are silent, but deadly. Like real ninjas they combine astounding accuracy, cunning, and skill with senseless and pointless destruction and mayhem. The ninja and edit ninja both act like machines instead of real human beings. Recognizing and respecting each other, they act like a cabal. If you edit-war with them, you are more than likely going to be blocked, in accord with a misuse and misinterpretation of WP:3RR.


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

About controversies
There's something here that keeps being repeated, and I think it keeps coming up as a stumbling block. People have responded to it before, but apparently with no effect on the people who keep repeating it. So I'll try saying it again here.

Homeopathy is controversial in some respects. Mainly the controversy is between the homeopaths and those who have asked "Where is the evidence?" The evidence itself is not controversial- there's near-universal agreement that the evidence for efficacy beyond placebo is very weak. A few studies have found weak evidence, and many have failed to find any at all. The collective weight of the evidence suggests that homeopathic remedies are not effective beyond placebo. So whenever anyone trots out the word "controversial", let's all try to remember what it means in this context.

If there is controversy to be mentioned in the article, it should be treated somewhat like evolution. That controversy is not scientific - it's controversial only in politics or in public opinion. In the case of homeopathy, the controversy could be described in similar terms. But let's not try to imply that the scientific evidence is controversial. It's no more or less controversial than anything else that has been studied and not found to have an effect. This could change in light of new evidence, sure- but we're here to describe the subject today, not speculate about what might happen in the future. Friday (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Friday: The reliable sources speak of continuing dispute and as you see above ;the interpenetration about the collective weight of the evidence differs in the mainstream scientific community. The best example is the Linde criticism published in the Lancet about the revent meta analyses and several other conflicting mainstream sources. Different editors have different opinions. --JeanandJane (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Name one. All the best-quality reliable soures say either that it's not effective or that it's at best in need of more research to prove it's not effective. Combined with it violating fundamental physical laws, where's the controversy about it working? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All from the homoeopaths' side, as far as I can tell. Hence they want to "teach the controversy".  Brunton (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Homeopaths ? voila. --JeanandJane (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ?

I will name three.

Linde ( You said before he is highly regarded scientist ?) letter published in the Lancet "The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven. We now find it extremely disappointing that a major medical journal misuses a similar study in a totally uncritical and polemical manner. A subversive philosophy serves neither science nor patients.

What Nacam states about Homeopathy Controversies Regarding Homeopathy

Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). '''Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. For these reasons, critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile. Others point to observational and anecdotal evidence that homeopathy does work and argue that it should not be rejected just because science has not been able to explain it'''

And the general statement from the Cochrane Review when they got negative results for dementia but they said that generally [http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003803.html Homeopathy is a popular type of complementary medicine. It is however controversial because although there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo, no one understands how it could work.] Are these enough?--JeanandJane (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a review that Linde has conducted that has found that homoeopathy has an effect over placebo, and that Linde and his colleagues have not subsequently suggested is not as definitive as they at first thought? And can you cite a Cochrane review that found, from the evidence of the studies that it considered, that homoeopathy works?  Brunton (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * off topic.We discuss here if the evidence on Homeopathy's efficacy is controversial and the answer is yes if you trust the above sources.--JeanandJane (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't use a review as a source for something that the review wasn't looking at. If a review looked at studies of homoeopathy as a treatment for dementia (and found no evidence of efficacy) you can't use it to imply that there is evidence that homoeopathy works in general.
 * As I've pointed out, the efficacy of homooepathy is controversial because while the collective evidence suggests it doesn't work, people claim that it does. Brunton (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the cochrane review included this general statement - it would be a violation of NPOV to not included it. The above sources disagree with you. Nowhere they say the collective evidence ...They ( the sources ) say that the controversy exists because Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. ...and "others point to observational and anecdotal evidence that homeopathy does work and argue that it should not be rejected just because science has not been able to explain it'''--JeanandJane (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You’re repeating what he said, just in slightly different wording. Remember that observational and anecdotal evidence are not actually evidence. Furthermore, science has already explained why homeopathy does not and cannot work. Saying science is "not able to explain it" is somewhere between a gross mischaracterization and a bald-faced lie. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JeanandJane, you seem to think that the fact that there is some positive evidence contradicts the statement that homoeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of the evidence. It doesn't. Brunton (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TALK :This is what the Reliable Sources state we like it or not. The reliable sources lie? Maybe. But since we don't do original research here we have to report whatever they say.

Brunton :It is amazing and kind of amusing to me that all the reliable sources are telling you so clearly that there is no final final consensus on the efficacy of homeopathy, they call it "controversy" because "others point to observational and anecdotal evidence that homeopathy does work and argue that it should not be rejected just because science has not been able to explain it'''  the lancet publish letters of highly regarded researchers (Linde )who protest and say that "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." and some wikipedia editors claim that there is no controversy on the evidence.!! --JeanandJane (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Brunton et al.:


 * "Can you cite a review that Linde has conducted that has found that homeopathy has an effect over placebo, and that Linde and his colleagues have not subsequently suggested is not as definitive as they first thought?"


 * Brunton, your wording is very disingenuous. All of Linde et al.'s research below (1997, 1998, and 1999) show "homeopathy has effects greater than placebo" *even* after correction for publication bias. However, I don't see Shang performing the same corrections with even greater criticism in the field (see below). In any case here are the results:


 * Systematic reviews—homeopathy has effects greater than placebo: Kleijnen, HMRG, Linde97, Linde98, Linde99, Mathie.


 * Kleijnen et al. (1991) -- the famous and first systematic review. Conclusion: "Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible” and “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homoeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”


 * HMRG (1996; the Homeopathic Medicine Research Group) -- a joint group of researchers in conventional medicine and homeopathy, commissioned by the European Commission. Identifies 184 controlled trials, selected highest quality randomized placebo controlled trials (2001 patients). Conclusion: the meta-analysis found evidence that homeopathy was more effective than placebo (though qualified that "the strength of evidence was low because of the low methodological quality of the trials").


 * Linde et al. (1997) -- Lancet published, 186 placebo controlled studies, data taken from best 89. Overall mean odds ratio for these 89 was 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05-2.93) in favor of homeopathy. Even after correction for publication bias (1998) results yielded statistically significant results. Additional analyses (1999) discarding lower-quality trials, Linde et al. concluded that homeopathic treatment remained more effective than placebo - though less strikingly so than in their previous analysis.


 * Mathie, R (2003) -- a systematic review of results from 93 substantive RCTs. Conclusion: of 35 different medical conditions covered by the trials the weight of evidence favours a positive treatment effect in 8: childhood diarrhoea, fibrositosis, hayfever, influenza, pain (misc), side-effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, sprains and upper-respiratory tract infections.


 * Systematic reviews—homeopathy has effects no greater than placebo: Ernst and Shang.


 * Ernst (2002) used systematic reviews only, and concluded that there was no medical condition that responded convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo. NOTE, however that a review of systematic reviews can draw conclusions only about the reviews themselves, not the primary research publications on which they were based. So this is not a *real* systematic review.


 * Shang (2005) compared 110 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. 21 and 9 for homeopathy and conventional medicine trials were judged of higher quality. Of these the results of 14 unspecified 'larger trials of higher quality' (8 homeopathy, 6 conventional medicine) were analyzed. Mean odd's ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.65-1.19) for the 8 homeopathy trials, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.39-0.85) for the 6 conventional medicine trials. Conclusion: no more effective than placebo. These conclusions were *heavily* criticized by a large numbers of researchers, including Linde, Ludtke, Rutten, Frass, Bellavite and others (see the references section for links).


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kleijnen concluded, "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials".
 * I don't have a copy of the HMRG paper, but you note yourself that it found that the strength of the evidence was low because of study quality issues.
 * Linde 1997 concluded, "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." - a cautiously positive result, but one that was, in view of analysis of the effects of study quality and the results of further research, described by its authors as having "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" (Linde 1999).
 * Linde 1998 found that for the best quality research there was no significant effect - significance was only reached if the poorer quality studies were included.
 * Linde 1999 was a study, not of the efficacy of homoeopathy but of the effect of study quality on the results.
 * None of these is an unequivocal positive result, as confirmed by Ernst 2002 which as you say is a study of the review literature.
 * Mathie 2003 is problematic (especially in view of Linde 1998 and 1999) because it deliberately excluded categorisation of studies by study quality on the grounds that "information on this issue is already available" (see p. 87). Ignoring this known issue seems to me to be an odd approach: it basically means that the positive results identified by Mathie are of unknown validity.
 * "Further good quality research is needed" (which is about as good as it gets) is not a statement supporting the efficacy of homoeopathy - it means that the current research fails to support it. Brunton (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fails to support" is misleading. As you can see there are conflicting results and different conclusions. So another wording is required. In general please use our reliable sources to make assumptions - don't conduct your own research. In wikipedia you are not a researcher but an editor who neutrally reports the results even if you disagree with them.

--JeanandJane (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the authors also said these things. However, did you notice the bold sub-headings for each of the two sub-groups of better than placebo vs. no better than placebo? I'm not making conclusions based on a single quote of the author, but by the overall conclusions supported by the results of the study. For any paper you will in all probability be able to selectively quote something that supports a given POV if you look hard enough and take things out of context. Citing Linde's or Kleijnen's qualifications to their conclusions is not meant to contradict their conclusions but provide additional nuance.


 * However, I agree with what you say about these not being unequivocal positive results. But remember, we don't need to show "unequivocally" -- that's not what we are contending. We are contenting positive results greater than placebo have occurred in a large number of cases. Which suggests efficacy to some degree in certain circusmtances. And the controversy arises because others insist that the large majority of results are no better than placebo. In fact, the literature has shown that the majority of results are greater than placebo (though not definitive). And the existing Wikipedia text implies the opposite.


 * Even though there may be problems with Mathie (2003), that is no reason to exclude it as an RS. Many have cited Linde (1997) as having problems, Ernst (2002) as having problems, and especially Shang (2005) as having significant problems. Yet we include them all as they are still RS. To exclude an RS becomes it has problems, would be tantamount to excluding virtually all the supportive references from both perspectives.


 * Alright, I hear what you're saying about stating in the second sentence "efficacy of homeopathy." What we can do here is modify the second sentence so that we are not referring to "efficacy of homeopathy" but instead we can say: "Homeopathy's efficacy is highly controversial in view of the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence. Several controlled randomized studies show little evidence for effects of homeopathy greater than placebo, while other controlled studies do show evidence for effects greater than placebo. Several controlled randomized studies and systematic reviews show results unfavorable to homeopathy, while other controlled studies and systematic reviews do show results favorable to homeopathy."


 * Savvy? Dbrisinda (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the headings. However, I also noted what the papers actually concluded (and in one case how the same data had subsequently been reassessed by the authors), and would suggest that they perhaps aren't as positive as you think they are.  Brunton (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, perhaps they aren't as negative as you think they are? We have to be careful about taking just the qualitative conclusions in the abstract summaries. As shown below, with Altunc these can be problematic—as they are easy to misinterpret. It is better to take the actual quantitative results of the study itself, as this leaves very little room for interpretation. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is another example of misrepresentation of RSs and involves the systematic review performed by Altunc (2007) that I have not mentioned previously. In the current article paragraph three lead, Altunc is cited in support of the statement "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." Here are the actual results for this systematic review to assess evidence for homeopathic efficacy for childhood and adolescence ailments.


 * A detailed examination of the findings in this paper show that of the 16 selected trials, 7 reported effects favourable to homeopathy (better than placebo), and 9 reported effects comparable to placebo. In any case, this study is not consistent with and cannot be used to support a contention of "no better than placebo" as the results are split.


 * Adenoid Vegetations: 2 trials; comparable to placebo


 * Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: 4 trials; 3 trials favour homeopathy; 1 trial comparable to placebo


 * Asthma: 2 trials; comparable to placebo on several outcome measures (intensity, frequency, duration)


 * Acute Otitis Media: 1 trial; reduction in symptoms compared to placebo; requires independent replication


 * Conjunctivitis: 1 trial; No significant difference compared to placebo


 * Diarrhea: 2 trials in favour of homeopathy; 1 trial comparable to placebo


 * Postoperative Pain-Agitation Syndrom: 1 trial; reported beneficial effects compared with placebo


 * Upper Respiratory Tract Infection: 2 trials; comparable to placebo for main outcome measures


 * Warts: 1 trial; comparable to placebo


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also: even if the article should describe Homeopathy in great detail does not include Vithooulkas's view on Homeopathy meta analyses.where he reports that: Out of six homeopathic meta--analysis 1-6 published in medical journals four 1-4 were somewhat positive and two 5-6 negative, compared with placebo, but all of them wrongly conceived and inaccurately evaluated from the aspect of homeopathy. The latest fashion of meta-analysis applied to homeopathic trials is coming to a climax, but from a homeopathic point of view without guiding lines, and without the possibility of reaching ever a final and definite conclusion concerning the effectiveness of homeopathy. I would like to show why such meta-analyses will prove to be useless, unreliable and misleading, whether the outcome be positive or negative, if it continues to take in to account the kind of trials existing till this day.The main pillar of meta-analysis is that it should be based on reliable trials. Are the bulk of the trials reviewed in these meta-analyses reliable?The answer is a clear "no" 1-10. My objection is that all these trials were not structured according to the well established principles of homeopathy.--JeanandJane (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, Altunç starts his discussion with "[...] the best evidence from double-blind RCTs shows no compelling data for any therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments.", and concludes "The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition."--Six words (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! Your quote is accurate. And therein lies the crux of the problem. The actual scientific results of the study are as presented, 16 trials, 7 favourable to homeopathy, and 9 comparable to placebo. Now, does the qualitative summary that you quoted, which appears in the abstract, support the actual quantitative results of the study itself? It's as if the paper mysteriously takes on a Jekyl&Hyde split personality with respect to quantitative vs. qualitative conclusions. One begins to appreciate the dilemma. What do we take, the actual scientific results of the study as shown, or the synthesis and editorialization of those results? Dbrisinda (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My quote is taken right out of the full text; Altunç doesn't conclude more than not convincing enough for recommendations. We cannot take "the actual scientific results" but omit his conclusions. I know I repeat myself, but what matters is the conclusion the autor of a paper draws, so it's not acceptable to cite him in a way that might make people think his conclusions were different. Or in the words of WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.--Six words (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I just hear that correctly? So, when great efforts are expended to create placebo-controlled randomized double-blind clinical trials, filtering for publication bias and a host of other criteria lending rigour to the study, when all this effort finally gives rise to precisely measurable results, you are saying we can throw all of this out the window in favour of the author's qualitative conclusions? Even when they don't match up to the quantitative results? Hmm. Something is rotten in the state of... Dbrisinda (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag 2?

 * I believe that an NPOV dispute exists. I'm not sure the EditNinjas quote is helpful. Accusations of this nature are not productive. WP:AGF especially when tempers are hot. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what article improvment is going to be made by adding in the POV template - and it seems odd that people are willing to editwar and write volumes on why it should be added. Rather than saying "it's POV" how about the proposals discussed?  I note that J&J's offer seems to ride on her "gotcha" from the AMA and it doesn't read very well.  If the current lede isn't up to scratch, how about a suggest/recommendation about what can be moved from the lede to "NPOV"ise it?  Also Dbrisinda, a warning, your edit above does absolutely nothing to help improve the article - per WP:TALK please desist lest you find your edits removed.  Shot info (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the policy surrounding POV tagging explicitly states to indicate why it was added via the talk page. Especially after re-adding after reversions. The ongoing and unresolved discussion should have been sufficient evidence as to why. However the above users removed the tag citing "no npov" and "already discussed". So, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, I chose to state explicitly and succinctly the reasons why before adding it again. Regarding the statement I made about the potential practice of WP:3RR group reversions, I've striked the relevant statements. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So how about some suggestions about what can be changed to make it NPOV. Remember that NPOV doesn't mean "equal weight" in journalistic terms?  Shot info (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the utility of the template here, and would ask people not to restore it but instead to focus on improving the article. So far those sugested "problems" have not got consensus. Not getting consensus for your changes doesn't mean you can tag the article. And if we are going to have an accurate and evidence based article on homeopathy (and not the beliefs of homeopaths), then I'm afraid it will be one that homeopaths don't like, simply because that is the state of the evidence. Verbal chat  10:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I add the template a-g-a-i-n (how long is this going to continue?), I will try to explain. But first, FWIW, I am not a homeopath, and don't use homeopathic remedies. But I do have a strong aversion to what I perceive to be strong bias being shoved down my throat under the pretext of "sound science." I don't have a problem with criticism of homeopathy, or any other fledgling science (perhaps it's too early to call it such, and maybe it never will be), provided it's done honestly with good faith attempts to show counter-views and supporting evidence with neutrality. And misrepresentation of RSs, policing of RSs, negatively nuanced wording, and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT smacks to me of bias.


 * In respect to failing to see the utility of the template here, I've mentioned already the reasons succinctly above in this section. A few comments on what you say about not getting consensus WP:CCC, specifically:


 * "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."


 * and WP:PRACTICAL


 * "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. [...] Consensus is not in numbers. [...] Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons."


 * and finally WP:DRNC


 * "Sometimes editors will undo a change to an article, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". This is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire. [...] Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Keep in mind that no one can own an article."


 * Please leave the template. In any case, it's only temporary until the dispute is resolved. If you leave the template as it is, I can try once again to provide (shortly) suggestions for all of my concerns and we can discuss.


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply wrong. Its not a "fledgling science" and if you were knowledgable about it you would not consider calling it that. Its water, plain water, with "magic" properties. We're being beyond neutral and even placating the fringe water-worshipers who think there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough. We should be harsher, not kinder, if we were to achieve true NPOV. Its too much a battle though, due to POV warriors, so we keep it "close enough". There is no dispute - there are those who really don't understand either NPOV, or homeopathy, or (most likely) both. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you think that Linde (a highly regarded researcher (mane times cited and referenced in the article who protested with others  to the Lancet writing  that "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data", is a "fringe water-worshiper who thinks there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough." ? --JeanandJane (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked Vassyana to intervene but she said that--JeanandJane (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, you're all just standing behind your beliefs. Just because you've decided that it is "magic water" doesn't mean everyone does. It just means you come in here with your opinion already made up, and you act on it. You make the changes so that it once again reflects your opinion.
 * Unfortunately original research isn't allowed on wikipedia, but perhaps a talk page anecdote:
 * I was once (As in about 3 months ago) completely blind to homeopathy. I didn't believe it worked, I thought it was a sham, and I didn't use it. One morning I woke up pretty nauseous. I had the choice, the horse pill Gravol, which would probably make me vomit attempting to swallow it, or the iddy bitty little pellet of sugar that supposedly does something. I took it, fully not believing that it would work. Well, sure enough it did work. Last I checked, the placebo effect crashes and burns to nothing if you don't believe it will work/if you know its a placebo. Food for thought. Sometimes you need to stand up and question what the rest of the world has just accepted with blind faith. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As others will surely tell you, personal knowledge is not admissible, and anecdotes are not acceptable evidence. However, observational studies do seem to confirm your experience, and my own experience is similar to yours. From my perspective, the question is not whether homeopathy works, but how. No magic necessary, only a physical mechanism for information to be encoded and read, discussion of which is off-topic here as original research (but see my Talk page). &mdash;Whig (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is straying a bit off-topic, but I don't think it has been proved that the placebo effect does need belief. And it would be hard to check, since it's quite possible to believe something unconsciously while believing the opposite consciously. The human mind is complicated and full of contradictions. Hans Adler 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the placebo effect is necessarily off topic, since people seem to attribute homeopathic effectiveness to this, and a detailed discussion of why some purported placebos work better than others may be necessary. If homeopathic effectiveness is in fact placebo, which I dispute, it is nonetheless effective for many millions of people whereas other placebos are not. I can take an over the counter remedy for nasal congestion containing phenylephrine and it does nothing whereas a homeopathic remedy does work. Why is this? I'm not looking for an explanation of my personal experience, but an explanation of why observational studies show effectiveness, despite many double blind trials failing to do so. &mdash;Whig (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Hans, that would counter half the arguments on this article. If it doesn't matter whether or not you know that it is a placebo, than the observational experiments are equally as valid as the double blind tests that "prove" a lack of efficacy. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't kind of amusing that almost all the available reliable sources speak of the high controversy on Homeopathy (with famous researchers sending letters to the Lancet protesting about the latest studies, )and Wikipedia does not accept that there is content dispute on the neutrality of the article among the editors who have different opinions in this forum ? --JeanandJane (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because you're conflating and confusing different things. Verbal chat  17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reliable sources are not really reliable? I don't really know.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when strong arguments are advanced clearly indicating such. However, and with all due respect, just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't make it so. Your comment, in my view, shows a lack of awareness of the debate that has ensued here and of the arguments that have been advanced, many of which have been substantively ignored. In any case, I clearly qualified the phrase "fledgling science" in parantheses. Ignoring arguments and concerns (through various means), doesn't imply very much more than a deep fear to address contentious issues that might upset the status quo. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dbrisinda - rather than spending kb writing about why a POV template should or shouldn't appear, that you give editors some idea of the edits you are proposing to help improve the article? Shot info (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are above. But nobody really bothered to have a sincere dialogue. It seems that only a POV template might motivate  some of the users to discuss why the article should be more neutral.--JeanandJane (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Users? You mean editors.  And yes, there are above, but editors like myself have come into this, and all we see is the noise about "Yes POV" "No POV" "Yes POV" "No POV" "I'm getting an Admin wahhhhhh" etc. etc.  So your arguments are lost in the self generated noise.  If you didn't get distracted, offered clearly articulated proposals, then discussions can be had.  And yes, perhaps "the other guy started it" but if it means that your edit isn't carried, then your proposal is rather in vain?  Shot info (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the POV tag is to indicate to readers that some dissent exists regarding the NPOV status of the article. It is not a notice only to editors. The fact is there are multiple editors who find the present article to be biased. &mdash;Whig (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Whig, that isn't what Template:POV/doc says. What you are proposing is exactly the badge of shame usage the doc warns against.LeadSongDog come howl  17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, I may have been misusing the tag, although not to shame but to inform. I do think that since readers are potentially editors, a tag may serve to bring more uninvolved editors into the dispute, and there is a dispute. However, I understand that it is not helping us reach resolution at this time, and I have made no addition of the tag to this article recently. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

is homeopathy fringe?
I asked this question before but no one named a reliable source. I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source which states isn't some wacky, fringe belief."(BBC). No skeptic argued against this sentence during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is a fringe belief - besides the skeptics organizations, please inform me.Thanks. --JeanandJane (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, just go to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. Plenty of reliable sources there saying exactly that. --McSly (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience means it doesn't follow the proper scientific methodology in asserting that it is real. Fringe belief means very few people believe it. They are not equal, and that article quite clearly states "pseudoscience", and not "fringe belief". I can provide plenty of sources that say "homeopathy is taught here and has been used by x percent of the population" that clearly show that homeopathy is only a fringe belief amongst this body of scientists that has declared mainstream. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So in order to accept that it's not mainstream science (in other words: it's fringe science), you need to see a reliable source saying that? Where's the reliable source that says it's mainstream?--Six words (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Above. BBC says its not fringe. I did not claim it is mainstream either. Please give me a source just out of curiosity. (no skeptic organization though.--JeanandJane (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "BBC" says no such thing. An narrator in a transcribed interview broadcast on the BBC said, as an offhand remark, that "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief" by which he seems to have meant that lots of people (rather than lots of scientists) "believe in it". That's not our definition of fringe, which is based on scientific rather than popular criteria. And that same narrator concludes that same interview with the statement "Homeopathy is impossible". So this is not the sort of source we are looking for, nor does it provide the support for your homeopathy advocacy that you think it does. - Nunh-huh 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Our? As in the 6 editors who have stonewalled this article? No, I'm sorry but a fringe belief is something based on popular criteria. Pseudoscience is something based on scientific criteria. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Our" as in Wikipedia's. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he had in his mind. I just think that people in Reliable Sources mean exactly what they write or say. For instance "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief" and "Homeopathy is impossible". As a professional journalist he must have meant the above sentences which BBC gave him to read during the show. That's my view. Maybe I m wrong though and he failed to express himself correctly. Or maybe BBC meant "Homeopathy is a wacky, fringe belief" and it is a mistake or the journalist changed it? --JeanandJane (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The offhand opinion statement of a journalist attempting to make a segue is just an opinion - and in this case, not one that was held for the entire duration of the interview. - Nunh-huh 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absurd. This was not an offhand remark in a live segment, was it? Someone can credibly say that "the virgin birth of Jesus is not a wacky, fringe belief" and simultaneously hold that it is impossible. You cannot assign fringe status just because you doubt the truth of the belief. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We can send a letter to the BBC asking if that the script they published express the views of a single reporter who added his remarks to the script they prepared or it must be considered as the BBC report. It might be a mistake and they might correct it. Until then this a reliable source which reports "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief" and "Homeopathy is impossible".--JeanandJane (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was a pretaped and edited segment then it must be presumed that it passed muster with the editorial staff as well. We don't need to write letters to the BBC for clarification. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Alright then.So lets find a reliable source which states it is fringe.--JeanandJane (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Please see WP:FRINGE. Also, the article doesn't call it fringe, so finding a RS that calls it fringe would only make sense if you wanted it included (I highly doubt you do). --Six words (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the question #4. It seems that some editors researched and they concluded that homeopathy is a fringe beliief
 * * Homeopathy's share of the world drug market is 0.3% [1]* Money spent per person on medical items in the U.S. in 2004 was $5267 [2]. About 1% of that amount – $54 per person – was spent on all herbals, including homeopathy. [3]* There were 315 professional homeopaths in the U.S. in 1993. Counting lay homeopaths (unlicensed), there were perhaps over 1000 [4] compared with 884,000 regular physicians in the U.S. in 2006 (There were only 50-100 homeopaths in the US in the early 1970s. [5][6])This is a research from some Wikipedia editors and no reliable source calls Homeopathy a fringe belief or theory.Now another reliable source states that : NARRATOR: It's all about something you can find on every high street in Britain: homeopathy. Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief. It's over 200 years old and is used by millions of people, including Presidents and pop stars. Given this info is homeopathy fringe?--JeanandJane (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, FAQ #4 is a serious problem as it states that homeopathy should be labeled as a fringe belief. First, duplicating my response (far) below, regarding homeopathy being a fringe belief, it's simply not true. Astin (1998) performed a review of the use and belief in various complementary and alternative medicines by mainstream physicians in the U.S. As far as homeopathy is concerned, 26% believed in the value of homeopathy, while 9% actually practiced homeopathy. I wouldn't call that "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination, let alone "fringe of fringe."


 * Results: Across surveys, acupuncture had the highest rate of physician referral (43%) among the 5 CAM therapies, followed by chiropractic (40%) and massage (21%). Rates of CAM practice by conventional physicians varied from a low of 9% for homeopathy to a high of 19% for chiropractic and massage therapy. Approximately half of the surveyed physicians believed in the efficacy of acupuncture (51%), chiropractic (53%), and massage (48%), while fewer believed in the value of homeopathy (26%) and herbal approaches (13%).


 * Also, it is a little disingenuous to characterize homeopathy as a fringe belief based on dollar market share. Homeopathic remedies are a fraction of the costs of pharmaceuticals as J&J already pointed out. And so, on this basis it will always appear as a small percentage. This is the wrong metric to use to ascertain fringe status. The metrics that are needed here are, 1. the number of doctors that believe homeopathy has value, 2. the number of doctors that practice homeopathy, 3. the number of the general population that believes homeopathy has value, and 4. the number of the general population that practicess or uses it. The above study addresses the first 2 points indicating it is not a fringe belief. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The source provided does not appear to meet WP:MEDRS. It is a transcript of a popular science program and as such, it likely does not have the same editorial oversight of a typical BBC news program or news article. Likewise, the 'narrator' or host is Neil Pearson, who is an actor, not a scientist nor a journalist, suggesting this is not a typical 'news' article but an entertainment program. It appears from the context of the quote that he is making an off-the-cuff remark that homeopathy is not 'fringe' in the general population as it is popular ("used by millions of people"); this, however, does not meet the criteria of WP:FRINGE. This particular BBC article does not appear to meet the criteria for RS, nor does it appear to support the position that homeopathy is not 'fringe' per Wikipedia standards.Yobol (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Yobol. Also reading thru the supplied info strongly suggests that the program in question accepts the meme that "everybody else believes Homeopathy is a wacky, fringe belief, such that we have to say it isn't".  Shot info (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. (Per ..common sense bbc website is either a reliable source or not.You cannot say I trust this article and not this one.It is absurd.) But it makes no sense to discuss this since all the editors have agreed a long time to cite it as reliable source. So there is no need to explain why it qualifies. And it states exaclty what it writes I think. --JeanandJane (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with any Wikipedia policy stating that if one article on one website is reliable, all information on that website must also be reliable, regardless of content. Could you please point this out to me?Yobol (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec - but Yobol has got it right) No, either the source is a reliable source or not - all sources need to be evaluated on their merits - not merely regarded that because it's the BBC that it automatically is ok. However, because it is the BBC, we can assume that it is more authoritative that less reliable organisations.  It is disingenous to say "The BBC does not believe Homeopathy is fringe" - which is what you are arguing and others are pointing out is incorrect.  And since the BBC doesn't say that - what does the source actually say.  And in what context and who said it.  I've said it before and I'll say it again - these sort of "gotchas" don't improve an article and just result in a lot of editing on talk pages.  Shot info (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1.It is cited as a reliable source.[] 2. Maybe when they say NARRATOR: It's all about something you can find on every high street in Britain: homeopathy. Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief. It's over 200 years old and is used by millions of people, including Presidents and pop stars. mean exactly the opposite ? This is not serious and this another example of strong bias.? --JeanandJane (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I think I view the WP:RS policy differently than you do. It is my understanding that the reliability of each source must be judged according to the content that you are citing it for.  For instance, the citation you link to is being used to cite results of experiments, as reported on that program. Certainly the program/website is a reliable source for results  reported in that program.  You, however, want to cite the this article as to whether or not the entire topic of homeopathy is 'fringe' by Wikipedia standards.  The article does NOT appear to meet standards for reliability on this topic (per my comments above).  I see no contradiction in an article being a reliable source for one piece of information and not reliable for another.  Yobol (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is called cherry picking. You just take from the source whatever fits with your Point of view. The Wikipedia standards require reliable sources to back up all the claims. There is no reliable source ( I know of ) stating that homeopathy is fringe. But there is one which stating it isn't. Hence the fact that the article refers to it as fringe is at least inaccurate and shows how biased it is. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Only that the article doesn't refer to it as fringe. --Six words (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It treats it as fringe which is worse.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears standard policy that a source may be reliable for certain information but not for others (i.e. per WP:RS, we generally cite pseudoscience sources only for information about the pseudo-scientific views while not citing it about the validity of those views). I do not believe you have shown how the transcript of off-the-cuff remarks by an actor on the BBC program is a reliable source for the general view of whether or not homeopathy qualifies under WP:FRINGE. Repeatedly insisting that this source is reliable for the information you want to cite without addressing the concerns of others appears to be counterproductive to building consensus.


 * As an aside, you keep insisting that no source calls Homeopathy 'fringe' per Wikipedia guidelines. I would think that it would be highly doubtful any reliable source would comment on whether or not any topic meets certain Wikipedia guidelines, and insisting on finding one seems unusual to say the least.  The information as provided in the FAQ clearly demonstrate Homeopathy meets the WP:FRINGE guidelines; whether or not any source uses the word 'fringe' seems to be besides the point. Yobol (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't insist on anything. I cannot explain why the part transcript of the BBC Horizon documentary which states that Homeopathy is not fringe is a reliable piece of info. I cannot investigate it. Many possibilities : maybe it is a mistake from the website (!)maybe the actor improvised during the show and the BBC team responsible for editing the film and the script just decided to leave the mistake, (or maybe the actor was a homeopath who was advocating for homeopathy and the BBC editing team did not realize it.) I proposed Wikipedians to send a letter to BBC Horizon asking if this is really the view of its writing and editing team or it is any of the above cases. But another editor said "If it was a pretaped and edited segment then it must be presumed that it passed muster with the editorial staff as well. We don't need to write letters to the BBC for clarification". However, we can try and wait for their response but until then  every piece of info of the already cited reference must be considered reliable. The facts remain and they are self evident: There is no reliable source ( I know of ) stating that homeopathy is fringe. But there is one which stating it isn't. --JeanandJane (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Undent) Actually, you just insisted that this actor's comments 'must be considered reliable', again, without addressing my concerns as noted abvoe. You also repeated the comment that 'no reliable source calls homeopathy fringe' while ignoring my comments about why you would not necessarily need to find one.  It is perplexing to me why you re-state your position over and over repeatedly without actually addressing the points made by others if your goal is to find consensus. Yobol (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. I did not ignore your comments. I replied. Look above. I said before that even WP:fringe requires sources which I cannot find. --JeanandJane (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how an off-the-cuff remark that appears to use the colloquial definition of the word 'fringe' is a reliable source for how Wikipedia should apply the WP:FRINGE guidelines to homeopathy. Repeating 'it must be considered reliable' over and over again is not a convincing argument.


 * Again, the sources for showing Homeopathy meets WP:FRINGE criteria is provided in the FAQ. That you cannot find a source that uses the word 'fringe' does not change that the sources provided show that Homeopathy does, in fact, meet the guidelines for Homeopathy to be considered a WP:FRINGE topic.  Since the actual article does not use the word 'fringe' there is no need to find a source that uses the word specifically, as the guidelines do not require that to show that Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE topic.  It would seem it would be much more productive for you to show how the presented data does not WP:FRINGE guidelines rather than repeating the same assertion over and over again that has no bearing on the actual discussion at hand. Yobol (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have to agree. Summarizing and addressing all your concerns : It seems highly improbable that the statement is one off-the-cuff remarks by an actor on the BBC program. Horizon has its own writing and editing team. It seems to be a pretaped and edited segment and it must be presumed that it passed muster with the editorial staff as well. After all they published the script so it must have been approved twice (at least). That's my opinion and to be honest with you I think it is somehow absurd to investigate the case more. The research by wiki editors,  who contend that based on the Homeopathy 's  share of the world market 0.03% 0.3% homeopathy is fringe, is very weak since the cost of the conventional medicine is billions and the homeopathic pills cost almost nothing. Furthermore some countries homeopathy is widespread and prescribed by a great percentage of doctors'' --JeanandJane (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * J&J, these sorts of arguements are quite common in WP and are sympomatic of poor source. If the source cannot convince editors of it's reliability, then a consensus will be difficult to form - can I recommend that you find a superior source?  Personally I have problems with relying on a transcript from a TV show to make the point you are trying to make.  Now if you trying to say it is not "fringe", do you mean fringe science, fringe in terms of sales, fringe in terms of popular usage or fringe in terms of Wikipedia? Shot info (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense ;This is an exceptional source, is cited, referenced in the article for long time now, we know that BBC spend a lot in terms of money, preparation, the most notable skeptics and scientists participated in the film, it is widely used to show that homeopathy is impossible by every skeptic Randi speaks of it in universities ; it is quite absurd to suddenly regard it as poor because it says that homeopathy is not a fringe belief. That shows a very strong bias but I will not argue more - it is kind of a joke. No offense again. You can always request to remove it for the references - people will look at you funny though... Wikipedia editors used the criteria of the market to define fringe. Look below. Again sorry for the strong language.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an exceptional source - well, I would dispute that. It's a script from a TV show.  While I have the highest regard for the BBC, I doubt that they are the source that you would like them to be on the subject of this particular article.  This isn't an arguement on what is canon or not.  And I not that you seem to be arguing that "Homeopathy is not fringe per the BBC -source-" - surely you can see that the -source- in question doesn't quite give you the "omph" that your proposed edit needs?  After all (as pointed out to you) it's not as if the word "fringe" appears in the actual article.  Shot info (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we do not have to agree. As to absurdities, I find it absurd that anyone would think that the use of this word as it is presented (by an actor in a popular science program as a colloquial term) is applicable to how Wikipedia should apply its policy to Homeopathy as a topic. It no doubt passed some sort of 'editorial process' before it aired; whether or not such an 'editorial process' for an entertainment program is the same as one would expect from, say, a BBC news broadcast I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  Even if I were to grant that this program has a qualified editorial process, you still have not shown why we should apply it to our understanding of Homeopathy with regard to WP:FRINGE.  It seems straightforward that the producers/writers/editorial staff would not have Wikipedia in mind when writing the script (if one existed), and instead used the colloquial meaning as I noted in my first post on this topic.  I fail to see how this usage of the term 'fringe' should apply to the our understanding of WP:FRINGE as they are completely different usages.  If you did not mean 'fringe' in the WP:FRINGE sense, then clarification would certainly be in order as this was the line of thinking I had been using, and you did not correct me.


 * As to the information in the FAQ: if you would like, we could include statements outlining the lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy and how in general expectations for active ingredients in homeopathic remedies to have an effect would 'violate fundamental principles of science' as noted in the lead to the article. Certainly you would agree that these facts show that homeopathy departs 'significantly from the mainstream view' in science and medicine and that it has "not gained scientific consensus" as required by WP:FRINGE, right? Yobol (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well let's see. Homeopathy barely registers on most doctors' radar screens. It's unpopular even in the alternative medicine camp. It's the fringe of the fringe. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some interesting stuff from Health Canada. Shot info (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true! Astin (1998) performed a review of the use and belief in various complementary and alternative medicines by mainstream physicians in the U.S. As far as homeopathy is concerned, 26% believed in the value of homeopathy, while 9% actually practiced homeopathy. I wouldn't call that "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination, let alone "fringe of fringe."


 * Results: Across surveys, acupuncture had the highest rate of physician referral (43%) among the 5 CAM therapies, followed by chiropractic (40%) and massage (21%). Rates of CAM practice by conventional physicians varied from a low of 9% for homeopathy to a high of 19% for chiropractic and massage therapy. Approximately half of the surveyed physicians believed in the efficacy of acupuncture (51%), chiropractic (53%), and massage (48%), while fewer believed in the value of homeopathy (26%) and herbal approaches (13%).


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting indeed! This is much like my experience in Germany, where a bit of homeopathy is part of the official training for regular physicians in some locations, where quite a few practise it to some degree and it seems to be even more popular among nurses and midwives. Given the extreme positions here of mostly American editors, I always assumed that it was different in the US, but it seems I was wrong. And of course homeopathy is not getting so much negative attention here because it's more fringey or more dangerous than, say, Christian Science, but because it's closer to being generally accepted and therefore seen as a threat by some people. The result of this effect is that the function from real fringeyness of a practice to fringeyness according to the Wikipedia article is not monotone. That's quite unfair and highly unprofessional. Hans Adler 09:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

One proposed wording
Guys, let's separate "fringe belief in hard science" from "popular among people" and "prescribed by many doctors".

I propose adding to the second paragraph of the lead to address the popularity at some countries:

"Homeopathy has 0.03% 0.3% share of the world market, but in some countries is widespread and prescribed by a great percentage of doctors"

using sources from Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy, which has its own section in the article, so it would a summary of and already-existing part of the article. Scotland, Belgium and India can be used for the "great percentage of doctors" thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fringe belief in "hard science" ? have not seen any source about this wording - I do not know. Source for the 0.03% ?--JeanandJane (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * about 0.03%, it's actually 0.3%, sorry for that, it's from one of your comments but you don't give the sources. P.D.: It's from Boiron "With almost 1.5 billion euros (manufacturer’s price), the world sale of homeopathic drugs accounts for 0.3% of the world drug market. (...) Almost 70% of all homeopathic drugs are sold in Western Europe." --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You realize of course that this not an argument about homeopathy being fringe since homeopathic pills cost almost nothing and conventional medicine's cost is billions --JeanandJane (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You realize of course that it's because homeopaths don't have to amortize the cost of researching, developing and testing new drugs since they don't do any actual research. Which in turn severely limits their prospects of selling their products since they can't prove if they actually work. Their limited market shares may not be an indication about being fringe, but it's a serious indication about being a pseudo science. --McSly (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just said that the criterion being used to show that Homeopathy is fringe makes no sense because homeopathic pills cost very little and conventional medicine's cost is billions because of research and machinery and new technology ,as you said, I agree.  However, the size of the market and the numbers of consumers is not shown in the numbers provided. --JeanandJane (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * J&J, given that "fringe" doesn't appear in the article, these lines of discussion are starting to be tedious. Can I recommend that either you use your points to improve the article in some fashion or cease them?  Shot info (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget it, Brunton looked at the source that talks about 49% of practices, and to other source. The percentage of population using homeopathy is estimated at 1% or less, and the percentage of actual doctors (not practices) should be much lower than 49% because they counted a practice if it had just one doctor precribing it (I obviously misundertood the word "practice" in the source because English is not my first language). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't actually say that there were practices that only had one doctor prescribing homoeopathy included, but it is certainly possible - it at least means that the percentage of doctors prescribing homoeopathy could be significantly lower than 49% in the Scottish survey, and the fact that only 0.22% of patients were prescribed homoeopathy confirms that it is not a common practice among the doctors in the survey. Brunton (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for NPOV and accuracy of lead: paragraph three
"Homeopathy's efficacy is highly controversial in view of the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[NHS][AMA][BHA][Fisher]|undefined Several controlled randomized studies and systematic reviews show little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy,[Ernst][Shang] while other controlled studies and systematic reviews show results more favorable to homeopathy.[Kleijnen][Boissel][Linde97&98&99][Mathie][BHA]|undefined According to a report by the AMA, "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy."[AMA] No plausible mechanisms have been convincingly advanced, though research into such mechanisms is ongoing.[ref1?][ref2?] Advocates of homeopathy also bring attention to the inherent difficulty with controlled randomized clinical trials due to the highly individualized nature of homeopathic treatments.[Linde98][Weatherley-Jones][Thompson][Bell]|undefined Though systematic reviews investigating clinical homeopathic trials have shown both positive and negative results, positive results have indicated that evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.[Kleijnen][Linde97&98&99] A definitive view of the efficacy/non-efficacy of homeopathy is further complicated by assertions of publication bias in the field.[Juni][Kiene][Frass][Caufield][Bellavite][Sood][Fisher]Linde05]|undefined

This version is the result of much discussion and debate already. Please read the sections Talk:Homeopathy, Talk:Homeopathy, and Talk:Homeopathy to get up to speed on the discussion thus far. (Please stay on topic).

The main changes from previous versions are the slight re-wording of sentence two and the removed reference to Altunc (2007) because this is a misrepresentation of the results of that systematic review. The irrefutable quantitative results of this study showed 16 trials, 7 favourable to homeopathy, and 9 comparable to placebo (p. 70-72). However, in the abstract summary of the study, as User:Six words has quoted above, he states "not convincing enough for recommendations," which is very different from "no better than placebo." I suggest that this reference particularly be qualified with a note in the references section, stating very briefly the quantitative results, or otherwise it is in high risk of being misrepresented. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "not convincing enough for recommendations," certainly differs from "no better than placebo."--JeanandJane (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really - both have the same result. Shot info (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, they don't really have the same result. "Not convincing enough for recommendations" suggests it can/does work, but not well enough to recommend with much confidence (qualified). While, "no better than placebo" suggests it simply does not work. Dbrisinda (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I have no issue with the lede being pared down to three paragraphs - 1st, being a brief history, 2nd being about what it is, 3rd about what science is (some say good, some say bad). Left over data can be moved into the main article under the already existing appropriate headers.  Shot info (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Homeopathy's efficacy is highly controversial in view of the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." We should say here what it is about the collective weight of the evidence that makes homoeopathy's efficacy controversial.  Brunton (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You know something, I don't think that any about Homeopathy is actually "highly controversial". Disputed yet, but highly controversial?  I personally think that the above paragraph clutters the lede (per WP:LEAD) and should be moved into the article proper.  Shot info (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about adjusting sentence two to explain what makes homeopathy's efficacy controversial in view of the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence: "Several controlled randomized studies and systematic reviews show little evidence for positive effects beyond placebo,[...] while other controlled studies and systematic reviews do show evidence for positive effects beyond placebo."[...] Dbrisinda (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because that would be misleading and highly biased in homeopathy's favour. All the good quality reviews, statements by impartial bodies, etc say no better than placebo. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not accurate/true/. (S/he just gave you examples of good reviews which show an effect over placebo.)  The reviews you are talking about are controversial and highly criticized; --JeanandJane (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not bias and misleading, it's factual and straightforward, backed by the clinical evidence. Your statement "all the good quality reviews, statements by impartial bodies, etc say no better than placebo" is simply false. Let's address this mistaken belief:


 * Regarding individual clinical trials, according to the British Homeopathic Association, "between 1950 and 2008, 138 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy have been reported. This represents research in 71 different medical conditions. Of these 138 trials, 60 were positive, 10 negative and 68 non-conclusive." Here is a comprehensive list of quality RS peer-reviewed publications yielding positive results beyond placebo up to 2008 (including RCTs and non-RCTs: 78 publications total).


 * However, if you want to look at broad systematic reviews instead of individual trials, let's do that:


 * Kleijnen (1991) - conclusion: beyond placebo; though not definitive.


 * Boissel (1996) - conclusion: beyond placebo; though strength of evidence was low (European Commission).


 * Linde (1997) - conclusion: beyond placebo; though further research warranted; even with stricter re-analysis and qualifications in 1998 and 1999, still beyond placebo; though weaker than original 1997 results.


 * Ernst (2002) - conclusion: comparable to placebo; (Note: this is a systematic review of systematic reviews and so can draw conclusions only about the reviews themselves, not the primary research publications on which they were based. Consequently this is not a true systematic review.)


 * Mathie (2003) - conclusion: beyond placebo; of 35 different medical conditions, positive treatment effect in 8.


 * Shang (2005) - conclusion: comparable to placebo; no additional research required; book closed (Note: the "finality" of the conclusions and methodology of this research were *heavily* criticized by many researchers.)


 * Altunc (2007) - results: 16 trials, 7 beyond placebo, 9 comparable to placebo; conclusion: not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.


 * Note: None of the positive or mixed systematic reviews above implied anything definitive for homeopathic efficacy as this requires a much stronger burden of proof. These systematic reviews showed evidence that homeopathy had positive effects beyond placebo. And that's precisely what the statement being proposed says.


 * In any case, please state specifically what you perceive to be bias and misleading, a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a representation of an RS. Then we can discuss. As your statement is presented, it leaves very little for discussion. Dbrisinda (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After a quick skim of the articles above, it appears that all but one of them, at best (i.e. most positive to homeopathy), say something to the effect of 'some studies are positive, BUT methodologic quality is low/cannot come to any conclusion, etc.' Of the one that does not appear to have qualifying remarks, (the Mathie article), it does not make any conclusory statement regarding effectiveness 'beyond placebo' (and indeed, the article included trials with both placebo-controlled and comparative trials, so using it for commentary on placebo-only trials is iffy). In other words, based on my read of the articles above, the current version of paragraph 3 (with adequate qualification of the 'positive' results) is much closer to the weighting needed per WP:UNDUE. I do not find your abstracting numbers of 'positive' or 'beyond placebo' trials in each meta-analysis to justify your wording at all convincing as this is clearly a violation of WP:NOR as it ignores/downplays the authors' own conclusions. Yobol (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are criticizing my reporting of results for certain studies, because I provided both the quantitative and qualitative results. We have to look at both, otherwise, we risk misinterpreting the qualitative conclusions and qualifications. These conclusions are intended to *support* the quantitative results, not contradict them. There is no WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR issue here. It's about looking at the *actual* results (quantitative and qualitative) and understanding them correctly in relationship to each other. I.e., they must be in agreement or supportive of one another. Your interpretation creates contradictions in these results. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no contradiction. The authors are very clear in their interpretation of the results and in their conclusion. They see no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in their analysis. (Please do not make me quote that quote again). No Wikipedia editor is allowed to re-interpret the data to come up with a new conclusion not found by the authors of the article, as you are trying to do here. This is a bedrock principle of WP:NOR. It is not our role to re-interpret the results for the authors when they have made their conclusion clear.  And just to make it clear, I see no contradiction in their results reported, the statements they made in the Discussion and Conclusion sections and how it is currently reported in the lead of the Homeopathy article. Yobol (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone is violating WP:NOR it's you because of your interpretation of qualitative conclusions that are not supported by the quantitative results. It's not our role to mis-interpret the qualitative results of the authors completely ignoring the quantitative results of the study. See below. P.S. This is a dual thread in the same topic heading, please continue it a few paragraphs below, since we are talking about the same things WP:NOR. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusions of the authors is clear. "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations." Any attempt to use re-analyze the data, whether it is qualitative or quantitative, to come to a conclusion not consistent with the authors as noted above is WP:NOR.  I agree, let's continue our thread below. Yobol (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "As your statement is presented, it leaves very little for discussion". There is very little need for more discussion. I wish I was surprised. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Not convincing enough for recommendations" does not mean "no better than placebo" the way the current lead states- if we want to be more accurate, neural and not misleading. --JeanandJane (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you are talking about Altunç (2007), in which the authors say, "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations." They are clear in saying their meta-analysis does not provide convincing evidence to show homeopathy is effective (i.e. it is no better than placebo). Yobol (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No the placebo part is your addition : is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. It is seems to be related to the results :The evidence for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and acute childhood diarrhea is mixed, showing both positive and negative results for their respective main outcome measures." --JeanandJane (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the quote I provided above again. There is no "convincing evidence of effectiveness" for any of the conditions studied. Full stop. No qualifications about diarrhea or ADHD. I emphasize again: no 'convincing evidence of effectiveness."  Period.  These are the author's conclusions.  Any attempts to draw other conclusions based on other studies in the meta-analysis is purely cherry-picking and quote-mining and will run afoul of WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They say "convincing enough" which is not the same with what you write; But lets define a criterion for inclusion. We should report only the conclusions of the meta analyses  and not the results or the individual studies in the lead? --JeanandJane (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The authors of Altunç (2007) wrote, "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations." This is a direct quote from the article in question.  I don't know how to put it any other way, except that any attempts to glean a conclusion other than what the authors wrote, as you have been trying to do, runs afoul of WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1.Is this the one or we are talking about different studies : CONCLUSION: "The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition." 2. Are we using the results of the meta analyses, the conclusions only or both ? Please clarify.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yobol, I think you are looking at the wrong study. We are referring to the 2007 systematic review. J&J is correct—and a link is provided. In any case, if you look at the detailed results of the study you will see that out of the selected 16 trials, 7 trials reported effects in favor of homeopathy, and 9 trials were comparable to placebo. The author concluded precisely "not convincing enough for recommendations" as his criteria for recommendations were quite high, i.e., a rate of 44% showing in favor of homeopathy was not sufficient for recommendations in his view. If you wish, I can provide the detailed breakdown of the study results. I've already posted them in a previous discussion. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the direct quote in the Discussion section (which I have now copied verbatim twice) in which the authors elaborate on their interpretation of the data and how they came to their conclusion. The authors have made it clear they see no compelling evidence for effectiveness in this paper.  Any attempts to suggest otherwise is WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think though that a criterion should be defined. Yobol implies that only the conclusions matter for Wikipedia reference and if we start looking into the specific studies of each meta analyses leads us to WP:Original research which is discouraged. Lets clarify how to chose the raw info to report from the studies available. There 3 choices: Conclusions, results, Conclusions and results. And of course criticism of the each one as is presented in reliable sources which is mandatory.Please clarify (2). --JeanandJane (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Undent) My understanding of WP:RS and WP:NOR is any portion of a source can be used as a citation for information in the article as long as the information in the article is well represented by article as a whole and is not new analysis by Wikipedia editors that is not shared by the source. In other words, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." For example, one may reference any portion of an article including the Discussion or Conclusion sections as long as the information is not new analysis.  As noted above, the authors were very clear in that they did not find convincing evidence for effectiveness of homeopathy in any part of their trial.  Attempts to abstract data to suggest otherwise as Dbrisinda and JeanandJane have been doing is, in fact, new analysis not in the original source and therefore not allowed per WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yobol. Don't forget that we are discussing here because we (me and other editors) dispute the neutrality of the article. It is normal to disagree and try to find a way to solve the problem. I asked you  which portion of the meta analyses should we chose to present. Since you say that "any portion of a source can be used as a citation for information in the article as long as the information in the article is well represented by article as a whole and is not new analysis" the results of the study state that "The evidence for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and acute childhood diarrhea is mixed, showing both '''positive and negative results for their respective main outcome measures" ; it would be misleading to report that " not convincing enough"  means "not effect over placebo." Report the conclusions only if you want to be less accurate but that does not mean that the conclusion support sufficiently and fairly the statement of the lead "no effect over placebo". --JeanandJane (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been said before, one the conclusion of the authors is, "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations." This very well supports the conclusion there is no convincing evidence of efficacy over placebo.  Mentioning 'mixed results' or 'positive results' when the authors have concluded there is no convincing evidence of efficacy is, to use your word, misleading.  You are taking a portion of the results of the article and ignoring what the authors' conclusions are.  This is precisely what I think should not be done, per WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say include both conclusion and results to inform the reader about the complexity of information and the process and you say you want only the conclusion which does not explain what "convincing enough" means. The reader would ask why they say "enough" and don't they say not only convincing. Don't you want educated readers ? --JeanandJane (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The conclusions of the authors are abundantly clear, and the Lead of this article correctly reflects their conclusion. I do not support the addition of any information to the Lead or any other portion of the Homeopathy article which would distract or mislead the reader from the clear conclusions of the authors of this article, as you seem to be advocating.  Yobol (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand you correctly. So, when great efforts are expended to create excruciating acceptance criteria for placebo-controlled randomized double-blind clinical trials, filtering for publication bias and a host of other criteria lending rigour to the study, when all this effort finally gives rise to precisely measurable results, you are saying we can throw all of this out the window in favour of the author's purely qualitative conclusions? THEY MUST BE TAKEN TOGETHER. It's *not* WP:NOR to interpret qualitative conclusions so they support the actual quantitative results of the study! (See my previous comment to your objection above). Curious though, why did you quote from a sentence that was buried in the discussion, instead of the the actual paragraph that was clearly labeled "Conclusion"? Allow me, from the section labeled Conclusion: "The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition." Now, how do you reconcile that with the quantitative results, of 16 total trials, 7 trials in favour of homeopathy (beyond placebo), and 9 trials comparable to placebo? Dbrisinda (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not up to me, you, or any other Wikipedia editor to 'reconcile' anything with regard to data and conclusion of any reliable source. This is the heart of WP:NOR.  We are to report what is in the WP:RS as they are reported by the reliable source, not come up with new conclusions because you do not happen to agree with them.  The sentence that I quoted, which was hardly 'buried,' (as aside, I find it amusing you thought I misquoted another article) very clearly reveals the conclusion of the authors.  Now you can proceed to try and continue this path of re-analyzing the data from these meta-analyses and in process violate WP:NOR.  Or you can see the clear intent of the authors, abide by WP:NOR, and stop trying to come to new conclusions from these meta-analyses that the authors themselves do not conclude. I would, of course, suggest the latter. Yobol (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * dont think anyone re analyzes the data; we just try to communicate with the readers the complexity of the conclusion; to show why the conclusion states not "convincing enough" and not just "convincing". --JeanandJane (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is not complex at all. It is, in fact, abundantly clear, from the Discussion section of the article: "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations."  Attempts to use data from within the meta-analysis to come to a conlusion that does not conform to the authors' conclusions is WP:NOR. Yobol (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have to use our brains to understand correctly what's being said. And this means using quantitative results to inform qualitative conclusions. What you're advocating is blind semi-automaton-like behaviour, and this is highly problematic. Why? Because people will be able to cite a dozen different "conclusions" based on phrases and sentences taken completely out of context, or snipped together from various parts of a study to say "Aha! You see! The moon is made of cheese!" No. This is not honest. And to advocate it suggests significant bias and a failure to both appreciate and distinguish clarity and truth from confusion and falsehood. Dbrisinda (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusions of the authors in this article is clear, as is the quote I have copied many times now. That quote is not taken out of context and you have not alleged it be.  If you do not want to follow WP:NOR that is your choice.  I think you will not find consensus on this page to violate this guideline as you are trying to do now.  Please also see WP:TRUTH.Yobol (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Dbrisinda means also that an article in an encyclopedia is not a collection of quotes taken in order to debunk or advocate for the x subject but merely to show to the reader the path which was used by the researchers to arrive at the specific conclusions. This is the educational value and the purpose of the medium.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yobol, with all due respect, this is an exercise in futility. I feel you are repeating yourself, arguing in circles the same indefensible point over and over again, all the while ignoring honest reasons and arguments. Unless you extend the same courtesy of responding to what is said, substantively, as I think I have done for you, or have something new and thoughtful to add to this thread of the discussion, I will consider it closed. P.S. I don't recall reading anywhere in Wikipedia policy that getting the last word is in any way a substitute for genuine consensus based on good reasons and sound arguments. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you find that arguing for adhering to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NOR is 'indefensible' and 'an exercise in futility'. Might I add that saying I am not responding 'substantively' or 'thoughtfully' is surely not the best way to gain consensus (as an aside, I find when someone says "with all due respect," often that is precisely what is missing in the next few sentences).  Since you have chosen to turn this into a discussion about me, rather than as a discussion of the topic you had proposed, I will leave you to your own devices.  Let me reiterate that I believe what you are currently proposing is a very clear-cut violation of WP:NOR, as stated ad nauseum above.  Might I suggest taking this to WP:ORN and asking their opinion there and be sure to obtain consensus before adding any variant of this idea to the main article. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * JeanandJane, may I remind you that a few days ago you were the one who told everyone to abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines, telling me that we weren't even allowed to discuss whether a paper was a good source or not? Now you're trying to do the exact opposite. You tell us that Altunç somehow misinterpreted the data, as he sees "no convincing evidence for effectiveness", even though some of the studies he used were positive, therefore we have to show the readers "the path which was used by the researchers".


 * I have to admit I'm starting to get a little annoyed. I do take everyone's suggestions and arguments seriously, so I get the review(s) in question and take the time to read them. When I find that the author's conclusions (by that I mean the sections "results" and "conclusions", because that's where the author presents his research) don't agree with what I'm told they say, I point that out and I am accused of only quoting the abstract. Not only that, when I (and others) reassure everyone that I quote the source correctly and explain why we have to stick to what the author himself concludes, I'm accused of "significant bias and a failure to both appreciate and distinguish clarity and truth from confusion and falsehood". This is not productive and, quite honestly, makes me wonder why I should even bother to waste my time for this discussion.--Six words (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Six words. I never said that "Altunç somehow misinterpreted the data". He does not. I supported (talk)'s reasoning for reporting both the conclusions and the results of the study in the body and in the lead.I think this is a honest approach as long it does not alter the main conclusion. I think this choice increases accuracy and also informs the reader about the process and the mechanics of the research. Dbrisinda addressed it correctly; quantitative results to inform qualitative conclusions. I suggest the same for every study if it promotes comprehension and neutrality and not cherry picking in order to debunk or to advocate. Suppressing info has led to misinformation. --JeanandJane (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "in the body and in the lead"? If you mean the body and lead of our article, I'm OK with that, but please focus on wording of the lead in this section and make a new one for the body of the article, otherwise things will get even more mixed up then they already are. If you're talking about lead and body of Altunç's review, then you should keep in mind that the "results" section of the paper are those of studies he examined, so in order to say "some studies have shown effects over placebo" we'd use the studies themselves as sources. Altunç's results and the reasoning behind them are given in the "discussion" and "conclusion" section, and re-reading those I get the feeling that they're even more negative then I thought before. Not only does he conclude that the review shows no convincing evidence of effectiveness, but he even implies that only using trials with children and adolescents makes this negative outcome more significant, since "Children are less likely than adults to have had drug treatment, believed by homeopaths to hinder the success of their remedies."--Six words (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Six words, please indulge me a little further. I agree with what you said about citing the studies themselves to say "some studies have shown effects over placebo." But...


 * The question is this: how is the Altunc paper currently being used in the current article lead? It's being used to support this statement: "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence."


 * But what does Altunc conclude in his paper? From the discussion section, as this seems to be the stronger and preferred statement: "Our systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs that assessed only children and adolescents also does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations."


 * Now what I would like to point out is this: Altunc's conclusions are worded in this way because there were mixed results according to the criteria beyond placebo vs. comparable to placebo (16 trials, 7 showed effects beyond placebo, 9 comparable to placebo). By saying what he's saying he's not contradicting his quantitative results, he's only saying that 7 out of 16 trials that achieve effects beyond placebo still "does not show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore does not allow any recommendations."


 * Altunc is setting a very high standard in his *qualitative* conclusions: a standard that must show convincing evidence of effectiveness and therefore allow him to recommend homeopathic remedies for patient interventions. Contrast this to the considerably lower standard that simply provides evidence of homeopathy's efficacy beyond placebo. Convincing evidence of effectiveness vs. evidence of efficacy beyond placebo. These are very different!


 * In order to accurately use Altunc, the sentence that his paper is intended to support would have to say something like: "Claims of homeopathy's effectiveness are unsupported by the weight of scientific and clinical evidence." The current qualification "beyond the placebo effect" means Altunc can't be used here, because his paper *does* support evidence of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect—but doesn't support evidence of homeopathy's effectiveness overall.


 * Does this make more sense? Dbrisinda (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. I'm neither a physician nor is English my mother tongue, so to me effectiveness and efficacy seem to be synonyms, but I might be wrong with that. Also, I thought that "effective beyond placebo" was stricter than "effective"? --Six words (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, effectiveness and efficacy are synonyms, but how they're used in context above is different. Applying the synonym to simplify things, we have convincing evidence of effectiveness vs. evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo. Evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo is much weaker than convincing evidence of effectiveness. Dbrisinda (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Has the BHA survey you are citing been published anywhere in a form that allows examination of its methodology? Did it take study quality into account?


 * Incidentally, I notice that what appears to be a BHA press release including a report of an earlier version of the BHA's research found that up to the end of 2005 there had been 119 RCTs, 58 positive, 57 inconclusive and 4 negative. This means (from their own figures quoted above) that in the three years since then they have found 19 new trials, only 2 of which were positive, with 6 negative and the remainder inconclusive.  I find this interesting in view of the suggestion by earlier reviews that further good quality research is needed.  Brunton (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. There are two different citations. The second is intended to give individual RCTs that show evidence of positive effects beyond placebo. Each of these individual studies are published in quality peer-reviewed journals. The citation is just a convenient list for individual clinical trials and the journals in which they can be found.


 * The first citation (the informal survey) was intended to be used as a general summary of BHA findings, and is not intended in any way to compete with systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, I see it being used generally to show controversy only, supporting the first sentence, similar to the way the current paragraph references general statements of the NHS, and the AMA to show problems with homeopathy. The more specific and weightier citations follow in subsequent sentences.


 * Indeed. That is quite interesting. One could conclude that either more rigorous trials (assuming they are) lead to less positive results for homeopathy, or that an increase in publication bias is beginning to sweep the field. But both of these conclusions are probably over-reaching at this still very early stage. Dbrisinda (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of "positive" studies looks a little like cherry-picking. Brunton (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about including a list of 'negative' studies as well? Dbrisinda (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that anyone has bothered to cherry-pick a list of "negative" studies (remember that inconclusive studies also fail to support the efficacy of homoeopathy, by the way).
 * How about just using reviews that report on all the available studies, and preferably (since this is an issue known to affect results) that take study quality into account. Brunton (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure it can be really classified as cherry-picking if the intent is to gather a list of all studies that show favorable, unfavorable, and inconclusive results (BTW, yes, I agree inconclusive studies fail to support the efficacy of homeopathy). There are approximately 60 studies that show favorable results, 7 studies that show negative results, and 68 that are inconclusive (according to the BHA as of 2008). This is useful information, don't you think? The list of positive studies would be used to support the statement: "while other controlled studies and systematic reviews do show evidence for positive effects beyond placebo," while the list of negative/inconclusive (if it exists) could be used to support the mirror statement (in addition to the systematic reviews supporting each).


 * Yes, using reviews that report on "all" the available studies is good—and we do that. But, "all" is not actually "all," but "selected" as the systematic reviews cull many of these studies from the pool of available studies using various selection criteria which differ from systematic review to systematic review. So I would think, if the information was readily available, we would want to use it for additional nuance. No? Dbrisinda (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of only "positive" studies is by definition cherry-picked, even if the same procedure might have also produced lists of negative and inconclusive studies. Linking to such a list could give a misleading impression of the research.  Additionally, the list is the product of an unpublished review which gives no indication of having taken study quality (which has been identified by studies such as Linde 1999 as having an impact on the results) into account. Brunton (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Inconclusive does not mean fail to support. It must be a distinction between negative ( fails to support ) and inconclusive ( you cannot tell).--JeanandJane (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, inconclusive studies do not support homoeopathy, because they conclude, as you say, that "you cannot tell" from them whether it works. Therefore they fail to support it.  It appears that the BHA's definition of a "negative" study is one in which homoeopathy performed significantly worse than placebo, by the way.  See Mathie 2003, which uses the same slightly idiosyncratic classification of studies, and is probably the original basis for the BHA's figures (Mathie is Research Development Adviser at the British Homeopathic Association & Faculty of Homeopathy). Brunton (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say that inconclusive studies support homeopathy. Of course they don't. But this wording might cloud the distinctions : negative and inconclusive trials. This is a very different.--JeanandJane (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly did you mean by "Inconclusive does not mean fail to support"? Studies either support homoeopathy or fail to support it.  Inconclusive (i.e. no significant difference) and negative (i.e. homoeopathy performed significantly worse than placebo) studies both fail to support it.  Brunton (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Inconclusive might also mean mixed results. Depend on the writers conclusions and results every time. But anyway this is not our main disagreement.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is rather simple: If the results are negative or inconclusive then they do not support any homeopathic action beyond placebo (ie no homeopthic action). This is basic. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not working in the field, and I am not familiar with the nuances of language there. But in general in science and scholarship there is a gap between "X is the case" and "X is not the case". This gap is the area where the author is just not confident to state one or the other, and instead uses words like "inconclusive". E.g. when you do a study, it shows an effect, but the effect is not quite significant. Then the result would be inconclusive, as opposed to positive or negative. It just means you have to repeat the study with a bigger sample. If that's how language is being used here, you simply can't replace "inconclusive" by "fails to support" when talking about a single study. If you talk about 100 studies, 90 of which fail to support and 10 of which are inconclusive, then the overall result is likely "fails to support", but since this depends on the relative quality of the studies it's up to a meta-study to decide this, not us. (Apart from obvious cases, which certainly exist. I don't know if this is one.) Hans Adler 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another axample in the literature about ....inconclusiveness this evidence we cannot recommend homoeopathy for migraine prophylaxis, but cannot conclude that it is without effect.--JeanandJane (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) Hans is correct. However, bringing in the context of the proposed phrase that is intended to be supported with a list of these "negative" and "inconclusive" trials (though clearly marked as "negative" and "inconclusive" within the list): "Several controlled randomized studies and systematic reviews show little evidence for positive effects beyond placebo..." Use of the sub-phrase "show little evidence" would allow us to capture both the group of "negative" and "inconclusive" trials. It's a small concession I'm willing to make (bundling negative and inconclusive in this context) in order to move things along... Dbrisinda (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Linde 1997 is retracted, so... You basically have a few slightly positive studies, a few negative, and Linde (1999, I think) demonstrates strong evidence of publication bias in favour of homeopathy, so... Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 12:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) I think the conclusion was that homeopathic treatment remained more effective than placebo -using the words "less promising" than before. Correct? I know there is disagreement in the interpretation of the conclusion. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome.


 * --JeanandJane (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quoted in the article:
 * The evidence of bias [in homeopathic trials] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.
 * Shoemaker's Holiday Over 189 FCs served 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. I highlighted part of the quote to ask you: less-promising results means = no effect over placebo? I think not but maybe it is something I 'm missing. Besides that Linde does not concur with Shang' conclusions ."Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."..." The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven." So we cannot fuse Linde views and Shang views ( the two major recent reviews )into the phrase "no effect over placebo." --JeanandJane (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Linde retracted his own results, however, he is a minority opposition voice towards Shang. Shang has not retracted his results, so he's in. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 189 FCs served 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1.I don't understand how less-promising results means = no effect over placebo.Please, do explain. 2. Is there any source which show that Shang's view is the majority ? Shangs's conclusion has been heavily criticized by other mainstream journals as well more than one - I will provide more mainstream journals - but you know already. 3. But even in case Linde and all express the minority (which is not shown in reliable sources) they are not fringe advocates but highly regarded scientists cited in the article and their view on homeopathy deserves a place in it.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is convincing evidence and reasoning. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain. JeanandJane (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SH, respectfully, those are your qualifications and interpretations. The results of each of the systematic reviews are given above. Linde (1997) is not retracted, it was cautiously qualified in the manner you quoted. Even with such qualification, it still supports evidence of homeopathic efficacy beyond placebo. Note: I'm not saying it supports homeopathic efficacy, I'm saying it supports homeopathic efficacy beyond placebo. And "our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" must be understood in view of the strong results in favour of homeopathy's efficacy beyond placebo in the 1997 study with an odds ratio given of 2.45 (245% as effective as placebo). Incidentally Shang (2005) was lambasted for his study and conclusions.


 * Verbal, you ask for reasons. They are in the links I've provided, but here they are for everyone's convenience from Linde et al. (2005):


 * First, Shang and colleagues do not follow accepted and published guidelines for reporting meta-analyses. In 1999, The Lancet published the QUORUM statement for improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses(3) and the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines are listed in the instructions for authors. Shang and colleagues did not follow either of these guidelines, nor did The Lancet intervene. The QUORUM statement clearly requires that meta-analyses present “descriptive data for each trial” and “data needed to calculate effect sizes and confidence intervals”. Shang and colleagues do not report the trials excluded from the review, the quality assessments and odds ratios of all trials included in the review, nor which eight trials were included in the final meta-analysis. This lack of detail is unacceptable in a paper drawing a strong clinical conclusion.


 * Second, problems with pooling are not discussed. Pooling of data from clinical trials makes sense only if all the trials measure the same effect. In our 1997 meta-analysis, we justified the pooling of different interventions, conditions, and outcomes on the basis that, if homoeopathy is always a placebo, all trials measure, in principle, the same thing. There are major limitations associated with this assumption. If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence(4)), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method. Therefore, restricting an analysis to the largest studies risks producing a false-negative result. Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.


 * The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial(5) that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven. We now find it extremely disappointing that a major medical journal misuses a similar study in a totally uncritical and polemical manner. A subversive philosophy serves neither science nor patients.


 * But I think you are correct that Shang is *still* in despite the strong evidence of bias, poor methodology, and severe criticism from the scientific community. But so is Linde (1997), Linde (1998), Linde (1999), and Mathie (2003)—and any other RS papers you would like to advance. But really, I thought we were no longer talking about what's in and what's not. Everything that's WP:RS is automatically in. It's now a question of how to use them specifically. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've missed out the first few sentences of that letter: "We congratulate Aijing Shang and colleagues on their meta-analysis examining the clinical effects of homoeopathy. Their methods largely reproduce those of our meta-analysis on the same topic published in The Lancet 8 years ago. 2 We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." That somewhat modifies the "severe criticism" that comes later.  The "severe criticism", by the way, has come not from "the scientific community" but almost entirely from homoeopaths.
 * The points made in the first paragraph you quoted were addressed by the authors in response to the letters from Linde and others in the Lancet, when they published the lists of included and excluded trials (although homoeopaths continued to claim that they hadn't identified the trials for quite some time after this). Brunton (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Different mainstream journals source highly criticized Shang. Not only the homeopathic journals. The Ludtke/Rutten paper (from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)  and the 29:Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07. In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo.51 However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo. In short -as I said before - several different voices from the mainstream medical literature DONT councur with Shangs conlcusions that Homeopathy=placebo and that info should not be surpressed anymore. BTW what Linde and all stated in the Lancet "We agree that homeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." does not contradict their opposition to Shangs results. Obviously these statements must be reported. --JeanandJane (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to counter the suggestion that the "severe criticism" of the shang paper is almost entirely from homoeopaths by citing (a) a paper authored by R. Ludtke (who according to the paper "works for an independent non-profit foundation which is dedicated to research funding in homeopathy") and Lex Rutten (of the Association of Dutch homeopathic physicians); and (b) a paper from the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education that reports that Shang has been criticised in: 5 articles or letters published in Homeopathy (by the likes of Peter Fisher, Director of the Royal London homeopathic Hospital, David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, Lex Rutten and CF Stolper, another homoeopathic physician, Michael Frass of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, and a group of researchers whose affiliation I couldn't identify from the pubmed link given); a couple of articles from the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (one from Iris Bell); an "open letter" by the Swiss Association of Homeopathic Physicians; a letter from Ananti Shah, Superintendent Pharmacist at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital; and the Linde/Jonas letter already mentioned here?
 * Your quotation from the Am J Pharm Educ paper also manages to repeat two of the common misconceptions about the Shang paper: that it didn't identify its selection criteria (as pointed out by Wilson, Homeopathy Volume 98, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 127-128, the criteria were in the paper) and that the trials were not identified, despite the Am J Pharm Educ paper having been accepted for publication over six months after Shang's reply in the Lancet announced that the lists of trials had been published. Brunton (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No.In wikipedia the criterion for inclusion is peer review papers in reliable sources mainstream journals and minority views journals ( properly weighted ). It is not the writers associations as you imply. It is a journal's decision to publish the paper and make it reliable and not us. At least 3 of the above sources who heavily criticize Shang are published in major mainstream journals - that's why they are already used as references in our article. I don't try to counter anything - I only say since they qualify for inclusion they should appear in the article - lead properly weighted. I m not trying to decide who is correct and who is deceived. .Wilson paper could also qualifies - ( maybe less weight since it is not peer reviewed ? Debatable.)--JeanandJane (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue we were discussing was whether the criticism comes from "the scientific community" or from homoeopaths - not inclusion criteria. A list of criticisms from homoeopaths does not suggest that the criticism comes from "the scientific community" as a whole.  Incidentally, most of those criticisms are also probably not peer-reviewed, since they are letters, or in one case an editorial.  Brunton (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Brunton, the scientific community is not a person. The papers ( The Journal of Clinical.E. and the journal of Pharmaceutical Ed. ) are peer reviewed papers and there is a letter published in the Lancet  from 2 highly regarded scientists Linde and W. - who published their own review stating that Homeopathy has a effect over placebo ( even after the correction ). These are parts of the scientific community  who participated in research on the subject and they were appeared in mainstream journals. Their objections should be included if we want a  have a complete and more neutral article. --JeanandJane (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The repeated unjustifed dismissal of Shang, claiming homeopaths as "the scientific community", shows the clear agenda and advocacy of certain editors here. Brunton is entirely correct. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Brunton & Verbal, your contention could just as easily be applied in the reverse: "Are you really trying to counter the suggestion that "severe criticism" of the <insert homeopathy-sympathetic paper here> is almost entirely from anti-homeopaths...?" It doesn't really matter. Everyone knows Ernst and Shang, and a few others are anti-homeopathic, Fisher, Mathias, and a few others pro-homeopatic. It doesn't change things. Shang is criticized, and criticizable. Likewise for the other side.


 * Please note (Verbal), I'm not suggesting that we not use Shang. It's just not fruitful to argue whether a peer-reviewed paper published in a good quality journal should be re-reviewed by us for inclusion here. But this applies equally to the other side—no double-standards. In any case, you asked for "convincing evidence and reasoning" to backup claims. They were supplied. But again, I thought we were done with these types of discussions? Dbrisinda (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for "fringe"
The question came up above whether reliable sources consider homeopathy to be "fringe". The answer, I thought, was obviously "yes", so I did a Google Scholar search and found that reliable mainstream biomedical, philosophical, and legal sources do consider homeopathy to be fringe, pseudoscience, or scientifically implausible. These include: I did not find any reliable sources in recent refereed scholarly journals that disagreed with the proposition that homeopathy is fringe (in the sense that it contradicts mainstream science and medicine). On the contrary, some sources even in the homeopathic literature concede the point, if only indirectly. For example:
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eubulides (talk • contribs)


 * The problem with the term "fringe" is that it is used in Wikipedia in order to show that a theory or belief departs 'significantly from the mainstream view' in science and medicine and that it has "not gained scientific consensus". This is Wikipedia's criterion (so far). It seems thought to be quite confusing since fringe does not mean only fringe science as wikipedia 's editors have agreed; the best evidence for this confusion is that the editors who created the FAQ questions ,specifically #4, used as criterion for fringe the popularity and the amount of money spent on Homeopathy.(BTW that was not a good criterion since homeopathic drugs 's cost is extremely low compared to the cost of conventional medicine ; the number of consumers who use homeopathy is a better criterion.) So homeopathy -if we look for accuracy-  is not mainstream but not fringe either in terms of popularity and that can be easily be verified - even if its popularity varies from country to country.
 * Regarding the above sources there is no such a term used - by the way at least I did not see it. This is Wikipedia's criterion which is fine since there is currently consensus on the use of the term. --JeanandJane (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The obvious conclusion from the above comment is that Q4 needs reworking, as it disagrees both with Wikipedia's use of the word "fringe" and with what reliable sources say. Q4 does not trump reliable sources, so its contents do not undermine my comment above.
 * All the above sources use the word "fringe" or "pseudoscience" or "scientifically implausible". Perhaps you did not see these phrases, if you looked only at the abstracts.
 * Eubulides (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking for fringe : The first source requires log in, the second also ( I don't see fringe it in the abstract )third link is broken, 4th the word fringe is not associated with homeopathy - but maybe I don't see it. In any case there are other sources which call homeopathy promising and major organizations  fund and encourage research (- so as you understand the word pseudoscience is really controversial and shows a Point of view. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you lack access to the sources, but there is no requirement that reliable sources must be world-readable on the web. My summaries of the sources are accurate. Obviously words like "fringe" and "pseudoscience" are controversial and show a point of view, but WP:NPOV does not say that an article cannot use controversial words, nor does it say that an article cannot express a viewpoint. What it says is that an article should reflect what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they say. As for the specific sources:
 * Loudon 2006 says "One of the most striking features of unorthodox medicine—variously described as quackery, irregular medicine, fringe medicine, or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)—has been its ability to survive for centuries in a very wide variety of forms...." It then goes on to place homeopathy squarely in the context of this sort of unorthodox medicine.
 * Jonas & Ives 2008 call homeopathy a "fringe medical system" as noted in the quote at the start of  below.
 * Hansson 2008 (Theoria 74:267) says "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, and Velikovskian catastrophism are pseudosciences."
 * Rislove 2006 writes "In response to the argument that inoperable inventions are not marketable, counterexamples abound. For example, the founder and CEO of Biomed Comm, Inc., Dr. Barbara Brewitt, has received five U.S. patents relating to homeopathic treatments. The patents were the basis for Biomedd Comm's entry into the thriving market for homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy, although popular as a treatment, has proven to be both inefficacious and scientifically implausible."
 * Campbell 2008, the homeopathic source, says "The wider implications indicate that homeopathic continues to be demarcated, marginalised and positioned on the fringes of the medical environment basis and thus homeopathic practice is continually void of a persuasive political voice as noted by Degele."
 * In short, there is no controversy among these reliable sources that homeopathy is fringe, or pseudoscience, or scientifically implausible, or whatever one wants to call it. In contrast, we've seen no reliable mainstream biomedical, philosophical, or legal peer-reviewed sources that assert that homeopathy is not fringe. Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fringe, and pseudoscience are quite different concepts. The controversy exists when other reliable sources characterize its results  promising, major organizations fund homeopathic research and call for more studies. Again I dont think a major organization would fund research in field which they consider pseudoscience.


 * This is an example of a mainstream journal describing the controversy: besides NACCAM which you read above. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). --JeanandJane (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are approaching the discussion of fringe in the wrong way. Partially duplicating my responses above, regarding homeopathy being a fringe belief, Astin (1998) performed a review of the use and belief in various complementary and alternative medicines by mainstream physicians in the U.S. As far as homeopathy is concerned, 26% believed in the value of homeopathy, while 9% actually practiced homeopathy. I wouldn't call that "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination.


 * Results: Across surveys, acupuncture had the highest rate of physician referral (43%) among the 5 CAM therapies, followed by chiropractic (40%) and massage (21%). Rates of CAM practice by conventional physicians varied from a low of 9% for homeopathy to a high of 19% for chiropractic and massage therapy. Approximately half of the surveyed physicians believed in the efficacy of acupuncture (51%), chiropractic (53%), and massage (48%), while fewer believed in the value of homeopathy (26%) and herbal approaches (13%).


 * Also, it is a little disingenuous to characterize homeopathy as a fringe belief based on dollar market share. Homeopathic remedies are a fraction of the costs of pharmaceuticals as J&J already pointed out. And so, on this basis it will always appear as a small percentage. This is the wrong metric to use to ascertain fringe status. The metrics that are needed here are, 1. the number of doctors that believe homeopathy has value, 2. the number of doctors that practice homeopathy, 3. the number of the general population that believes homeopathy has value, and 4. the number of the general population that practices or uses it. The above study addresses the first 2 points indicating it is not a fringe belief. In light of this new evidence, I move that FAQ #4 be changed so it reads homeopathy is not a fringe belief. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the remaining criteria have now also been addressed in Changes to FAQ #4 and article: Homeopathy is not a fringe belief. Discussion welcome in the new section. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hormesis
Jonas & Ives 2008 (, cited above) makes the interesting point that the fringe status of homeopathy has discouraged legitimate research into the clinical effects of small doses. It says (p. 123): "In contrast to toxicologists' failure to discuss the clinical implications of hormesis, practitioners of the fringe medical system called homeopathy were more than willing to use the concept in an attempt to justify their practice. Schulz, one of the first to describe the hormetic phenomenon believed that he had discovered the underlying mechanism of homeopathy. This further contaminated any discussion of possible clinical use of the concept. Homeopaths were ousted from mainstream medicine and often fought with conventional practitioners. In addition, they held to the irrational claim that dilutions beyond Avogadro's number still had effects."

I suggest that this point be summarized in Homeopathy. Certainly the article should mention (and wikilink to) hormesis. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We know that Homeopathy's claims and ideas are controversial among scientists. Regarding the "Homeopaths were ousted from mainstream medicine" is also controversial since reliable sources are telling us that several scientists regard homeopathy as promising and they ask for more research ( http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#researchalready NACCAM funds Homeopathy). This also must be included in the article if we want less bias.--JeanandJane (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the previous comment is that relevant. There is no contradiction between the claims "ousted from mainstream medicine" and saying "promising" and "asking for more research". On the contrary: one would normally ask for more research in an area where research has been unduly inhibited purely because of the area's unscientific reputation. Eubulides (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there is contradiction. If your last sentence were true, NACCAM would have fund and encourage research in Astrology as well. If a field is "ousted from mainstream medicine" is not funded and encouraged to conduct research. I don't believe  that organizations want to waste their money.--JeanandJane (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous comment is also irrelevant to the topic of this thread. My last sentence said nothing about astrology, and does not at all imply that the NCCAM funds or should fund astrology. Astrology has nothing to do with hormesis, the topic of this thread. Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You said that "one would normally ask for more research in an area where research has been unduly inhibited purely because of the area's unscientific reputation" and I just used an example to show you the error of this syllogism.If the area's unscientific reputation were a criterion for funding research they would have funded other areas which have unscientific reputation. In short funding a field means that -at least- they don't regard it as pseudoscience.  --JeanandJane (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the previous comment seems to have veered off on a tangent that is irrelevant to hormesis. Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Under Homeopathy, we can explain how homeopaths embraced hormesis as an explanation of their field. And how this led to the ousting of homeopathy from mainstream because that concept had been rejected by toxicology, and how this poisoned the discussion of clinical uses. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hormesis has no relevance to dilutions beyond 12C, and if there are homeopaths who claim otherwise, it would be good to see them cited. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct about those dilutions. Also, looking at more sources, it seems that it was the Arndt-Schulz rule that got his mainstream reputation killed by its association with homeopathy. Not sure if homeopaths claim hormesis. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose mainstream reputation are you referring to? &mdash;Whig (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hormesis isn't really relevant to homoeopathy because homoeopathy claims to operate by intensifying the patient's symptoms and thereby stimulating or assisting the body's healing process. There is no suggestion that the small (or non-existent) doses used produce different effects to those expected from large doses (and the dilutions are not an essential part of homoeopathy - the basic principle is "like cures like" and the dilutions were only introduced by Hahnemann when he discovered that material doses of toxic substances are toxic). The remedies are expected to induce the same symptoms that they do in provings. We could mention that some homoeopaths invoke hormesis as an explanation, but it really holds no more water than the quantum flapdoodle explanations. If the remedies were claimed to work by inducing different symptoms to those exhibited by the patient that would, by definition, be allopathy. Brunton (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hormesis doesn't seem to have anything more to do with homeopathy than vaccination does. In both hormesis and vaccination, the patient is exposed to a small but measurably present sample of the substance in question. In homeopathy, the substance is not actually measurably present. If hormesis is homeopathy, then so is every flu shot. --FOo (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right, homeopathic potencies of 6C or less have measurably present samples of the substance in question. Potencies between 6C and 12C have some quantity of the substance, but perhaps below the level of detection by instruments. Potencies above 12C do not contain any atoms or molecules of the substance, but are claimed to have effects due to some other reason. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Vaccination is quite relevant to homeopathy, and is mentioned in both the body and the lead of the article. Even though hormesis is not the same as homeopathy, it is obviously quite relevant, if only because the article should distinguish homeopathy from hormesis. Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving needed
This page is now 439K. Could someone tackle it? LeadSongDog come howl  18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I reset the archiver so that threads with no activity for 21 days are archived. It had been set to 30 days. A bunch of stuff should roll off sometime within the next 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox
Me thinks a Homeopathy controversy and criticism article is appropriate. But I think it should be started in a sandbox first and worked on by numerous editors. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this pertain to Q6 in the FAQ? &mdash;Whig (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right, which brings into question the reasonableness of FAQ #6 and #8 as well. Looking through many controversial Wikipedia articles, there is often a "Criticism and Controversy" section near the bottom of the article. What's so wrong with having that here or something like it -- collecting all criticism and controversy in one place? So that the main body of the article is just about homeopathy per se? Or, as QuackGuru suggested, moving it into an entirely separate article that is linked from the main article? This would probably solve a lot of problems. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. We do not ghettoize criticism.  Skinwalker (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YES SIR! In any case, it doesn't have to be an article fork. See below and response to SBHB. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with QuackGuru],[[User:Dbrisinda|Dbrisinda and Whig(may I assume he agrees ?)--JeanandJane (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in moving content from this article into a new article. But I think a new article can be developed outside of mainspace using a sandbox. This is a notable topic that warrants a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against this because of what I've seen happen in other articles. There's a direct path from "there's so much criticism that it needs a separate article" to "we have an article specifically for criticism, so all criticism has to go there and not in the main article." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if not a separate article, why not a section like many other articles for "Criticism" or "Criticism and controversy" or some such? Dbrisinda (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This would result in removing negative evidence from the body of the article and putting it 'below the fold', as it were. It would change the entire balance of the article.  Brunton (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, look at the list of pseudoscientific topics, for example, psychoanalysis. It has it's own mutli-faceted criticism section after dealing with the material of psychoanalysis proper: "Criticism," "Scientific Criticism," and "Theoretical Criticism." As well as "Evidence" sections in many of those topics. Most of the developed pseudoscience topics seem to be structured this way. This seems to be a very normal and widely accepted way of supplying critique and evidence discussions, i.e., after the topic has been described, it's component elements, how it works, history etc. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, it doesn't make very much sense to me to criticize something before it has been fully described. Dbrisinda (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is very little "criticism" in the article before the section titled "Medical and scientific analysis". Most of the description is just descriptive, and what "criticism" there is is in the context of particular issues (e.g. flower remedies or veterinary homoeopathy), or is reporting controversies within homoeopathy and criticism of particular ideas by other homoeopaths (e.g. miasms or "paper remedies"/radionics), and again is entirely in context.  Brunton (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases criticism is an inherent part of the description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. The problem with this is that when criticism is included in the description it reads like someone is trying to make very very sure that the reader doesn't even for a moment consider viewing the topic in anything other than a wholly negative light. It feels like a here-let-me-think-for-you-because-you're-clearly-not-capable attack on our intelligence and freedom of choice (making up our own minds) is being waged every other moment. Not that there is anything wrong with viewing the topic in a negative light—but at the right time, once all the facts are in. Dbrisinda (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By "all the facts" I assume you mean "all the facts that could be used to view homoeopathy in a positive light". Brunton (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he might mean just facts. Not lights at all. Save the lights for later.--JeanandJane (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, J&J is correct. By facts I mean simply a description of the phenomenon, it's constituent elements, methodology, how they are believed/expected to work by adherents, history, etc. Then add the various lights. Dbrisinda (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC).
 * As I have already noted above, there is precious little "criticism" in the article before the "Medical and scientific analysis" section which follows the description of what homoeopathy involves, and much of that is reporting controversies among homoeopaths themselves about particular issues, or is in the context of particular types of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, take the last sentence of the lead (paragraph #4), that's highly critical in a suggestive way. This is an example of a sentence that really ought to be moved to a criticisms section. Also take the area on Miasms and disease, the criticism by Campbell is not balanced by Vithoulkas' response. This criticism could be moved out of the main theory of Miasms section into a later criticims section. And then there is the entire section: Dilution debate, which could also form part of the large criticisms/debates/controversy sections. Also, the history section should probably appear much earlier on that it currently does. Dbrisinda (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to summarise the article, so criticism will appear there wherever it is in the article. The comments about miasms are appropriately placed in the section about miasms.  The descriptions of the dilutions are entirely factual and neutral (the mere fact that some homoeopaths don't like having attention drawn to the implications of the dilutions used does not make this "criticism"), with the possible exception of the last sentence.  Perhaps that sentence could be removed, but if so it would need to be replaced with a comment to the effect that the dilutions make homoeopathy implausible.  The history section used to appear higher up the article, but it was moved as a result of discussion on this talk page.  The reasons should be somewhere in the archive. Brunton (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) I can accept that—that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so criticism will appear there. But this criticism should be a concise factual summary of the evidence presented in the body of the article, not an arbitrary reference/quotation characterizing homeopathy as pseudoscience and quackery. This is not an accurate summary of the criticisms made. In the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead, the quotation and suggestion of psuedoscience and quackery are inappropriate—this would be better left for the body where it already appears.


 * I still think history should appear very early, right after the lead, so we have better context for the large amount of information that follows. It would also flow better. The second paragraph comments on miasms and disease don't seem appropriate to me, as they are somewhat tangential to the discussion. Especially, since they are not balanced by Vithoulkas' response to the criticism. It's too one-sided right now, and to expanded it to balance it, unfortunately, would then overly weight that paragraph in the treatment of miasms and disease. That paragraph could be dealt with in it's own separate sub-section with Vithoulkas' response for balance (Controversy of miasms theory)—or perhaps similar to how the dilution debate was handled: right after the treatment of the material, e.g. have a "Miasms debate" subsection, expanding it if we wished. Lastly, I can accept the dilution debate criticism where it is, as it's clearly labeled and separated from the treatment of dilutions proper. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "Dilution debate" is a particularly good heading for the material it covers. Part of it discusses the sort of analogies that have been used by both homoeopaths and others to illustrate the dilutions, part says that there are some homoeopaths who don't use high dilutions (but doesn't mention any "debate", and the final sentence points out that the high dilutions are indistinguishable from solvent.  Possibly the first part could be headed "analogies for dilutions" or something similar, or perhaps just merged into the section above.  The last sentence of the section perhaps belongs in the "high dilutions" section under "Medical and scientific analysis", but if moved should be replaced by a sentence saying that the high dilutions used by many (most?) homoeopaths is one of the factors that makes it implausible.  Brunton (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s a testament to the tenacity of the apologists that this article takes as long as it does to get around to the pesky facts and criticisms. Wikipedia’s purpose is to inform. The plain truth is that homeopathy is ineffective fringe pseudoscience, and that should be stated earlier and clearly. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of this material in its proper place in the lead gets it high enough up the article, but it is also important to at least mention problems with homoeopathy in the appropriate places in the descriptive sections, otherwise (especially in an article this length) we risk giving an entirely wrong impression. Brunton (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox minus John Dillinger equals what? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support a section or article on the criticisms against the criticisms of homeopathy, provided it is reliably sourced and immediately provides mention to the user that is is not an accepted scientific study (with a link to the main article). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources regarding the efficacy of homeopathy in influenza?

 * The Lancet news item doesn't seem to be available online (at least I couldn't access the text), but the peer-reviewed systematic review from the Cochrane collaboration is certainly a better source for evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathy in influenza than a news article reporting a single study considered by the review. If we can find a peer-reviewed study with a specific statement relating to the matter that the Time article is used to support, that would probably be a better source, but I think Time counts as RS.  Brunton (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I assume everybody agrees with that Time counts as RS. So Lancet news and notes if it is found -I thought that the peer-reviewed systematic review from the Cochrane collaboration was "withdrawn". So whats sources are left for use in Wikipedia regarding homeopathy efficacy in influenza? --JeanandJane (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic of the thread, this page is confusing enough already. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any more activities there anymore - in any case I don't think this is confusing.I m trying to determenie what sources are left for the treatment of influenza if not the Cochrane review.Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence of efficacy for influenza is now looking pretty sparse (even if the Cochrane review was withdrawn because it couldn't be updated rather than because there was something wrong with it at its original date of publication, consensus seems to be that we can't use it). Probably not notable enough as a specific condition treatable by homoeopathy for inclusion here (even if influenza itself is currently in the news).  Perhaps the Oscillococcinum article is a more appropriate place.  Brunton (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is reference to other specific conditions in the article though. Why influenza should be excluded? I would like to hear the reasons. --JeanandJane (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess there are no reasons.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So I will add it using the available studies. The lancet news and notes which I will find soon and Ernst review which states that no homeopathic remedy has been definitively proved to work besides some effects of oscil for influenza ( I think I have to check it out again though).--JeanandJane (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasons have already been given above - for one, considering individual studies when others have been carried out is cherry-picking, and there doesn't appear to be a current review for 'flu. Which Ernst paper are you referring to?  The 2002 review of reviews states that "the volume of the evidence for oscillococcinum is small and therefore not fully conclusive."  Brunton (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, while we can't use the withdrawn Cochrane review in the article, I see no reason why we shouldn't use its conclusions (which were valid at the time they were drawn) in assessing the weight that should be given to individual earlier papers it considered. It would be highly misleading to cite the Lancet news article as supporting Oscillococcinum for flu when a later systematic review which considered the paper it was reporting on was essentially inconclusive (i.e. said it still required confirmatory studies). Brunton (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Cochrane review could be used. Of course a Lancet note should not be excluded since it has a weight. In any case lets see if there is consensus for all the above. That's why I will ask again: which reviews and papers are finally here for inclusion? --JeanandJane (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want comments regarding a topic, it might be best if you describe in detail what changes you want made to the article as well as at least a reference citation to the sources you want to back up the changes you make. I don't think anyone has the time to spend  to sort out what http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.pngexact reference/changes you are referring to from the large amount of text above. Yobol (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes I will suggest depend on what reliable sources are available for use in Wikipedia. That's why I am asking what sources we could use. For instance : Is finally the Cochrane review OK? yes or no? There was a dispute on this before. --JeanandJane (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what Brunton has been saying. He's NOT saying "we can use the review in the article", he says that it can give us some pointers on how much weight we should give an/this individual study. Also, I think your approach to improve the article is a little odd - usually we read the sources first and then, when we know what they say, we discuss if and how they are used in the article, not the other way round. --Six words (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to know what sources comply for inclusion before I bother reading them.Is this odd? People objected the inclusion of Cochrane review before - since it is "withdrawn". I'm trying to figure out if this has changed .--JeanandJane (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person who has made any suggestion that this may have changed is you yourself. It's certainly hard to see how what I posted ("...while we can't use the withdrawn Cochrane review in the article...") could be interpreted as meaning that we can use it anywhere other than the talk page.  Please try to read comments more carefully, as this sort of misinterpretation is potentially disruptive, as can be seen by the little derail we're now involved in.  Brunton (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)'''
 * Brunton I did not misrepresent anything - you said. "Incidentally, while we can't use the withdrawn Cochrane review in the article, I see no reason why we shouldn't use its conclusions (which were valid at the time they were drawn) in assessing the weight that should be given to individual earlier papers it considered."''' You either use a given source for whatever reason or not. You don't exclude it from the article but, on the other hand, you want to use it in order to give more or less weight to the papers you prefer. This is a perfect example what we should not do in Wikipedia. --JeanandJane (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, you should read other editors' comments more carefully before replying to them. I didn't say that you misrepresented anything.  And it is quite possible to use information from a source on a talk page, even if that source is not acceptable for the article.  See, for example, previous discussions about blogs.  Brunton (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not. A source either qualifies for use and inclusion or not. It cannot be reliable and unreliable the same time. If you accept its reliability you cite it and use it.  If not, you dont discuss it at all. The blogs discussion borders Original research. --JeanandJane (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please accept that WP:OR is meant to protect the articles from being used as a place to establish theories that are not verifiable with reliable sources and not to hinder or mute discussion about the validity of sources on talk pages. --Six words (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PR is meant also to protect the article from conclusions about weight and synthesis from sources which have been removed for whatever reason.--JeanandJane (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)If no new discussion has been made, it's probably a good assumption to say the people who had objections before still have them now. If there was significant objections and no consensus to use a particular source, then leave it out for now and use other sources. It is difficult to have hypothetical discussions about changes; it is much easier to provide actual suggestions for changes and the citations. Beyond that, I doubt you will get much enthusiasm for further discussion for hypothetical scenarios. Yobol (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Noted. Lets work on the available sources. --JeanandJane (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting research by Luc Montagnier
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #E3E0E5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate user talk pages of those involved. No further edits should be made to this.

I was recently directed towards some recent interesting research by nobel prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf

While the study was not conducted for homeopathic purposes, the researchers used aqueous solutions that were agitated and serially diluted (the researchers note that the solutions were “strongly agitated” and that this step was “critical for the generation of signals”). The researchers also note that they used a device made by French immunologist Jacques Benveniste.

The researchers found that pathogenic bacteria and viruses show a distinct EM signature at dilutions ranging from 10-5 to 10-12 (corresponding to 5X to 12X) and that small DNA fragments (responsible for pathogenicity) were solely accountable for the EM signal. The researchers also noted that one experiment found significant effects from dilutions as high as 10-18 (equivalent to 18X). The EM signature changed with dilution levels but was unaffected by the initial concentration and remained even after the remaining DNA fragments were destroyed by chemical agents. Of additional interest was the researchers’ observation that they observed the SAME results whether their initial concentration of cells were just 10 or 109.

They observed that the EM signal was destroyed by heating or freezing the sample (a common observation that homeopaths have also found in their medicines). Also, a 'cross-talk' effect was found whereby a negative sample inhibits the positive signal in another sample if they are left together overnight in a shielded container. The researchers propose that specific aqueous nanostructures form in the samples during the dilution process and are responsible for the EM effects measured. The researchers also detected the same electromagnetic signals in the plasma and in the DNA extracted from the plasma of patients suffering from Alzheimer, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

The researchers also quote Italian physicist, E. Del Guidice, the same scientist who Benveniste cited, for positing that water molecules can form long polymers of dipoles associated by hydrogen bonds and that electromagnetic radiations that the emit enable them to avoid decay.

With this initial paper Prof Montagnier and his team have started a very promising line of enquiry, which has direct relevance to homeopathy as they continue to investigate the characteristic physico-chemical properties found in high-dilutions of biological material. Thoughts? In before denial. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Received 3 January; revised 5 January; accepted 6 January". Impressively rapid peer review, eh? MastCell Talk 05:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He is a recent nobel prize recipient. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the work for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize? Brunton (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No... It just means his work would be quickly reviewed by his peers. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  08:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On a brief look, it doesn't appear to have much to do with homoeopathy. What he seems to be proposing is a method of detecting pathogenic bacteria.  There is no mention of "like cures like" or of matching remedies to symptoms, and (unless I've misread the paper) there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that ultradilute preparations show any effect - the "positive" results were generally observed in dilutions corresponding to 8-12X, with a single experiment showing effects up to 18X.  These are dilutions at which you would expect material from the MT to be present.  Brunton (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice I said it didn't directly mention homeopathy. This is simply something that shows that effects can be achieved in huge dilutions, and that shaking violently was one of the necessary components. You cannot deny that this is strikingly similar/identical to the preparation procedures and purported mechanism of homeopathy. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  08:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shooting from the hip, it looks to me like they should have had a good physicist on the team. But I also find it deeply disturbing that the article does not even contain words like statistical significance and probability. The fact that this is published in the second ever volume of a journal based in China does not improve my confidence either. Anyway, the discussion is moot because, Nobel prize winner or not, this result has not received the third party attention necessary for it to be mentioned in the article we're supposed to be working on here. In addition, since the publication carefully avoids any reference to homeopathy, it would be original research for us to make that connection. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again though, it wouldn't be used in the article to prove homeopathy correct, but merely to show some results on the dilutions stuff. I don't see how the journal's publication in China matters if it's been peer reviewed. Your meta-analysis of the research would also be original research. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  09:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The results show effects in dilutions where there would still be expected to be material from the original preparation present. It is uncontroversial that substances that are present can produce effects, so this doesn't give any additional support to homoeopathy.  The nature of the effect reported may be more controversial, but it doesn't appear to be anything to do with homoeopathy.  Brunton (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that Monsieur Montagnier is on the editorial board of the journal. Another detail that does not inspire confidence in the review process. But you're right. We don't need to spend time discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the work until it has been commented on by professional organizations or the press. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. New journals do arrive sometimes, and perhaps with some time this will establish itself as a very reputable publication. I still believe that the position of Luc himself is enough to make the research pretty credible, as it's unlikely that someone who literally just received the nobel prize is going to publish hee-haw research. Not to mention that this research is mentioned in his article on wikipedia. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the research for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize was carried out in the early 80s, and may not have much bearing on his current work. His Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention homoeopathy.  Brunton (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Montagnier doesn’t relate his experiment to Homeopathy, so using his work to back up homeopathic theory would be synthesis. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You guy obviously missed the point. It doesn't matter if he was directly researching homeopathy if he was performing the same procedures as are used in homeopathy and testing them. Studies aren't restricted to only what the original intention of them was. If they prove something that applies elsewhere, then it applies elsewhere. Period. No, his article doesn't mention homeopathy, but it mentions this study that you guys try to find every outlandish excuse in the book to say it's not valid. Using his work to say 'homeopathy works' is synthesis. Using his work on extreme dilutions to say "extreme dilutions are yada yada yada" would not be synthesis. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear WP:OR to link this "research" to homeopathy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any opinions from editors outside of the regulars that frequent here? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but applying it to homeopathy would be synthesis. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, would it be synthesis if it was included in the subsection "Dilution debate" under the heading "Dilution?" For example, the last paragraph of "Dilution debate" could be amended to include an additional sentence:


 * Scientific tests run by both the BBC's Horizon and ABC's 20/20 programs were unable to differentiate homeopathic dilutions from water, even when using tests suggested by homeopaths themselves. However, a recent study led by Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier revealed that aqueous solutions containing DNA fragments that are strongly agitated and serially diluted, generate electromagnetic signals at high dilutions which are signatures for the original DNA fragments. These EM signatures persist even after any remaining DNA fragments are destroyed by chemical agents, suggesting a possible link and mechanism of action relating to homeopathic dilutions.


 * Dbrisinda (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd slightly change that last sentence to please everyone. "...agents. Though no link to homeopathy is suggested, the study raises a possible mechanism of action relating to homeopathic dilutions.(ref)" -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  07:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would still be a Synth violation. Besides, it is a highly questionable piece of research that needs to be duplicated by independent researchers before it can be accepted. The history of such research has too often been associated with shoddiness or outright fraud. Research from China also has a poor reputation, often publishing only positive studies of poor quality. Let's get independent confirmation before even mentioning it anywhere else at Wikipedia. Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I certainly agree on the latter points, I'm not seeing what of the sentence by dbrisinda (with my changes) is synthesized. It's not stating it as fact, only providing the study to readers. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  09:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper says nothing about any mechanism of action for homoeopathy. It is proposing a method for detecting certain bacteria.  The comment proposed by Dbrisinda about "high dilutions" is also potentially misleading, as it might give the impression (especially in the context of the "Dilution Debate" section) that the dilutions involved were ones in which there would be no molecules from the MT present.  This is not the case - the highest dilutions at which an effect is claimed is 10-18, and this was from a single experiment - the effects claimed are generally at dilutions of 10-5 to 10-12.  Brunton (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but they took the DNA, destroyed all of it by dilution/chemical agents, and then tested the remaining substance, which contained no DNA, and found that the EM signal still was consistent with DNA being there, even though it was not. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't. The dilutions for which the effect was reported were well below the level at which all of the original material would have been removed.  And I'm not convinced that it is generally accepted that DNA transmits radio waves.  Additionally, the preparations were not succussed, but mixed with a vortex apparatus.  Merely using dilute solutions does not automatically make it homoeopathy.  Brunton (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, the point wasn't that it was associated with homeopathy... Or even that it had to go into the article. The point is that here is a piece of research that has, for the most part, used a similar preparation to the way homeopathic medications are prepared, and shown that with the substance removed, its effects are still noticeable by some sort of objectionable measurement. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with homeopathy. Unless some RS linking it to homeopathy specifically is raised, I suggest this thread be marked closed and archive-boxed as it is off-topic. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just stop responding then. We know the policy, but sometimes constructive ideas can come from harmless and unheated debates. If you don't like it, ignore it and go do something else.
 * Besides, I'm sure if some reliable source was raised there would be some reason why it couldn't be used. There always is, and I gotta hand it to you guys, any flaw can and will be found and will make that study unreliable in the light of your eyes. If you go into something expecting it to be wrong, you will pull out patterns to validate and back-up that belief. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how it works. When you are warned that you are violating talk page guidelines, you are the one who should stop. This isn't the place for your own personal OR and synth violations. I'm putting a hat on this as suggested. Further use of this subject as a soapbox will be reported. If you wish to discuss it with someone, then do it on your own talk page or their talk page. Brangifer (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but just because one editor has expressed their disinterest in the discussion does not mean I am required to cease and desist on their command. The topic is homeopathy, which is on topic for the talk page on homeopathy. I'm being civil, I'm not expecting changes to the article (Though my aim is to improve it), I am merely discussing research that has some connection to the methods of homeopathy, regardless if a million people decide it is original research. I am fully aware of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and am not repeating the same arguments over and over, but rather simply trying to get clarification on the stonewalled accusations that are a regular feature of this talk page.

I will leave the topic and not discuss it further. However, I am removing the hatnote that sweeps this under the carpet. Please notify me of any reporting you decide to do, so I can copy and paste this response. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate user talk pages of those involved. No further edits should be made to this.

Changes to FAQ #4 and article: Homeopathy is not a fringe belief
There is a great deal of evidence to show that homeopathy is not a fringe belief. I have supplied several sources and offered the results from several independent surveys in the field. I have changed the wording in FAQ #4 to be as quoted below. I also propose all references to homeopathy in the article be removed given this information. If you disagree, revert the changes to the FAQ #4 and bring your discussion here providing good reasons and sound arguments as to why you disagree.

No. The article should not call homeopathy a fringe belief. Homeopathy is a minority view, but not a fringe belief. It is believed to have value by a good number of physicians and much of the general populations across many industrialized countries of the world, as measured by several surveys in the field:


 * Percentage of the public in Europe and the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (1985-1992): Belgium: 56%, Denmark: 28%, France: 32%, Germany: no data, Netherlands: 31%, Sweden: 15%, United Kingdom: 16%, United States: 3%


 * Percentage of the public in Italy reporting use of homeopathic medicines (1997-1999): 8.2%


 * Percentage of the public in the United Kingdom reporting use of homeopathic medicines within the last 12 months (2001): 1.9%


 * Percentage of the public in the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (2002): 3.6%; and within the last 12 months: 1.7%


 * Percentage of the public in the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (2007): >3.6% (specific data not available); and within the last 12 months: 1.8%

In addition, a comprehensive literature search identified 25 surveys conducted between 1982 and 1995 that examined the practices and beliefs of conventional physicians in the United States with regard to 5 of the more prominent CAM therapies: acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and massage. Of these, 26% believed in the value of homeopathy, while 9% practiced homeopathy.

Dbrisinda (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a fringe belief by wikipedia and common definitions, as it is anti-science. Clearly fringe. Indeed all the sources above, and others besides, classify it as fringe, minority, or pseudoscientific (and quackery). At the very least it is alternative, which is also fringe (at the edges or conventional/mainstream). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Brunton and the puppy below, especially in their refutation of CWs point. Homeopathy clearmy meets WP:FRINGE. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy is not fringe in a Wikipedia sense as there are abundant sources from numerous perspectives and the notability of the topic is not in doubt. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is clearly a fringe belief in scientific terms as its mode of operation is based on ideas that are at least unsupported by, and in some cases flatly contradict, well-established scientific principles.  In addition there is evidence that, at least in the UK, its use is not really supported by a significant proportion of GPs.  A study of Scottish doctors cited on the Regulation and Prevalence page found that 49% of practices (not doctors - it only needs one doctor in a practice for that practice to be included in that 49%), only 0.22% of patients were prescribed homoeopathy.  Research carried out by West Kent PCT in 2007 roughly confirmed those findings (52% of practices referred for homoeopathy, but "less than 1% of the registered population are referred") but also found that "Almost all referrals for homeopathy are at the request of the patient rather than as a result of a clinical decision to refer".  This suggests that even for the small percentage referred, this generally wasn't done because the doctor had a particular belief in homoeopathy.
 * Colonel Warden, I don't think anyone is arguing that it is not notable. But even if it is notable it can still be a fringe belief.  Brunton (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, fringe indicates that the topic is so obscure that we will have difficulty finding good sources and this is not the case. In any case, the question is moot because our article does not use the word and so the FAQ entry is nonsensical.  It should be removed completely. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is the problem - Col Warden, you are in error about the usage of the term "fringe" here on Wikipedia, and how it is applied. Many "fringe" topics have exceedingly good sources - which characterize the topic as "fringe" or "pseudoscience" or "not generally accepted by the scientific or medical community" etc. "Fringe" means the experts, by and large, reject it. That's all. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:FRINGE says. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I shall certainly go take a look at that page, as I have not examined it in some time. It may be the page is poorly phrased, or confusing, in some aspects. Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, FRINGE makes it clear it is about levels of acceptance among "the relevant academic community" - and the only mention of scarcity of sources is in the section "Parity of sources" which is about excluding the fringe view all together. IOW, not even having an article, or mentioning in a broader article, the fringe view at all. There is an entire section devoted to Notability versus acceptance and you are speaking of "notability" not "acceptance". Many fringe views are noted in Wikipedia, and some, like Intelligent design and the Hollow earth theory, have their own articles. If you have any further questions or confusion about this, I suggest we take it to my or your talk page - please feel free to continue the discussion in either place, and I will attempt to clarify as necessary. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you exclude homeopaths from the "relevant academic community" (remember it's taught and researched at ordinary universities in a few places), then I don't see how you can include theologians in the "relevant academic community" for questions of religious dogma. That opens an interesting can of worms. See below. Hans Adler 11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, because religious views are handled quite differently from scientific and medical views here. You are very much in error here and in your comments below in your "moral support" post regarding that. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck explaining that in detail without recourse to a special exemption for religion that is nowhere present in our policies and guidelines. "Change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ". Through dilution and shaking a religious ceremony. Hans Adler 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Religion isn't science or medicine, and does not claim to be. The experts in that field are religious experts. Homeopathy claims to be medical science. The experts in that field are scientific and medical. There is no comparison, unless you are claiming Homeopathy is not (pseudo)science, or (alt)medicine, but instead a religion. Which would be news to everyone here, I imagine. There is no "exemption" unless it is the "exemption" from treating religion as though it were science. We don't treat Literature as though it were science, either, and no special "exemption" is required. Your "point" is nonsensical. If you wish to continue this very odd discussion, I have your talk page watchlisted. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Brunton, you cited a survey that was conducted in Scotland and had to do with physician referrals. But what do you think of the Astin (1998) paper which reported physician belief in the United States with respect to several CAM therapies, where 26% of physicians believed in the value of homeopathy, and 9% practiced it? Incidentally, from my review of the literature, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have some of the lowest homeopathic medicine use statistics in Europe. Dbrisinda (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Homeopathy is pretty much as described in WP:FRINGE. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 189 FCs served 10:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moral support. I am not happy with the new version, and I am not happy with the previous version. I have no doubt at all that homeopathy is fringe if you look at it as a science, as a way to explain how healing works, if you try to try to prove it has effects beyond placebo. I also have no doubt at all that in quite a few countries, certainly including Germany and the UK, it is not fringe as a system of complementary/alternative medicine. I am fed up with the POV pushing from both sides, but especially the POV pushing from the stronger side that regularly wins the debates here (and on ANI) by sheer numbers, often without any real arguments. This is not an article about a scientific or pseudoscientific theory, it's an article about homeopathy, which also has rich historical and cultural dimensions. What's the "relevant academic community" for transubstantiation? Presumably researchers in physics and biology, unless you want to count theologians. (We don't want to count theologians and homeopaths, do we?) What's the level of acceptance of transubstantiation in this community? Extremely low, I would say, if you ask for a professional opinion. So clearly the article transubstantiation needs to say very clearly that it's fringe. Good luck. Hans Adler 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Homoeopathy claims to be a science, not a religion, so the appropriate basis to assess it is in terms of science. An attempt was previously made to compare homoeopathy to religion here - several editors objected rather strongly. Brunton (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not taking homeopathy's claim to be a science seriously. Certainly no more than that by psychoanalysis, which has a more extensive literature on the pseudoscience discussion because it's even more established than homeopathy and therefore is right in the middle of the demarcation battlezone. On the other hand homeopathy's claim to being a science is admittedly slightly more credible than that of dogmatic theology. To quote our article: "However, in present-day use, apologetics is no longer treated as part of dogmatic theology but has attained the rank of an independent science, being generally regarded as the introduction to and foundation of dogmatic theology." (My bold.)
 * Most people who go to a homeopath don't do so because they are interested in science, be it fringe science, pseudoscience or proper science. They want to be healed by this practice. And the overall style of this practice is ascientific.
 * Mind you, there is nothing wrong with saying that homeopathy is plain wrong, as clearly and openly as our sources support it. What I object to is using language which implies that hardly anybody believes it, when the very fact that this talk page is one of the most popular gathering places of the extreme anti-pseudoscience fringe shows that this is far from true. Homeopathy is fringe when seen as a science, but not when seen as a system of complementary/alternative medicine, which is its dominant aspect. Hans Adler 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be considered fringe because it's nonsense? Brunton (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But not everything that is wrong, or even nonsense, is fringe. It's a matter of nuances. Remember that this FAQ question is about whether homeopathy should be described as fringe not whether it falls under WP:FRINGE. These are two very different questions.
 * I am not sure how you got the idea that I say it's not fringe because it's nonsense. Are you working under the assumption that everything that isn't science must be fringe or pseudoscience? Music, dancing, love (including divination by counting parts of flowers), cooking (even when you use "Himalaya" salt) are all neither. It certainly makes more sense to ask whether homeopathy is one or the other, but that doesn't imply that the homeopathy article must be written exclusively from the science angle. It's a CAM topic, not a medical sciences topic. People use CAM because they don't want the science. They are afraid of it. They think it's unpersonal. Hans Adler 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The religion angle is a red herring, and Shoemaker's Holiday said it better than I could. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article doesn't mention the word 'fringe' once. Zero times. Why is the question even in the faq? Why does it say "yes the article should call it fringe," when the article doesn't call it fringe? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. The question is probably left from a time when the article did call it fringe without adequate sources. The point being that the standard of proof needed to say in the article that it is fringe is considerably higher than the standard for treating it as such. It seems best to simply remove the question altogether. I guess that would have been possible in the constructive climate that we had a few months ago, before Dr.Jhingaadey and Dana Ullman returned and put everybody back in extreme polarisation mode. I am not sure it's possible now, even though it's obviously the right thing to do. But I hope I will be surprised. Hans Adler 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Homeopathy is clearly and obviously a fringe form of pharmaceutics. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of applying our own criteria based on percentages and such, why not look at whether academic sources characterize it as fringe? Ten seconds with Google scholar turns up multiple attestations. There may be other sources that say it isn't fringe, so we'll need to weigh the evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One example from the google search results you provided:New Age medicine is characterized by its broad acceptance of homeopathy and of such fringe medical practices as crystal healing,reflexology, iridology, color healing, and aromatherapy.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) That's a simple and effective combination of search terms. Either I didn't try it before or it's because of Google's recent changes to its algorithm – I found a few surprises in the results. I particularly like this one: The challenge to professionalism presented by homeopathy, a lecture based on Quackery: A deadly threat to health and A challenge to the credibility of homeopathy.


 * Homeopathic medicine waned in popularity steadily until the advent of the holistic health movement of the 1970s and the “New Age” Movement of the 1980s. New Age medicine is characterized by its broad acceptance of homeopathy and of such fringe medical practices as crystal healing, reflexology, iridology, color healing, and aromatherapy. The rise of homeopathy may also be reflective of a rising “disenchantment with modern science and a return to occultism.” One survey of homeopathic patients revealed that the majority were also involved in other alternative medical practices such as primalism, polarity, shiatsu massage, and rolfing. Further, 81 percent of these patients stated that dissatisfaction with conventional health care was the reason they turned to homeopathy.
 * One author suggests that the resurgence of homeopathy is related to the human tendency to turn in times of trouble to doctrines without a rational basis but with a stamp of conviction.
 * I think this is a good treatment of homeopathy: As a dubious practice close to fringe, but not quite fringe. But it reflects an American POV. In Europe, homeopathy is predominantly conservative not New Age. In Europe it has an old-fashioned aura and very strong ties to anthroposophy; see anthroposophical medicine. (Now that's a positive article on a subject that is at least as dubious as homepathy. How about channelling some of the debunking energy there?) Hans Adler 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SBHB, the problem is I could argue that the search terms you provided are more arbitrary a criteria, and much more subject to bias than my original numerically-based criteria were. For example, consider who would use the pejorative word "fringe" coupled to "homeopathy" in the title of a paper publication? Someone who has preconceived notions or someone that is free from bias? Dbrisinda (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * support. The question and answer #4 ( different editors have argued above ) is misleading and contradicts itself. That's obvious from the arguments presented. On the other hand If we want to discredit Wikipedia' article on Homeopathy even more then we should keep it the way it is. --JeanandJane (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if it is considered as a form of loosely-organized religion following the prophet Hahnemann's writings in the sacred verses of the Organon, Homeopathy would still be a fringe religion by serious students of comparative religion. It's already clear that serious scientists engaged in physics, chemistry, and medicine consider it as a fringe science at the most generous, with others leaning to consider it as outright fraud. The median position would simply acknowledge it as a form of placebo medicine with elaborate ritual forms to convince the patient that the placebo is potent. Placebos do have effect amongst believers, that is not disputed. But, because any well controlled DBRCT would show that to within statistical margins all water-based 12C remedies are interchangable with plain water, Homeopaths continue to oppose such trials. This refusal to submit homeopathic "theory" to experimental evaluation using the best available methodology is a hallmark of fringe science.LeadSongDog come howl  15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Homeopaths continue to oppose such trials?--JeanandJane (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's a fringe belief in science, directly reject by editorials in the most notable sources in medicine and science (The Lancet and Nature). I already proposed saying that in some countries it's usage is widespread, but Brunton has looked at the sources in a comment above and turns out that it's not as widely widespread as I thought. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. My take on what fringe science means on Wikipedia is here.  I would put homeopathy near the (ill-defined) border between fringe science and pseudoscience, and would be happy with classifying it as either one.  Cardamon (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The claim that "water memory" will allow a solution that is essentially nothing but water to somehow treat ailments is scientific is very much a fringe one. Clinical studies routinely show Homeopathy working at the same level as other placebos.  It's a fringe study.Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Homeopathy is not fringe, though some may consider it pseudoscience. A fringe belief is one that has little or no prevalence, whereas homeopathy is used by a significant number of people. Additionally, reliable sources do not describe homeopathy as fringe. The article does not describe homeopathy as fringe, so a FAQ stating that the article should describe homeopathy as fringe is pointless advocacy. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Homeopathy is the definition of WP:FRINGE. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose According to WP:FRINGE, a fringe theory includes "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus", which clearly applies here. The word "fringe", as describing Homeopathy, should also be added to the article itself. (For example, "Homeopathy is a fringe belief, as claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." However, this is not the time or place (yet) to discuss where exactly it should be inserted). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose when I look up "fringe" in the dictionary... it should also say this in the intro sentence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose. Within the scientific study of the human body and the medical effects of chemicals upon it, the notions behind homeopathy are way out there. The fact that homeopathy is not "fringe" among homeopaths is no more relevant than the fact that astrology is not "fringe" among astrologers: the relevant set is not the practitioners, but the discipline which studies the subject matter -- in this case, pharmacology. --FOo (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as evidence shows there are sufficiently large numbers of people that use or have used homeopathic medicines to move it out of the realm of "fringe belief." Even in the United States which has a comparably low incidence of homeopathic medicine use to other countries (3.6%), 26% of physcians believe in it's value, and 9% practice it (see the start of this section for the survey reference). But perhaps, judging from the above myriad interpretations of "fringe", with qualifications of "fringe belief", "fringe theory", "fringe science", "fringe WRT the scientific community", "fringe WRT the medical community", and simply "fringe", perhaps we need a better definition of what exactly we're talking about when we say "fringe". Dbrisinda (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose stating that it is not a fringe belief. I would call it pseudoscience rather than fringe.  It's more like a religion, or astrology, than a fringe science theory.  I generally oppose classifying topics in a black-and-white way into "fringe" or not; I don't see how that affects application of verifiability or notability principles in deciding what to include in the article. A factual statement about what percentage of people believe in it (according to some survey) might be of some use; a Wikipedian finding of "fringe" or not is unverifiable and unnecessary. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment about Astin (1998). The article is a literature review of about a dozen surveys of physicians' views on CAM. The relevant statistic, in the table "Physician Belief in the Efficacy of CAM Therapies", is that a mean of 26% of physicians believe in the efficacy of homeopathy. The problem is that the standard deviation is a whopping 19%. One of the studies reviewed (Reilly 1983) found that 52% percent of physicians surveyed believe in the efficacy of homeopathy; another (Goldstein 1998) found that only 1% of physicians surveyed do. My sense is that each of these surveys was asking slightly different questions (or asking slightly different subgroups of physicians), and so this 26% figure isn't very meaningful. The statistics for what the British/American/Italian/European public thinks about homeopathy are, of course, irrelevant. Strad (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove FAQ #4 Entirely
Alright, so it appears that few are happy with my suggestions for changing the FAQ #4 to something that is based on use criteria instead of (misleading) dollar market share. And the reasons it seems are largely due to a kaleidoscope of interpretations of WP:FRINGE. Others have suggested that the current FAQ is nonsensical given the article doesn't use fringe to describe homeopathy. What about just removing FAQ #4 entirely? Dbrisinda (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The reason we have FAQs is to reduce tensions on a talk page by calmly and in detail explaining the reasons for certain features of the article that some may find controversial. After reading the answer to the FAQ they may decide that they are not able to argue against it.


 * This FAQ question and answer does not such thing because its rationale is not convincing. It's far from clear that only the scientific community is relevant here. The question seems to acknowledge this by also talking about market share. But it uses the price argument, which could also be used to prove that bicycles are fringe because people spend so much less money on them than on cars. The last paragraph is misinformation through careful cherry-picking. Overall, this FAQ question functions as a creed for one half of the editors and as a repellent for the other. Hans Adler 11:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Strongly. Dbrisinda's "(misleading)" interpretation is incorrect. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Of course it's misleading since this isn't about the question whether it's fringe to invest in homeopathy companies but whether it's fringe to use it. You can't use the fact that homeopathy is cheaper by a considerable factor as proof that it's fringe, and you don't set this misuse of statistics right just by insisting on your non-existent authority. Also the US is not the navel of the world. In Germany in 2006, 1 % of the business volume for pharmaceutical products was homeopathy, and 3 % of sold units. (See the source in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy.) Besides, the argument leading from 1 % market share to "fringe" is intellectually lazy anyway. That's exactly the market share of automatic transmission in cars sold in Germany. Is automatic transmission fringe? Hans Adler 12:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief Verbal. If you can't see the misleading and clearly POV-pushing nature of resorting to $$ market share as a justification for "fringe belief" then we really do have a problem. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like Brunton suggests below, it should be modified to make clear why the scientific community sees homeopathy as fringe, and I agree the money spent on it isn't a good argument. However, comparing science with vehicles isn't really a good argument, too. To complete that picture of "homeopathy friendly" Germany we shouldn't forget that a lot of people here use it alongside conventional remedies, not instead of.--Six words (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last sentence. Note that this translates to an underestimate of the percentage of (non-exclusive) users of homeopathy. This explains the difference to the telephone survey (see prevalence article) that said 11.5 % had used homeopathy. Hans Adler 14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been talking about "business volume" and "sold units", I don't see how saying people are using them alongside other remedies could translate to "underestimation" there. --Six words (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of this discussion is detracting from my uncontradicted last point, that the last paragraph is misinformation through cherry-picking, but OK. To make it easy, let's assume everybody uses 4 units of medicine per month: either (a) 4 units of regular medicine or (b) 3 units of regular medicine plus 1 homeopathic unit. Now suppose 3 % of sold units are homeopathic. Then that means that 12 % of users are using homeopathy (non-exclusively). If we make the (questionable) assumption that every occasional user of homeopathy believes in it, then in this case number of units sold is a bad proxy for belief in homeopathy because it underestimates it by a factor of 4. (I made the numbers up to fit the telephone survey numbers, which I don't trust and which have an unclear meaning anyway.) Hans Adler 14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I respect Hans' well-stated views, I think that clarification is a more useful solution to them. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --JeanandJane (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support if we cannot achieve consensus on this FAQ item then it should be removed as pushing one or another POV. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This question will keep up coming by new editors, so it should be in the FAQ. Brunton's suggestion below makes it better. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support unless the wording in the FAQ is changed to something like "questionable science" or similar. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly. Let's improve, not delete, and make it relevant to discussion on the talk page.  In any case, this discussion seems no longer to be very relevant in view of a newer proposal - see below. Brunton (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The article doesn't say it, so it's not needed and may be unverifiable or non-NPOV. Calling it "fringe" may give a misleading impression that there is some scientific support for it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. No need for it if the article doesn't mention the term. The fact that it isn't mentioned in the article means its appearance on the talk page does little but flare tempers in the passionate supporters of homeopathy. In addressing the opposing view point (In order of posting), there is no interpretation to be misled with (It says it in the faq, it doesn't in the article, therefore it isn't necessary); The faq shouldn't be changed, as all it does it incite arguments over it being there (Which in the end does nothing for the article), and because the profitability of a business is irrelevant to the scientific merit of a subject; There is nothing to clarify, as nothing has been stated in the article. Subsequently, if it were gone, far fewer discussions would be taking place about whether or not homeopathy is a fringe belief, which is entirely centred around this FAQ entry. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose According to WP:FRINGE, a fringe theory includes "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus", which clearly applies here. The word "fringe", as describing Homeopathy, should also be added to the article itself. (For example, "Homeopathy is a fringe belief theory, as claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." However, this is not the time or place (yet) to discuss where exactly it should be inserted). (copied myself from above) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify/reword this. A fringe belief and a fringe science are two different things. WP:FRINGE in this case would make it a fringe science or a fringe theory, not a fringe belief. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And before you rebut with the comment made below, all fringe sciences are technically not "science" when you look at it (That's kind of the qualifier for being fringe per WP:FRINGE). That is not grounds for rewording it as a belief though, because in the non-mainstream view, it certainly is a science. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative edit to FAQ 4
As an alternative, how about changing FAQ4 so that it says the article should treat homoeopathy as a fringe belief, or perhaps as fringe science (rather than call it fringe), in view of the lack of support for it from scientific/medical consensus? Brunton (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is a well supported (from WP:RS) interpretation of homeopathy and fringe. The FAQ has got slightly out of step with the article, and this would address the problem clearly - whether the article included the word fringe or not. WP:FRINGE clearly applies, and homeopathy is clearly fringe. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The article doesn't need to have the word "fringe" in it, but still the question whether or not it's fringe science should be answered in the FAQ, because every now and then this term will show up on the talk page.--Six words (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with Brunton, et al. Calling it Fringe in the article wouldn't help understanding, discussing it with editors may help. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The idea is OK. For reasons stated elsewhere I insist on using the proper term fringe science. What I don't like about this question is that its only purpose is to help the side that has long been the stronger by far, and that tends to get fully out of control each time its control over almost every detail of this article is questioned or a too cheeky homeopath comes along. Hans Adler 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If more of the homeopathic editors were like you, this wouldn't be needed; as it is, though, it can be very hard to have discussions without them becoming completely dichotomised. I always feel when I'm discussing this a need to be incredibly careful, because it seems that even admitting to the smallest concession inevitably leaps up to plans to remove all criticism from the article (Dana Ullman was the worst in this respect). Honestly? I do think that we could do a lot better with presenting the homeopathic side, but the constant battles have served to destroy all subtlety. Perhaps an invitation-only draft article might be a possibility for finally getting this to FA. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Firstly, I 'm not a homeopath and I m just try to be fair with the topic; I don't know to whom you refer to. To the best of my knowledge no editor even demanded to remove all criticism -even Dr.J. But I might be wrong; but for now unless you show me where this has been demanded, please take this back - it is not a good faith comment.--JeanandJane (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically something I once proposed to Peter morrell, a long time ago when he was still editing this article. But since he wasn't interested and he was the only homeopath here at the time, it never happened. We could ask a neutral and respected third party such as someone from Arbcom or Medcom to appoint a balanced group of constructive editors. With the explicit understanding that it's just an experiment, of course. Or we could help Citizendium to get their Homeopathy article into better shape (I think they are working on the problem), and to get the new version approved. You may think it's useless given the presence of certain editors there, but I think that due to Citizendium's different working environment (zero tolerance for disruption) it's at least worth trying. On the other hand, the German Wikipedia is a bit similar to Citizendium and has similar quality problems to us, only with less disruption. Hans Adler 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "questionable science"? Dbrisinda (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose POV pushing. &mdash;Whig (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose POV pushing too, but what is your reason here? Note we have many, many, many, solid RS saying homeopathy is fringe. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below on reasons. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is a much better wording, and should be more useful than the current one. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This still makes no sense to me—how can you treat it as a fringe belief, when it is not a fringe belief? Where are the statistics? Or are we leaving it up to "because so-and-so said so?" Again, perhaps you would like to clarify in regular English language, why you think it's a fringe belief in light of belief statistics among GPs in the United States showing 26% *believe* in the value of homeopathy, and 9% *use* it in their practice. And that doesn't even address the use statistics of the general population (3.6% in the U.S. alone ~ 10.8 million people; in Europe we are looking at many many times that, never mind the rest of the world). Han's suggested "fringe science," but if you insist on labeling it something in the FAQ or elsewhere, why not just call it "pseudoscience"? and I agree with this. This would very likely not anger as many homeopaths and homeopathy-sympathetic people, due to the pejorative connotations of the word phrase "fringe belief". Dbrisinda (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The FAQ should call it a "fringe medical system", citing Jonas & Ives 2008, which use that exact phrase (see the quote at the start of ). While we're on the subject, the article itself should call it a "fringe medical system", citing the same source; but given the high level of dysfunction on this page I have my doubts as to whether anything so commonsense would stick. Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This might also work, along with "fringe medical science," or "fringe science," as Brunton and Hans suggested. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or how about "questionable science"? Dbrisinda (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. My only objection is that since there is currently clinical research in Homeopathy among mainstream scientists maybe a modification is needed to show this aspect. Have no idea what that could be.--JeanandJane (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. How about something along the lines of this:
 * Q: Should the topic of homeopathy be treated as fringe science?
 * A: Yes. Per Wikipedia guidelines on fringe topics theories, scientific topics that "have not gained scientific consensus" or "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" are considered fringe.  Since the weight of the clinical evidence does not support the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo and the effectiveness of most diluted homeopathic remedies depends on an effect that would violate fundamentals of science, homeopathy qualifies as a fringe topic.  Regardless of how popular or unpopular homeopathic remedies may be in different populations, homeopathy, as a topic, should be treated as fringe science per the above guidelines.
 * Just a suggestion. Not sure if something like the last sentences is needed/would be useful, but I thought it would be nice so we don't have the same "It's fringe!/It's not fringe because it's popular!" arguments over again. I would also support the addition of citations that show homeopathy called fringe, per Eubulides above. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good. Including the point about popularity is probably a good idea, and "fringe topic" is obviously better in this context than "fringe belief".  Brunton (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal has merit in my view, but there are also a couple of issues. First, I think it is important not to unintentionally obscure the issue by interchanging the phrases "fringe science" with "fringe topic." This latter phrase lacks precision, and could create all sorts of interpretations difficulties once again.


 * Second, the quote you quoted from the WP:FRINGE section: "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus". This is currently being discussed on the Fringe theories talk page. But basically, this sentence has a logical fallacy embedded within it. Consider: is it true that such ideas are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? No, it's not. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. More formally, scientific consensus is a sufficient but not necessary condition for a theory to be classified as non-fringe. I.e., (A) scientific consensus => theory is non-fringe --> TRUE, but (B) theory is non-fringe => scientific consensus --> FALSE. An alternate phrasing such as "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support..." would correct this.


 * Third, perhaps it would be useful to have two separate FAQs: #1 Should the topic homeopathy be treated as a fringe science? Yes. and #2. Should the topic homeopathy be treated as a fringe belief? No. <Show use, belief, and popularity statistics>. The point being, this adds distinctions and makes it very clear what these phrases mean and how they are being used, leaving very little for interpretation. Dbrisinda (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)Changed the wording from "topics" to "theories" in the above suggestion to better match the WP:fringe usage. 2) I framed the above FAQ with the current guideline in mind. If/when consensus for the guideline changes, this can be re-addressed, but I don't think re-arguing those points here is fruitful.  Let's use the guidelines as they stand and leave the arguments about the guidelines where they belong, on the appropriate talk page. 3) If you want, you may start a new discussion for the FAQ regarding what you think is wrong with how Wikipedia treats 'fringe beliefs' with regard to Homeopathy.  I do not want to clutter the discussion of FAQ #4 here.  Thanks for your input. Yobol (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Eubulides above. Also, linking this section from the FAQ might help future editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support even the current answer, provided "fringe belief" is changed to "fringe science", or "meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE" (in that case removing the unnecessary facts), as the former statement implies that not many people believe in it, not that the subject is fringe in terms of a scientific standpoint, or wikipedia's definition. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (second choice) The article itself should state that it is fringe (per WP:FRINGE), but in lieu of that, this would be a good compromise. Actually, I think Yobol's suggestion is the best so far, except: The term "science" should not be used (such as "fringe science"), as this is not science. Nor should it use the term "theory", as again it is not a theory (scientifically speaking), but at best a hypothesis. "Fringe belief" or "fringe topic" would be better . MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From the mainstream scientific viewpoint, it would be a theory, as it is hypothesized, not always consistent, and not an accepted truth. From the non-mainstream POV (ie from a homeopathic POV), it is a science. That is, it a field of knowledge and study that has been put into practice. The moon landing "hoax" is a fringe belief, Paul is dead is a fringe belief. Homeopathy is a fringe science or a fringe medicine. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From the mainstream scientific viewpoint, it would be a hypothesis. To be called a theory, a hypothesis must be well-supported by scientific evidence. Homeopathy is not well-supported, and as such would not be a scientific theory. Calling it a science (or medicine) is misleading. However, I just re-read WP:FRINGE, and it says to call this a "fringe theory" ("Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations."), so I have struck-out my previous comment. BTW, this would have been a much better response to my original comment than arguing over "hypothesis vs theory". You should (re-)read WP:FRINGE (as I just did).
 * Reword to The WP:FRINGE guideline applies to this page. I think that's really what's intended by FAQ #4. With this wording, we don't have to worry about defining "fringe" and verifying it as a fact, as we would have to do if we were including such a statement in the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made an edit to the faq to simply and bluntly make its point, without the need for studies and partially skewed statistics. It now avoids the need to discuss whether the article mentions it (Because the fact that wikipedia groups it as a fringe theory doesn't mean it is labeled as a fringe theory, it just means that it fits wikipedia's broad definition for defining fringe theories versus accepted ideas. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edit. It was certainly better that what we had before. Some discussion of the latest FAQ edits appears in the subsection below. Dbrisinda (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on miscommunication
Dbrisinda meant that Homeopathy is not a fringe belief as defined by the question and answer #4. Half of the editors commented or "voted" having in mind different definitions of fringe. WP:FRINGE means a theory or belief depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth and not that "the experts, by and large, reject it" (which is not exactly the case for homeopathy anyway.) But that is totally irrelevant to the question 4 which makes no sense at all. --JeanandJane (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rarely agree with you, but you are absolutely right about this. The term fringe belief does not seem to have a proper definition. When I tried to research its meaning on the web an unusually large number of Google hits were to debunking sites. In contrast to fringe science, it seems to be a battle cry much more than anything else. The term fringe belief suggests to me that it should be a belief that is fringe as a belief. Since homeopathy as a belief is certainly no more fringe than most religions and ideologies, the term simply doesn't apply. Surely water memory etc. is no more fantastic than people ascending to and descending from heaven, virgin conceptions and the like. The transparent reason for using the terms fringe and belief together is to combine two justified criticisms of homeopathy into one, neglecting the inaccuracy of the resulting compound. Hans Adler 12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Dbrisinda (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the beginning. I must have been confused by a small number of specific posts I didn't agree with. When I just checked I found that I agree with more than 50 % of JeanandJane's posts in the sample. Hans Adler 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest FAQ #4/#5 changes
Taking into consideration all the above, and based on several contributions to suggestions to modifying the FAQ relating to fringe beliefs/science/theories, and building upon Floydian's version, I've split this FAQ item into two separates FAQs as suggested below. Dbrisinda (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: Should homeopathy be treated as a fringe or questionable science? '''A: Yes. Homeopathy can be treated as a fringe or questionable science.'''

Yes. Homeopathy can be treated as a fringe or questionable science, according to Wikipedia guidelines. This is suggested by the Fringe theories guideline, which states: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be treated as a fringe or questionable science.

Q: Should homeopathy be treated as a fringe belief? A: No. Homeopathy should not be treated as a fringe belief.

No. Homeopathy should not be treated as a fringe belief. It is believed to have value by many physicians and much of the general populations across many industrialized countries of the world, as measured by a number of surveys in the field:


 * Homeopathy is being practised in 42 out of 44 European countries.


 * Percentage of the population using alternative treatment varies from 18% to 71% depending on country. Homeopathy is the most frequently used CAM therapy in 5 out of 14 surveyed countries in Europe and among the three most frequently used in 11 out of 14 surveyed countries.


 * Homeopathy is officially recognized and included in the national health system in 10 countries within Europe and outside of Europe.


 * Between 1/4 and 1/5 of all EU citizens use homeopathic medicines (EU Commission statement).


 * Percentage of the public in Europe and the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (1985-1992): Belgium: 56%, Denmark: 28%, France: 32%, Germany: no data, Netherlands: 31%, Sweden: 15%, United Kingdom: 16%, United States: 3%


 * Percentage of the public in Italy reporting use of homeopathic medicines (1997-1999): 8.2%


 * Percentage of the public in the United Kingdom reporting use of homeopathic medicines within the last 12 months (2001): 1.9%


 * Percentage of the public in the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (2002): 3.6%; and within the last 12 months: 1.7%


 * Percentage of the public in the United States reporting use of homeopathic medicines (2007): >3.6% (specific data not available); and within the last 12 months: 1.8%


 * A comprehensive literature search identified 25 surveys conducted between 1982 and 1995 that examined the practices and beliefs of conventional physicians in the United States with regard to 5 of the more prominent CAM therapies: acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and massage. Of these, 26% believed in the value of homeopathy, while 9% practiced homeopathy.


 * The current FAQ modified by Verbal, is wholly inaccurate and incorrect. First Wikipedia doesn't "define" fringe theories, it only provides broad general guidelines, and leaves others to decide. Second, "the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies disproves the efficacy of homeopathy," is false. The collective weight does *not* disprove the efficacy of homeopathy. We've had this discussion over and over again. To see it show up here is absurd. Third, homeopathy is not just a theory, it is a fringe/questionable science, and/or fringe/questionable medical system, through the methodological application of theory into practice. The current version is fraught with inadequacies. Dbrisinda (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose any above changes to the current version of FAQ #4. I like the addition of the RS reporting Homeopathy as 'fringe medical system' and it should stay that way.


 * Strongly oppose the addition of FAQ #5 as noted above. The question makes no sense to me.  I see no point in asking the question, as the article does not use the word "fringe" (as opposed to FAQ #4, which points readers/editors to relevant "fringe" guidelines), nor does it use the word "belief".  This material may be appropriate for the regulation and prevalence of homeopathy article, but certainly not in this FAQ. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes sense because it provides distinctions. As you and everyone else clearly saw in the initial voting, there were as many definitions of "fringe belief" as there were people voting. This helps bring clarity to what is meant by fringe belief, fringe science, questionable science, and/or fringe/questionable medical system. Dbrisinda (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The confusion came from the mix of definitions between what people were using "fringe", which was made worse by the original FAQ #4. The current FAQ has laid out what the word means, and more importantly, how it is used on Wikipedia.  The additional FAQ will only ADD to the confusion.  No one else is using the word "fringe" in any other context in the article (as it is not used at all in the actual article) so there is no point in making a FAQ for any other use other than those directed by wikipedia guidelines. Yobol (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FAQ 4 currently gives the definition of "fringe" that is relevant to the article. Introducing further definitions would be pointless.  Brunton (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. The fact that this has come up on multiple occasions (archives), and even more: the widespread confusion with what was meant with "fringe belief" in recent voting suggests that while having an accurate and neutral FAQ on "fringe science" is good, having an additional one on "fringe belief" would add additional clarity to all this "fringe" business. Otherwise, there will undoubtedly be individuals who will use the two phrases (and others) interchangeably. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)