Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 54

Proposed change #1
I propose to change the current sentence "Although some trials produced positive results, systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias." to "Some systematic reviews report positive results,[13][14][15] while other conclude that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.".

Reason for change: Current formulation is biased and makes it sound as if the pro-homeopathy studies were not systematic reviews, but only some individual trials GhostOfLippe (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not reporting positive systematic reviews. It is reporting the findings of systematic reviews that while there are some positive trials, the evidence is not strong enough to support the efficacy of homoeopathy because of issues with trial quality and bias.  For example, Kleijnen: "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"; Cucherat: "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies", and see the comment of one of the authors here: "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'".  These are not positive reviews.  They are, at best, inconclusive.  If you want the article to report that there are positive systematic reviews, you will need to cite some.  Brunton (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that latter meta analyses (eg taking into account Linde's "upgrade") don't come to a conclusive positive result for homeopathy. We could argue about this but I think to give an accurate and fair assessment, thats going too far for this article. However, looking at what Brunton says above, the article doesn't quite reflect what is in the reviews. "because of the unknown role of publication bias" is not saying the publication bias is significant, nor even that it plays a part. "Studies of high methodological studies were more likely to be negative..." is again pointing at the inconclusive conclusion.
 * How about:
 * "Trials have produced results both for and against homeopathy being effective. Systematic reviews revealed that the positive was possibly because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias, and that overall the evidence was inconclusive."
 * Without going into details of the analyses used in this article, an important missing aspect to this article is the criticism of certain types of trials, very relevant to a form of medicine that treats holistically.

Cjwilky (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "...an important missing aspect to this article is the criticism of certain types of trials, very relevant to a form of medicine that treats holistically."
 * Nope. That bit of special pleading fails because homoeopathy doesn't work any better in trials of individualized homoeopathy.
 * Anyway, back to the sentence in question. How about changing it to something along the lines of "Although some trials have produced positive results, systematic reviews fail to establish that homeopathy works because of issues to do with poor trial quality and evidence of bias."  We could use Linde (1999), which found evidence of bias, as a reference for the last bit. Brunton (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not just about individualised or not. But here you illustrate a discussion that could be an important part of the article, including your criticism of "special pleading" :) Will discuss that later. Cjwilky (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change #2
I suggest restoring previously deleted text on that nature of high dilutions used in homeopathy. This text should follow after "lower doses."

The latest research, however, reports that nano-particles of the original substance are present even in the super-Avogadro dilutions and it never reaches zero (even in continued proces of dilution), thereby providing a possible basis of a supposed effect of homeopathic remedies and refuting the old claim that there is not a single molecule of a diluted substance present. Other researchers also report that highly diluted homeopathic remedies can be distinguished from each other and are different from pure solvent.

Reason for change: The supposed lack of presence of original substance in high-dilution homeopathic remedies is what made and makes homeopathy so difficult to swallow. The studies mentioned prove that there is something that could explain the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Consequently, "not a single molecule" formulations should also be edited as they are not true, according to scientific research. GhostOfLippe (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would decline this change, as it's (a) not true [not very important in Wikipedia], and (b) not what those papers say, even if they were published in reliable journals, which they aren't. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the effects decrease with dilution to the point that they disappear well before the equivalence to the critical 13c potency/dilution. However, it is an explanation backed by science albeit in the early stages, so with the correct wording I think it should be included within those terms. Cjwilky (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The first two sources show (quelle surprise) that substances that are insoluble in water/alcohol don't magically become soluble if you pestle them with lactose. They don't (and cannot) show that "super-avogadro" dilutions of soluble substances contain starting material, let alone that they have an effect. It is just more evidence that the way homeopathic "remedies" are prepared is nonsense.
 * The third and fourth source are single trial that haven't been validated by other experimenters.
 * btw: Even if these sources proved that "high" potencies generally contain traces of the starting material (they don't), that would mean little as long as the central claim of homeopathy (that these "remedies" actually do something in living creatures other than hydrating them) is unproven. --Six words (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin: How come it is not important? This is a crucial information with regards to plausibility of homeopathy and this article IS about homeopathy. If homeopathy is not important for Wikipedia, then we should just delete the whole page. As to reliability of journals, you can consider Homeopathy journal as unreliable, but hardly Langmuir. It is published by American Chemical Society and it is a very respected journal.


 * Six words: I do not understand how you came to such a conclusion. The second paper says "Using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, we have demonstrated for the ﬁrst time by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates." What else is there to add?


 * The first paper says "Extreme dilutions, especially homeopathic remedies of 30c, 200c, and higher potencies, are prepared by a process of serial dilution of 1:100 per step. As a result, dilution factors of 10(60), 10(400), or even greater are achieved. Therefore, both the presence of any active ingredient and the therapeutic efficacy of these medicines have been contentious because the existence of even traces of the starting raw materials in them is inconceivable. However, physicochemical studies of these solutions have unequivocally established the presence of the starting raw materials in nanoparticulate form even in these extreme (super-Avogadro, >10(23)) dilutions. In this article, we propose and validate a hypothesis to explain how nanoparticles are retained even at such enormous dilution levels." GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What's not to understand? They found that metal derived "remedies" may contain metal particles even when they're (theoretically) diluted down so much that they shouldn't. That's not because the metal "imprints" itself on the solvent, it's because their dilution process is flawed. What does that mean for "high potencies" of soluble substances? Nothing, they're still unlikely to contain even a single molecule of "active" ingredient. What does that mean for the efficacy of metal based "remedies"? Not much - it's not impossible for them to have an effect since they contain material doses of "active" ingredients, but it remains to be seen if these ingredients do anything. What these papers do show is that it's pretty much futile to try to produce "high potencies" of metals. Do you think homeopaths will stop prescribing "high potencies" of metals? --Six words (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if I omit those arguments from your response which are irrelevant ("imprint", "efficacy", "futile" etc.) to the discussion (whether or not the proposed sentences should be added), you basically agree that it is true, you just don't think it means much, right? But of course it means much, because THIS PRECISE supposition (there is nothing there but sugar) was and is the primary factor why homeopathy was and is being ridiculed. Now that we know that THERE IS something in there, beside sugar (nano-bubbles which MULTIPLY with continuing process of dilution), I think it is a BIG DEAL and we should let the world know. Those papers claim there is SOMETHING measurable and that they can distinguish among different potencies which was not possible until now. In the light of these works, it is no longer correct to say those remedies are just sugar and that not a single molecule of the original substance is present (and therefore it cannot do anything). Of course, it does not prove efficacy, but that is NOT THE POINT here. GhostOfLippe (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The "primary factor why homeopathy was and is being ridiculed" is because there is no evidence whatsoever that it works - and a great deal of evidence that it doesn't. Regardless of your original research we aren't going to suggest otherwise, on the bases of a selective interpretation of a few primary sources of questionable merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump: You are plain wrong. Study the history of homeopathy and you'll find the results of homeopathy far surpassed any other then-accepted medical practice. That's why some allopathic medical doctors turned homeopaths, BUT NOT the other way around. There is so much historical evidence in favor of homeopathy you would drown in it, but of course these are not permissible, I guess, as they are from historical records, but most importantly, they are not tolerable because they are favorable to homeopathy.


 * I will give you just one little example. In 1849, there was a major epidemic of cholera all over the world. In Cincinnati, Pulte and Erhmann treated 2600 cases with only 35 deaths, or a mortality rate of 1.3%. The mortality rate for cholera in the 19th century was 50%, regardless of the physician, the place, the country or whether the patient was treated. In Asia, in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Turkey, they didn’t have treatment, and the mortality, was around 50%. And all this despite having 60-70 cases that were in a deep state of collapse. Now, there was a skeptic that said that they cheated. So there was a commission that was instigated, and the commission was chaired by Alphonso Taft, who became Secretary of War eventually under Grant, and his son became President of the United States, so he was a reputable person, and the commission’s outcome was that what the homeopaths had reported was exactly true to the point, in every single case.


 * 19th century was a golden age of homeopathy, with a great many journals covering the topic and mountains of statistics of cured cases of serious diseases. If you studied those, you would be amazed how much evidence there is for homeopathy.


 * Back to the point - homeopathy was ridiculed BECAUSE OF THE SMALL DOSES IT USED. But this only came very gradually. At first, Hahnemann used crude (physical) doses of remedies prescribed on homeopathic principles and only diminished them slowly as he progressed in his experiments and as his experience dictated. Hahnemann was a scientist and he did many experiments to test what works and what does not and modified his methods accordingly. GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources claim "there's something there" in ethanolic "dilutions" (dispersions, actually) of metals (sometimes - see table 2 of source 2, ND means "not detected"). I have no reason to doubt that. Doesn't mean that non-metal "remedies" behave the same, yet your proposed addition implys that, which is why it won't go in the article. --Six words (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But there should be nothing, regardless of whether it is a dispersion or dilution. So you would agree to include the text in the article, if it mentioned the research only tested metal-derived remedies? GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No - we won't 'agree' to violate Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. They aren't negotiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)


 * There shouldn't be something there if they were diluting a homogenous dispersion. You haven't offered a new text that I could agree to mention (and you'll have to find at least one reliable secondary source for such an addition, too. It's not appropriate to mention that metal based, ethanolic "remedies" may contain material amounts of the starting material based on two primary sources by the same authors). --Six words (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change #3
I suggest changing current formulation of "Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories" to "Homeopaths select remedies according to homeopathic materia medica (which record medicinal effects of various substances on healthy humans)"

Reason for change: Repertories are just indexes to materia medicae, they are not the primary source of prescription. In selecting a homeopathic remedy, repertory may provide quick clues, but the final choice is made by consulting materia medica. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Most homeopaths will use both types of book. I agree materia medica is more fundamental, and indeed a repertory is but an index although as an index it does stand on its own. In practice a homeopath may often use just a repertory in conjunction with their knowledge of materia medica rather than the books themselves. The materia medica are more than just records of provings - they are descriptions of the whole effect of the medicines based on the provings, clinical experience and frequently a summary and interpretation of those. Further, they also use computer versions of these. So I suggest:
 * "Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference sources known as repertories and descriptions of the remedies in materia medica."
 * Further in the article I think it is worth going into more detail about this process and the sources that are used ie more than is currently there. Cjwilky (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cjwilky: I would agree, but I had an impression a true state of things is not important for Wikipedia, providing references for everything is what is important regardless of whether it is true or not. And this particular sentence quotes Organon, which does not care about repertories nor about computer software. Organon does not even consider CLINICAL pictures of homeopathic remedies, it mostly considers provings and nothing else as a basis for prescription. GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed the Organon ref and thought there was enough out there referring to use of repertories if we looked. If we're just making a minor correction here, and using that reference then of course, repertories were not around anyway at that time, so I agree with your suggested change for now. In essence its correct anyway if we're keeping it simple in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you cite a source conforming to WP:MEDRS that states that "homeopathic materia medica... record medicinal effects of various substances on healthy humans"? I doubt it very much, given the complete absence of evidence that homeopathy works at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't there some Wikipedia policy against irrelevant discussion? I mean, this really amazes me. AndyTheGrump, I don't think you are contributing to the topic as you obviously have NO IDEA about homeopathy. If you wish to contribute, I believe you should first KNOW SOMETHING about the topic, the more the better. This last statement of yours proves your only qualification, in this context, is a healthy disgust for homeopathy. Isn't NPOV a serious part of Wikipedia policy? Why does Wikipedia allow people like AndyTheGrump (and not just him/her) participate when it is far too clear they are HEAVILY BIASED and will disrupt every serious effort in enhancing the topic at hand? It seems to me, you don't care at all who writes what and what reference they cite as long as it does not present homeopathy in a favorable light. GhostOfLippe (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't mean to, but right there you gave the show away, revealing why you are having trouble here. You say ATG has no idea about homeopathy so shouldn't edit the article (paraphrased), and infer that you should be allowed to contribute because you are an expert. Never thought I'd ever see someone with a POV be so blatant like that. Suggesting someone without knowledge of a subject shouldn't edit that subject is laughable. You are correct when you say ATG has a bias, but it is towards creating NPOV articles (he has edited more than 3700 articles). You have misinterpreted the situation. ATG strives to keep Wikipedia POV free, not put POV in an article. We editors are (or should be) motivated by a desire to help create a reliable encyclopedia, not to promote a pet subject, whatever it is. Moriori (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. I have a bias - towards basing articles on reliable sources, rather than on the opinions of promoters of fringe pseudoscience. Wikipedia has the same bias, for the same reason: it isn't a forum for the promotion of such material. Unless and until mainstream science and orthodox medicine suggest that it is anything other than a means for 'practitioners' to line their pockets, we aren't going to say otherwise. That is Wikipedia policy - and if you don't like it, find somewhere else to push your magic wooo-water. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump: I believe Wikipedia policies are sound, it just looks you are going far beyond the call of duty here and your arrogant attitude is the prime policy when it comes to this topic. HOW EXACTLY is THIS proposed modification promoting homeopathy? It corrects a factual error, but you STILL wish to disrupt, because you are happy with the page as it is and DO NOT WISH to see it improving. Your bias is BLATANT - "find somewhere else to push your magic wooo-water", "opinions of promoters of fringe pseudoscience", "line their pockets" and similar statements bordering on personal attacks. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having an understanding of something helps to put the pieces together where people who have no idea will struggle, as is clearly the case from some of the contents of the article. Indeed it has been encouraged for people with some knowledge to edit on here. What GhostOfLippe is aware of, and ATG has just made a clear example of, are there are editors on here, mainly signed up Skeptics, who not only have a POV and focus on POV research (eg Ernst), but are abusive and bullying. Moriori appears to be falling into the same mould. There is also a skepto tag gang mentality on here where issues are not discussed but rather people are told there is a consensus, when in fact its a majority vote - not how wiki works. It appears to be a very desperate attempt by several eds on here to disrupt and abuse. Some eds, although skeptics, are able to rise above this. I hope you can change your behavious ATG and move to the light side too. I know this isn't "the right" place to bring this up, but ATG and Moriori chose that path above and its plain bullying which I'm sick of on this talk page. So pack in the abuse and POV slurring, and if you wish to discuss such issues further, take them to the appropriate place and don't cloud article discussion here. Peace :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So pointing out that the supposed 'bias' GhostOfLippe complains of is in fact a consequence of Wikipedia policy - which has been arrived at by more than just the contributors here - is 'bullying', is it? If you really think it is, I'm sure you know where to complain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Moriori and AndyTheGrump You are just talking and it is an empty talk when your actions prove otherwise. Moriori, I said ATG's discussion entry is completely irrelevant and if you cannot see that, then you should not be an editor on Wikipedia. The CURRENT sentence I was trying to improve is INCORRECTLY referenced to Hahnemann's Organon (the BASIC book of homeopathy, in case you don't know), so I wanted to correct it to something that is actually mentioned in that reference. If this reference is not conforming to WP:MEDRS then you should have removed that particular sentence long ago - it is both factually incorrect, incorrectly referenced and (you say) does not comply with WP policies. But you did not, so you are not really striving "to help create a reliable encyclopedia", you are doing the exact opposite. If there were more editors like Cjwilky which a) maintain NPOV and b) do not disrupt but actually want to improve the topic, something could be worked out here. But not like this, when out of arguments, waving the stick of WP policies against all common sense (which I find hard to believe is NOT part of WP policies). GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find its made clear that wiki policies are not wiki Laws, as otherwise you're in danger of nonsense - I'll look up the ref to this when I've time. The inconsistancies in the references in the article where they don't relate to whats being said happens fairly often. I guess many here don't have access to all the original papers cited, so there's a lot based on the summaries, which sometimes when you dig, have no basis but the writers POV - and when we're talking Ernst for example, he won't let fact get in the way of that. Cjwilky (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change #4
I suggest removal of references


 * UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"
 * http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy "Homeopathy: An Introduction" a NCAAM webpage

from "Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible."

Reason for change: Those references are no scientific research, do not meet reference inclusion criteria. GhostOfLippe (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're not scientific research, they're tertiary sources. They're published by government agencies/committees - above you seem to imply that Switzerland's PEK was a good/meaningful source. --Six words (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Switzerland's PEK was a scientific work, not some anonymous comittee, so I would not compare those. Anyway, some editors seem to argue that not even Langmuir is reliable enough for them and there were mouthfuls of WP:MEDS thrown in my direction before, so I really don't think these references are on par with what is required. GhostOfLippe (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @GhostOfLippe. See WP:MEDRS. This type of source is acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is, in this context. The sentence says "Scientific research has found", so the reference should be THAT RESEARCH, not hearsay, whether it comes from a supposedly reputable organization. Given the current status of homeopathy, such organizations are, in fact, the opposite of that. If they suddenly changed their position and started promoting homeopathy, their repute would quickly fade, I am sure. These sources should not be used precisely for the reason why you do not wish to use references coming from alt med journals. GhostOfLippe (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS is Wikipedia policy. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A scientific organization can make statements about the state of scientific research in a field, and it's allowed to use those statements in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"the"/"his" doctrine of similia similibus curentur
I see in the first sentence of the article "the" has been changed to "his" with the edit note of "his doctrine, not a doctrine (it was more or less non-existent by then)". I don't get the reasoning here. It is a doctrine that has been in existence before Hahnemann eg Similia_similibus_curentur. As such its clearly not Hahnemanns doctrine, so seems to me "the doctrine...." is the accurate term and should be used here in the article. Cjwilky (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Paracelsus laid the foundations with his "like cures like", but Hahnemann elevated this far-from-true idea to a pseudo-"law", even though it has no scientific basis. It is therefore "his" doctrine, which his followers believe, but which no one else recognizes: "Hahnemann's law of similars is an ipse dixit axiom, in other words an unproven assertion made by Hahnemann, and not a true law of nature. " -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph that asserts that the law of similars is unproven is unfounded. Research has indeed been done that shows that indeed like does cure like, this was also done many decades ago when the first Thermographic cameras become available. A hot drink cools you faster than a cold one – myth or reality? Veritatis in lege (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cute, but hardly relevant. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you have the work of Dr. Karen Nieber, Professor of Pharmacology, University of Leipzig, who showed that homeopathic Belladonna could counteract the actions of atropine on rat intestines. Veritatis in lege (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for where this work is published? I haven't been able to find it on PubMed, but I may be using the wrong search terms.  Brunton (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've found this, but I've also found this, which concludes that "Our experiments could not replicate previous results on the effects of homeopathic atropine." Brunton (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You won't find it - it's been withdrawn and Dr Nieber gave back the prize she and her co-workers had recieved for the study. Financial Times Deutschland (German), Zeit (German). --Six words (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down a couple of press releases (also in German) about it. Brunton (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They're still available on the university's website - 'Preis für Wirkungsnachweis homöopathischer Mittel' (November 2003), 'Pharmakologin räumt Fehler ein' (December 2005). I don't think that the English Wikipedia article needs to mention the study, though, as I think it is pretty much unknown in English speaking countries (in Germany that study was used in several TV reports as evidence for homeopathy, so the Wikipedia article mentions it). --Six words (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Choosing homeopathy does not mean not getting a medical diagnosis
Brunton reverted:
 * Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine, and choose not to get a medical diagnosis, risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions.

to
 * Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions.

Interesting logic Brunton uses in his edit notes
 * homoeopathy by definition does not diagnose diseases, and many homoeopaths (in particular in the English-speaking world) are not medically qualified)

The revertion is avoiding giving the full and accurate story. Undoubtedly there are risks from not getting a full medical diagnosis. There are indeed risks in getting one too - can be a misdiagnosis or can lead to more serious problems - iatrogenic illness. All I did was spell out the basics, that its about not getting a diagnosis, not about whether one chooses homeopathy or not. Cjwilky (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reversion removed POV which is not supported by the reference given. You prompted me to check the reference, so thanks for that. I hadn't previously seen the Mayo paper, and particularly noted its conclusion which was "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." Moriori (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not POV, its very simple A follows B logic. You can work it out or not. There is no evidence in trhe refernce to suggest that patients who choose homeopathy don't also choose conventional diagnosis, either by the medically qualified homeopath or by their doctor. Your loss chuck if you are making your choice of healthcare by articles cited here, lol! Though what relevance your introduction of discovering that someone has said homeopathy for kids isn't "convincing enough" has to this discussion I have no idea. Further if all you've done is read the Mayo Clinic article, you missed a great deal. Cjwilky (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A follows B when a reference says so. Your third sentence is one of the wackiest non sequiturs I have seen in a while. Congratulations. Moriori (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference cites two sources as evidence that homeopathy may delay diagnosis: 48. Horowitz BZ. Homeopathic remedies for children: are they cause for concern? [letter]. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2000;38:355-356. and 49. Ernst E. Complementary and alternative medicine for children: a good or a bad thing? Arch Dis Child. 2006; 91:96-97. Joja  lozzo  05:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And two sources for evidence of delay of treatment: 50. Lehrke P, Nuebling M, Hofmann F, Stoessel U. Attitudes of homoeopathic physicians towards vaccination. Vaccine. 2001;19:4859-4864. 51. Schmidt K, Ernst E. MMR vaccination advice over the Internet. Vaccine. 2003;21:1044-1047. Joja  lozzo  05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "There is no evidence in trhe refernce to suggest that patients who choose homeopathy don't also choose conventional diagnosis, either by the medically qualified homeopath or by their doctor." What about all the homoeopaths who are not medically qualified?  In the UK, for example, as of 2009 there were around 2,000 non-GP homeopaths registered with various organisations, an unknown number of unregistered homoeopaths, and only about 400 homoeopaths who are GPs.  "The medically qualified homeopath" would appear to be distinctly in the minority.  We can't use this in the article because of WP:SYN, but from this it seems to follow that a large proportion of homoeopaths are not qualified to make a diagnosis.  Brunton (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, asking us to make the logical deduction "A follows B" would be the epitome of synthesis. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just come from a section above at User:Cjwilky's invitation. Is this still a dispute about the two italic forms of wording at the top of this section? If so, I'd suggest go with the first (the difference is pretty subtle, I'd say). Relying on a synthesis argument, no matter how logical it may appear, is not going to be a winner on WP. I'm sure there is a source that would directly support the second form without a need synthesis, if it really matters this precise form of words is in the aticle. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AE
New review  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild-to-severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy".

Besides that : I read in the article that homeopathy cannot have any therapeutic effect since there are no molecules left in the remedies and more homeopaths do not use more than 6x. Isn't strange that the most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications.? --Motorola12 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Only the "strongest" preparations have no molecules left. There are plenty of lower strength preparations with measurable, though still diluted, presence of "active" ingredients. Joja  lozzo  21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know but the common practice in homeopathy from what I read is to use 6x preparations or "stronger" - no molecules . So how these results are justified? I' m really curious. --Motorola12 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious question here is "How closely does a nominally 1X dilution step approximate the intended division by 10.000?" Depending on technique and degree of care, it could be significantly less. Re-use of containers could mean that material doses are in fact present when not expected. One would think there must be some RS on this.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Big misunderstanding of potentised remedy preparation here - a tinture is made to the potency, including stated dilution. The usual method from there is to put one drop of it into a bottle of pills. Eg I use about 300 pills per bottle, some may use as low as 50. Sometimes powders are used with a drop mixed in to several powders. Sometimes a liquid potency is used where one drop is mixed into a bottle of at least 100 drops, often far more. So, the actual remedy is rarely reflective of the dilution. Hence why potencies of remedies is the correct term, not dilutions. A 1x potency is likely to be dilute by between 500 to 5000, not 10. Cjwilky (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the famously accurate "drop" unit of measure. Something in the rough neigbourhood of 40-160 microlitres, depending on the dropper, the viscosity of the liquid, the phase of the moon, and how much sleep the user has had. Love it. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, shall I repeat it for you? Its dependent on the potency not the dilution. Dilution is accurate up till the point of medicating the powder/liquid/pills, and then there is no need for it to be. Don't worry LSD, its not just you :) You and the ten23ers. Cjwilky (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst (one of the reviewers) blogged about this paper - it's an interesting supplement. Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading a case in the study above - I was just wondering how "The case of bladder cancer was judged as ‘direct AE’ of homeopathy based on the following sentence/quote: “(…) the patient developed cancer of the bladder, that occurrence suggesting that even after a correct homeopathic remedy has been prescribed, a patient may subsequently contract a cancerous condition” .Geukens (2001). How can be a direct effect. Homeopathic high  dilutions according to the review have no effect at all.   If it was an indirect effect I would understand it.  Can someone explain? Other readers might have the same question--Motorola12 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (off topic) Why not leave a query on Ernst's blog? (Not that such OR would play into the article here, of course). Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Heavily Biased article
I think that the article is biased for the following reasons:

The conclusions of systematic reviews on homeopathy are really controversial. Some scientists say that the reviews  conclude that  Homeopathy = placebo and quackery while others state that

"Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of bias, you should check out Publication bias, it fully explains the isolated studies your reference points to. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I cited systematic reviews from high quality journals Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 4;138(5):393-9. I don t do original research myself - just reporting what i found. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And then I explained why they your reference wasn't relevant. It was from 2003, anything since then? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference is to a RS; it should be included. See WP:Truth for a clearer picture of why your insight into its invalidity does not trump its publication through a reliable agency. hgilbert (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy [that] reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo" mentioned in the abstract are listed in a table of six reviews (see page 395 of the paper), and have their conclusions so heavily qualified with reference to study quality, publication bias, etc. that they should be considered inconclusive. In one case the authors have gone so far as to say that the paper "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"; in another one of the authors has stated: "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'" (for further comments on systematic reviews of homoeopathy, see, for example, Professor Edzard Ernst's submissions to the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee).  Looking at the whole paper, its conclusions don't always seem to be quite as positive as the abstract suggests; for example on p. 397 it states "In several other conditions, most notably postoperative ileus ... the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive", while the abstract says that "There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of ... postoperative ileus".  It's always best to read the whole paper.  And I could be wrong (and I'm not sure what the implications of this are), but isn't it a narrative review rather than a systematic one?  Brunton (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is that some systematic reviews published in exceptional  reliable sources depart from the adopted wikipedia conclusion  that the consensus is that Homeopathy = quackery = placebo.

The review states clearly Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. The rest you write about Ernst criticisms  and how qualified the results are seem to be your interpretation or Dr. Ernst interpretation. Iit is also a point of view among the researchers but not the only one. The term quackery in the lead is supported by only one study and I have provided 3 exceptional sources which dispute that. They write "Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. The letter to the lancet to Jonas dispute Shang's conclusion that homeopathy = placebo= quackery and it supports that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions and not for others. The entire letter heavily criticizes Shang's review ( methodology and conclusion).

All the above are NOT proof that homeopathy works but only  proof of  a controversy over homeopathy s effectiveness published in exceptional reliable sources. Your readers should be aware of these as long as they are published in first rate journals. Other exceptional sources include (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375230. http://www.anthromed.org/UploadedDocuments/LuedtkeRuttenJCE08.pdf. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967878-6/fulltext.

And they all have been edited out or rejected - Does this practice promote neutral editing ?

According to wikipedia guide:

'''"Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers" and "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."''' Please read carefully and reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The review states clearly Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. The rest you write about Ernst criticisms  and how qualified the results are seem to be your interpretation or Dr. Ernst interpretation."
 * The qualification of the results is right there in the conclusions of the reviews themselves. Kleijnen (1991): "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."  Linde (1997): "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition", note that the same team's 1999 reanalysis of the same data set (which was not cited by the Ann Intern Med paper) concluded, because of evidence of bias and the results of more recent high quality studies, that this paper "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments", and note also that five other reanalyses of the same data have "arrived at a less than positive conclusion"; Cucherat (2000): "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies."


 * As for the new "exceptional sources" you are introducing, the first is an analysis of three studies by the same lead author. The second is not an independent piece of research concluding that homoeopathy works but an editorial piece by a homoeopath attacking the Shang analysis.  The third actually states "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite" so cannot be used to support a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo, and its attempt to attack the Shang analysis has been comprehensively shot down here.  And the final one is, again, not a peer-reviewed study concluding that homoeopathy works, but a letter to the editor of the Lancet which starts by saying that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", and goes on to observe that one of the "three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy" cited as positive by the Ann Intern Med paper you want included "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven".  It does not state that its authors have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, so can not be used to support this statement.


 * The "controversy" is not coming from the scientific and medical community, but largely from homoeopaths.


 * The reason that sources like these have been "edited out or rejected" is that they have failed to support the statements that editors have wanted to use them as sources for. Brunton (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And this is inappropriate (because all these reliable sources show a notable controversy)  per ''"Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers" and
 * "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." By the way,  the evidence for this controversy is published in first rate journals above which wikipedia refuses to cite.'''  --Motorola12 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific controversy; the controversy is between homoeopaths and the scientific consensus. To report that there is a controversy in the absence of studies from appropriate reliable sources that have concluded that homoeopathy works would be giving a fringe view undue weight.  See FAQ 4 above, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there is not scientific controversy -- if one pretends that when annals of internal medicine write that' Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo" they actually mean that it is placebo and when they write Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies they mean it is just quackery.  --Motorola12 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the reviews and see how their results are qualified by issues such as bias and poor study quality. See how they all call for more high quality research.  Read the subsequent research, which consistently shows that high quality trials fail to demonstrate efficacy.  There are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses that can be said to support a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo.  As all the reviews point in the same direction we can't report a controversy.  Brunton (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They point in the same direction if one change the meaning of the words -they clearly use - in his her  head -for instance: the concluding  phrase : Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies can be translated in the typical wikipedia editor;s  head - hey ! that means  that it is just quackery and this is what we have to report. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quackery until proven otherwise. That's what the authors are stating. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly! They wanted to write quackery but they said yes we will use a synonymous phrase : ''Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value--Motorola12 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think "it should not be substituted for proven therapies" means? And read the whole paper, not just the abstract.  In its conclusions it makes some of the same points that the Wikipedia article makes, and that I have been making here.  It says that some trials and laboratory research have reported "unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines", but "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. More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system".  It certainly doesn't come to a definitive conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo.  Brunton (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the black and white conclusion of homeopathy doesn't work, which is what most eds draw here, is unjustified. There is plenty of grey, and a true representation of the facts and conclusions of the whole spectrum of studies out there would reflect that. The conclusions of the meta studies certainly don't say homeopathy is quackery. Except for Ernst that is, who we know is biased (read his twitter). Having said that, it is for homeopathy to prove itself and so far the quality of most positive studies aren't enough to gain recognition, and I agree that this study motorola has raised, isn't backing up homeopathy.
 * I do think its reasonable to cite the positive studies of quality in the article eg the ones that Shang uses. What do you think? Cjwilky (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way I never said that Homeopathy is proven because of these studies - just they depart from wikipedia 's view that it is all placebo and quackery. They say that there is SOME evidence and they are inconclusive and they disagree with Shangs and Ernst who say its all quackery =placebo . This is a scientific controversy ( appeared in the lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967878-6/fulltext )  and has to be reported per '"Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers"''--Motorola12 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your cherry picking of a few articles does not illustrate any uncertainty or controversy. See WP:UNDUE. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, that isn't a peer-reviewed article but a letter to the editor, and it doesn't propose a specific theory that is inconsistent with the consensus reported by the article. Its only direct statement about homoeopathy is that it "is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust".  Brunton (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky: we do "cite the positive studies of quality in the article eg the ones that Shang uses", and we do this by citing the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that use them e.g. Shang, as per WP:MEDRS: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." Brunton (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is unreasonable. That 's why i tagged the article in the beginning how many of the editors would agree to tag the article again as long as this discussion continues so we can resolve the content dispute?   POV-lead --Motorola12 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(Above template tweaked.) These banner templates are not for use as a scarlet letter, they are to attract editor attention to neglected article discussions. That certainly is not the case for this article, it is talked to death. The only real dispute here is whether homeopaths should be permitted to reshape the article to reflect their doctrine. Not surprisingly, the homeopaths think differently about this than the rest of the community. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have nothing to do with homeopathy professionally - but I don't think that homeopaths should be banned from wikipedia - Are doctors banned form medical articles?--Motorola12 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary LSD, you could say the dispute is whether the "skeptics" are allowed to continue to chip away at an article in such a way that both makes it unreadable as well as bias towards preconceived ideas they hold as a group. Or you could perhaps express a more neutral view... Cjwilky (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chip away"? There is a long-standing consensus that the current balance of the article is appropriate and reflects the current scientific consensus.  See the archives and the FAQs.  Brunton (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have a bias... towards scientific consensus. And the consensus is pretty clear that homeopathy is bunk. That's the neutral position. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree. If one decides to edit out ( or changing the meaning of the words of) the systematic reviews published in first rate journals and depart from the skeptics point of view. For instance, Brunton writes that even if the abstract states clearly that homeopathy  ,might be effective in specific conditions, and not for others and it deserves the chance to demonstrate its values,  they really mean that it is all ......placebo and quackery--Motorola12 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF. I am not changing the meaning of anything.  I have provided direct quotations from the reviews, and later comments from their authors.  The review that you are pushing is not a systematic review.  It includes the 1997 Linde et al. analysis but not the same team's 1999 reanalysis which qualified its findings.  It is also outdated as a result of the Shang et al. analysis in 2005.  And it doesn't conclude that homoeopathy works, just that some trials have reported "unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines", but that the evidence for homoeopathy is "is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine", and that "more and better research is needed", and finishes by saying that doctors should keep an open mind about homoeopathy and "know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value."  Read the paper itself, not just the abstract.  Its conclusions don't support the use you are trying to put it to.  Brunton (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No you are just changing the author's words.  We don't care how you  or me interpret or qualify the paper. It is irrelevant. The authors summarized their review and they concluded:  "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.  This is not what wikipedia claims that it is the scientific consensus all placebo and .......quackery, --Motorola12 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again: you are relying on the abstract instead of reading the paper. It does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo, just that there have been reports of some "unexpected effects" but that the evidence on the effectiveness of homoeopathy is "scant" and "of uneven quality", and that more research is needed.  It doesn't challenge the scientific consensus reported in the article.  And if you want a source that comments on the results of the systematic reviews, there's a systematic review of them already cited by the article.  It doesn't come to a conclusion that helps your case in the slightest.  Brunton (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * well, I trust more the authors abilities to summarize their own review than yours and the authors concluded :"Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. I guess there is no consensus here. I just support the inclusion of this summary.It is a first rate journal.   --Motorola12 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the paper? Brunton (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and I don't trust myself or you to summarize or qualify it - The author's summary reflects their position accurately - I would not imagine anyone not want to include the entire quote in the body of the article ( and in the lead ) unless h/she was to avoid stating what the reliable sources state. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Motorola12, you have repeatedly included the same or comparable quotes / comments over and over again, a dozen or more times. This is disruptive and disrespectful to the other editors here.
 * You also have not addressed the specific claims raised that the authors of the study you are citing have apparently explicitly stated that it did not mean what you and other homeopathy boosters are saying it did. Repeating what you interpret it having said over and over again does not change its authors' comment that you and others are misusing the paper.  If you are going to continue referring to it you need to address that particular detail.  Under the circumstances, the paper is evidently not reliable in Wikipedia's "reliable source" sense.  Anything that the author says is being misinterpreted has obvious and evident reliability problems.
 * This is not OK behavior on Wikipedia. Please stop.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you discourage me from asking to include the summary of a systematic review - I would start considering to stop editing - I thought wikipedia was open for editing to all. I dont think that bringing up a systematic reliable source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Internal_Medicine first rate medical journal  is disrespectful. Can you explain why?  Why do you think I m misusing  the paper?  I support the inclusion of  the authors summary without adding any comments or interpretation  in the article, A few other editors want to summarize it and qualify it themselves. I think that qualifying the paper introduces bias and it is better to report what the authors  are actually state - isn't that correct and in line with the wiki guide ?--Motorola12 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Motorola, including a quote does not guarantee we reflect the author's views accurately, or that we remain impartial. Quotemining, for example, is not neutral and often uses the words of an author inappropriately in a way they did not intend. Context matters, and so it is important to look at the entirety of the work. This snippet you've picked implies something. If the authors have contradicted that implication later in the very same review, then we can't just lift your quote, because it carries with it an implication which is untrue. Secondly, it is important to weight sources against others, so that we accurately reflect consensus within the whole body of the literature, not just one paper. The quote you've selected implies something with which every other quality paper disagrees, AFAIK. If all of that is so, then plopping your quote into the lead would imply something which is explicitly rejected by the authors of the paper, and not reflected in any of the rest of the literature, and we would be stating it without qualification as though it were significant of the whole field of study. That would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We can certainly include quotes in the article, but they have to be selected with that context in mind. To include that quote, you'd have to show us places where the same ideas were reflected strongly, so we knew it was a well supported idea within the scientific community.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be even stronger than that. Motorola12, you are misusing the paper, as the authors have explicitly said.  You're turning it into an unreliable reference source when you do that.  If you keep doing that and advocating for that, that's against Wikipedia policy.
 * You're trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, against our policy on that. Please stop.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to participate in the discussion here and answer to your argument  or you will ban me ? --Motorola12 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - those participating in this debate won't ban you, though the wider Wikipedia community might if you persist in your behaviour here. Multiple contributors have explained why we cannot use the source you suggest in the manner you advocate. Merely repeating your arguments again and again is not only pointless, it is in itself very likely a violation of guidelines regarding tendentious editing. I suggest you let the matter drop, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to participate in the discussion in this talk page and answer to Jess's argument? or not Can an admin tell me ? --Motorola12 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an admin, and as long as you stop repeating the same stuff over and over again and read the policies please feel free to respond to anyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jess argued against my suggestion to include something in the article I would like to reply. I would do tomorrow in a new section - thanks for the permission. --Motorola12 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Misconception of neutral point view and homeopathy article - Suggestion for improvement
1. Jess you wrote", including a quote does not guarantee we reflect the author's views accurately, or that we remain impartial." What I wrote is not a quote or snippet. It is the author's entire summary of their own systematic review which ,by definition, does not introduce any bias of my part. Brunton's qualifications of the paper or Dr. Ernst interpretations of the paper introduce bias - how is it possible for wiki pedia editor  to claim that his summary is more accurate that the original author's summary?

2. You also wrote " If the authors have contradicted that implication later in the very same review then we can't just lift your quote".( It is not my quote but the entire author's summary as I said ). According to wiki guide we are not suppose to evaluate the original sources but to report their findings accurately. Original research is not allowed, I thought.

3. Then you wrote "The quote you've selected implies something with which every other quality paper disagrees," So the author's entire summary - I would call it and again and I did not "select" it -- really says something which departs with several other papers cited. I agree with you. The journal is almost equally important to the Lancet in terms of weighting its value. Wikipedia articles suppose to report every uncertainty and controversy as long as it is presented in an exceptional reliable source. Why wikipedia has excluded this view ? Isn't that a violation of Neutral point of view policy? Furthermore I produced several exceptional sources which depart from wikipidia current point of view(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375230. http://www.anthromed.org/UploadedDocuments/LuedtkeRuttenJCE08.pdf. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967878-6/fulltext.

4.The authors of the review DO NOT say that homeopathy is proven. But they DO say that there is some evidence that homeopathy might be effective in some conditions. They don't say -what homeopaths say- that it is a proven therapy  but they strongly  disagree that it all placebo citing their own research to support that. They publish this in the Lancet but again the contributors of this article refuse to cite  it.http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967878-6/fulltext

5. FInally some people say that the authors have contradicted themselves in other reviews - this is a interpretation of some of the scientists not all. First of all the sources brunton cited are before 2003 earlier than this review.

6. I don't want to article to write that homeopathy is proven  '''but to include the views which depart from the current point of view adopted by the article-  that the scientific consensus among the researchers is that Homeopathy = placebo = quackery. This is not true.''' according to the sources. And I don't think I 'm the only editor who believes that in this talk page. --Motorola12 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What edit is being proposed? Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First lets take the term quackery out - you can see there is not consensus in the medical community on this according to our sources. --Motorola12 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Motorola, I think the issue of that quote has been covered enough by now. Consensus has formed. I'll try to leave you with a parting explanation, but if you're still hung up on including the quote after, then you'd have to seek dispute resolution from somewhere else (see WP:DR. I will note, however, that I don't think that's a good idea).


 * You can call it whatever you'd like, but the text is a quote and a snippet; it is a piece of the review absent context from the rest of the paper. It is not "the author's entire summary"; it is a piece of the abstract. The authors apparently discuss their conclusions in more detail within the review. Ignoring what they say in the review because there's a snippet at the beginning we like would go against NPOV - especially when that snippet contradicts every other reliable source we have. I told you what we'd need to include this above: more unambiguous sourcing.


 * The quackery label has also been covered extensively. However, you haven't advanced any argument on this topic. Providing sources which talk about homeopathy's efficacy generally do not change a label used to describe homeopathy. To remove the label, we'd either need sourcing saying "homeopathy is not quackery" or we'd need to demonstrate a lack of sourcing which called homeopathy quackery. That issue has been beaten to death too, so I wouldn't suggest taking it up now. I'd suggest making improvements to the article (or another article) which aren't contentious for a while. Maybe we can come back to this some time later, when we have new sources to discuss.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Jess. I will leave it for now. This is the meaning of the abstract of the study  you DO  know it summarizes and  expresses  the author's views and  saying that the review contradicts itself iIS original research which we are not suppose to be doing here. One can argue that contradictions can be detected in all negative reviews on homeopathy. But we are not suppose to  decide whether we include them or not based on our personal opinions that they contradict or not   but if they appear in a source which qualifies. Even the authors contradicted  themselves  which they don't, we suppose to include every controversy or contradiction as long as it appears in a reliable source.  Furthermore I have produced 4 sources which depart from the current point of view wikipedia has adopted but they have also been rejected -  even the ones which state that the authors DISAGREE  that homeopathy = placebo. since they don't agree wikipedia 's view. Regarding quackery :  NONE of the meta-analyses uses this term, I cited 3 reviews which say something completely different. The term quackery is supported by only 1 source. So sad that this talk page makes  neutral point of view policy  looks like a parody. I m taking  a break for now - talk to you later. --Motorola12 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the phrase "its use of remedies without active ingredients have led to characterizations as pseudoscience and quackery" is supported by four sources, and there's a fifth for the statement "in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."" Brunton (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the numbered points:
 * 1. First, it isn't a systematic review. It doesn't state its search strategy.  It doesn't cite the reanalysis of the data from the 1997 Linde paper which considerably qualified its conclusion.  The qualifications of the conclusions of the other reviews are not some invention of mine, as you seem to be implying, but (as I have already pointed out) are right there in the papers themselves.  Kleijnen (1991) states: "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 is even reported in Table 1 of the Jonas Kaptchuk & Linde review (on page 395): "Available evidence is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions".  Similarly for the 2000 Cucherat review: "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies."  These are not the unequivocal positive results that you want to present them as.  Additionally it does not, of course, take into account the negative result of the later Shang et al review.
 * For the particular conditions your quotation reports homoeopathy may be effective for: as I have already pointed out, the paper actually says that the evidence for postoperative ileus is inconclusive, not positive. For influenza, the paper cites The Vickers et al Cochrane review on Oscillococcinum, which was withdrawn in 2009 and has now been replaced by Mathie et al which concludes that "There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum(®) in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness."  For allergies one of the sources used is Taylor et al, which is a review of a series of small studies by the same team, and the article notes that "a larger study using a similar protocol did not reproduce this clinical effect," the other source for this states at the end of its conclusions that its "results may be slightly biased".  For childhood diarrhea the review relied on is a review of three studies by the same team, and the paper was unable to take into account the same team's larger study published in 2006 which found no effect of homoeopathy.  As for the systematic reviews, the paper has been overtaken by later publications reporting negative results.
 * 2. If the paper itself disagrees with the abstract, we should rely on the paper and not the abstract.
 * 3. You're citing one of the reviews cited by the Jonas review (the one on diarrhea); an editorial written by a prominent homoeopath; a paper that explicitly states that its results "do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite"; and a letter to the editor of the Lancet which states, in its only direct commet about the efficacy of homoeopathy, "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". These have all been gone over before.
 * 4. The wikipedia article already states that there are some positive results, but accurately reports the scientific consensus that the totality of the evidence fails to show that homoeopathy works. And you're citing that letter to the Lancet again.  It doesn't say what you think it says.
 * 5. If you want later comments by the authors, how about Linde's comment about the 1997 review, reported by Der Spiegel in 2010: "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein" ("We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies").
 * 6. If you want the article to imply that some researchers have come to conclusions that differ from the scientific consensus reported by the article, we will need published research by them that has concluded that homoeopathy works. Brunton (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not fair to discourage me to participate in the discussion (by threatening that you will block me) and the same time to try to argue with me.  I could answer to all your are saying but I have been told that I should not participate at least for now. Unless you think it is fruitful to talk to yourself --Motorola12 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Brunton threaten to block you? Where? If you're referring to the arbitration notice posted by Enric Naval, that's just a notice that we must give out to users who could possibly fall under the arbitration committee's ruling in the future. We do that for the benefit of the users, so they are aware of the context and history of the topic. Yea, the notice is worded harshly; that's unfortunate. Anyway, you said that you'd leave it for now, so I think we can move on. I just want to correct, for the record, that we have more than 1 source characterizing it as quackery. We only cite one because of WP:OVERCITE, but the others are in the article elsewhere and listed in the appropriate discussion section above. As a final note, we don't fully document every controversy in every reliable source ever; WP:WEIGHT is a big factor, for instance. If one hypothetical source says something unambiguously which is contradicted by a large swath of more reliable literature, then its weight would be appropriately minimal or none. That's even more true if that hypothetical source was not unambiguous, and perhaps used wording in other places which supported all our other literature. Just something to keep in mind in the future. Anyway, let's move on before anything gets heated. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Jess for the record You said  I'd suggest taking the other advice you've received (from me and Andythegrump) seriously. Andy advised me I suggest you let the matter drop, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ,Many people dispute the use of quackery term in the noticeboard and I produced 4 reelable sources of equal weight ( journals almost as important as the Lancet and others) which state something different things about  homeopathy. And again for the record, according to wikipedia policy, as long a different point of view is documented in a major  source ( Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine ) immediately is qualified for inclusion and reporting. If one wants to edit according to NPOV of course. Now I have to stop before I m obliged to like you and Andy said. Now I know how consensus is achieved  in controversial articles. Best regards --[[User:Motorola12|Motorola12] (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So you were talking to me? No one has threatened to block you, but arguing a matter long after consensus has formed is disruptive, and falls under WP:TE. Editors have, in good faith and for your benefit, notified you of this. Accusing them of manipulating consensus to hide information and bully you is, frankly, rude. I've gone well out of my way to help you and keep my tone calm and respectful throughout our exchanges, and so I would appreciate you showing me the same courtesy. I don't think further discussing this matter, including the sources which have already been discussed to death, is going to help anything. It's time to let it go and move on. Discussion can continue on RSN, so feel free to take it there if you have further inquiries about this issue, or work on something new.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I din't intend to offend you and I m sure you really feel that- but this is not my imagination. I suggest you let the matter drop, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2013''' (UTC)  People are telling me to work on something new and keep arguing against my case in the talk page-  End of story--Motorola12 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Motorola, you started this section. Other users responded to you. Then, out of nowhere, you suddenly began complaining about how users were threatening to block you. Since yesterday, you've gotten nothing but encouragement from others. If you had stayed on topic, presented new arguments, avoided repeating yourself, and so on, this conversation could have gone very differently. You're being asked to let it go now because that isn't what happened. The discussion has now become focused on warnings and how wikipedia is biased, and that stuff doesn't belong here. Look, we have a lot of policies and a certain way of doing things here on wikipedia, and it takes some time to get used to that when you're new. If you have questions, or need help, you should ask another user on their talk page. In the meantime, this discussion isn't going to help. I want you to continue editing collaboratively, and you can certainly come back this issue sometime in the future when we have new sources to discuss. Also feel free to participate more at RSN, where the discussion is ongoing. I'm going to close this section for now. If you need me further, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I opened this as its crazy to repeat the very valid points motorola started with all over again. To enforce this IS bullying. To suggest motorola takes up discontent with eds elsewhere is positive, but maybe specify exactly where.
 * I suggest we try and get on with discussion, and leave out the bullying issues for now. If someone doesn't like that, just move on, don't censor as Jess did. THAT surely is not in the spirit of wiki. Cjwilky (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cj, this type of language is not helpful, and neither is this thread, which has nothing to do with the article. If you have something to discuss relating to the article, then discuss it. There are now three sections devoted to this topic, and another on RSN, so it's not like you're want of options. Frankly though, continuing to beat the horse isn't going to get us anywhere.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Article extremely repetitive.
I just read through this article from beginning to end. It is relatively well written throughout, but overall it is EXTREMELY repetitive. So much so it becomes particularly monotinous to read. It needs a structural overhaul and significant shortening to fix this, I think. As I was reading, I couldn't help thinking I should stop reading the article, but thought there would be new information somewhere in the huge article. Numerous quotes are repeated, scientific conclusions re-cited, succussion explained over and over again, the patent mathematical absurdity is explained over and over again. I understand the absurdity needs to be stressed, but this should be done through effective, clear, and concise writing and structure. The repetiveness almost damages the credibility of this article in an encyclopedic sense. In order to remove the repetiveness, I think the overall flow needs to be reworked, or sub-articles produced. Please, try to read this article from beginning to end to see what I mean. I've never seen this same problem so severe in any other article here on Wiki, and am sorry I don't have the time or writing/organizational skill to rework it (and am afraid I to do so on such a controversial article would be a risky move). Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 08:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, succussion is described once, in the section about the preparation of remedies. It is also mentioned in the lead, but some repetition here is inevitable because the lead is supposed to summarise the important points of the article.  Succussion is there because homoeopaths consider it to be an essential part of the preparation process.  Regarding the "mathematical absurdity", this is discussed twice in the article: the dilutions are explained in the section about the preparation of remedies, as is appropriate, and the "absurdity" is discussed in the section about plausibility, where it is clearly necessary to explain why the dilutions make homoeopathy implausible.  Some mention of it is needed in both places.
 * Can you give some examples of the numerous quotes that are repeated, and of the scientific conclusions that are re-cited, please? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.  Brunton (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree about repetition, and agree its difficult to get around, but when i've time, and fied my keyboard! I'll try and see if we can edit some out. Cjwilky (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Two conflicting sources
Homeopathic combination remedy in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea in Honduras vs Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials

Brunton:The fact you "explained" does not mean a lot. You just wrote what you believe - I don't think that everybody here agrees with you. So please dont tell me to stop - the same way I should not tell you to stop (even if I  had convinced myself that  your are biased against the subject ). 1. These two are 2 different studies by 2 different group of authors ( One author in common).

2. The study that you were talking about was not much larger it included 292 children the other one 242 children.

3. The one which demonstrated effects  over placebo  was individualized homeopathy and the other was not.

There are 2 different studies by different groups of authors and they used different methods ( individualization vs one common remedy for all ). This is a key difference according to homeopaths and of course both studies should be included. If I wanted to write a biased pro homeopathy article I would suggest the inclusion of only one study but since both they are published in high quality journals have to be reported. Please try to read carefully before you write something. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lead
Hello I noticed few discrepancies in the lead. To be more clear; (17 reviews, 11 of them independent) failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo.
 * First of all, the first paragraph in a lead should be about the article (or practice here) itself, not on others' opinions about it. The opinions of others (especially the scientific community) can be (must be) expressed in the lead. But not in the first paragraph. If not done so, it contradicts several principles such as:
 * WP:STRUCTURE - Article Structure: Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
 * WP:WEIGHT - Undue Weight and
 * WP:IMPARTIAL - Impartial Tone: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone.
 * There is another point. I've partially read and went through the sources supposedly claiming that Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. This is stating opinions as facts. The Turkish Wikipedia article on homoeopathy, using more or less the same sources, approximately says: No scientific or clinical evidence has been found suggesting that homoeopathy has any benefit else than the placebo effect. This is also what the sources says. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy say this:
 * Now, there is a huge difference with this and saying "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective". Please improve the lead. --Universal Life (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that the lead could be improved. The question, of course, is how? The lead currently summarizes all the important points (what Homeopathy is, how it works, where it came from, and its reception in the relevant communities). If we reorganize or rewrite, we would have to hit all those points, and it is hard to find ways to reorganize the content that's currently there in a way that's coherent. If you have a specific proposal, that might help.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The only meaningful improvement is to include all the points of view as long they are published in high quality medical sources. Not like now that only reviews which show homeopathy = placebo has been included without even including their criticisms by other high quality publications. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Motorola, WP:WEIGHT is at play here. Editors on this page have determined that the view that "Homeopathy is a placebo" is the significant majority opinion within the scientific community, and the view that "Homeopathy is better than placebo" is the significant minority or fringe view. It is not a question that we have sources verifying that the two views exist; we know that. The question is how to give them due weight. If the above determination is correct, then policy dictates to us what we must do; we must present the significant majority view within the lead, and not present the fringe view within the lead. Not doing so would contravene our policies. There are only two ways to change that representation: 1) use sources to show our determination is wrong: "Homeopathy works better than placebo" is not fringe and not in the significant minority within the scientific community; 2) go to WT:WEIGHT, WT:FRINGE or WP:Village pump (policy), and get a consensus of editors that our policies need to be changed. As it stands, we do not and cannot include every point of view equally; that is not what NPOV means.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the mainstream high quality sources say that Homeopathy = placebo with a lot of edited out criticism by other high quality sources. Some other mainstream high quality sources say the "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo," without of course proving the therapy. This is not a fringe view, The criterion for classifying a view as fringe is the venue of publication; the articles I cited, as you can see,  are published in first rate journals. Therefore  there is NOT  clear view even among the mainstream quality sources and these  uncertainties and controversies views  should not be edited out - according to wikipedia policy. And i think a few editors agree with me here--Motorola12 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been bringing the exact same source many times now. Other editors have clearly answered why this is not an acceptable source. Refusing to get the point and  continuing to repeat the same argument will get you nowhere and will not convince anyone. The only thing you're doing is waste everyone's time. This needs to stop.--McSly (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Im sorry. I think it is the first time we discuss the criterion for fringe views here. But If you discourage me to participate in he discussion I would stop. (I could say the same thing for you - you bring the same sources) . I thought the discussion was going on and allowed. If you  have time to reply - I m asking you How the fringe view is determined ? BY the publication venue the quality of the journal or something else?   --Motorola12 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not discouraging you from participating in the discussion. He's saying that this particular source you're advancing has been discussed already. Discussing it over and over again wont change the quality of the source, or consensus of editors here. Discussing it over and over is only likely to discourage editors from engaging you in other discussions, so it's ultimately counterproductive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue you raised was about fringe views and you said that mainstream views state homeopathy -only placebo- I asked how How the fringe view (homeopathy is placebo or not)  is determined ? BY the publication venue the quality of the journal or something else?  I dont think we discussed that. Do you have time to reply?--Motorola12 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:FRINGE covers that a bit. It has to do with the quality of the source, whether it has been superseded by later research, and how it interplays with the rest of the literature. Lets say we have a source which makes a statement ("the Earth is flat"), which is contradicted by 90% or more of other scientific research. That is a minority or a fringe view. If later papers question the methods or conclusion of that source, it further calls it into question. The types of sources we want to present on science and pseudoscience topics are those which are reflective of a greater body of literature, not sources which make a unique statement on their own. For this source to be useful in the sense that you're proposing, we would want to see that it was largely accepted in the scientific community; we'd expect that it would be cited in future papers and systematic reviews, that its results would be repeated and expanded upon in future research, and that it would have an impact on the scientific consensus in some way. Editors have determined here that those things are not true of this source; it seems that other studies after this one came to the opposite conclusion and that the scientific consensus is still contrary to this one, as it apparently has made little impact. It has received criticism, it hasn't been cited prominently elsewhere, say in future systematic reviews over the last decade, and there are additional problems with the papers and authors that it discusses explicitly disclaiming the conclusions it draws. I am not saying that this determination that editors have made is the right one - I believe it to be, from what I've seen - but I am simply saying that it is the determination that was made given the available sourcing. To overturn that, we would need more, better, and recent sources which back this claim up on their own. Without that, policy dictates what we must do. Other sites and methods of publishing have different standards and work differently, but on wikipedia, we have to follow wikipedia's policies.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jess firstly - this is not a unique statement on its own. This position is held but several reviews (see Linde for instance ) already cited who clarifying their conclusions of their systematic reviews in the lancet,  say that homeopathy is NOT proven but it is  NOT only placebo. This view has been distorted in the article by the editors here. Second, by the  3 criteria you defined for classifying  minority fringe views (quality of the source, whether it has been superseded by later research, and how it interplays with the rest of the literature number of citations )  you will be surprised to see how  it does not apply here. Just check the  my sources and the sources cited in the article to see your self - but  I will give specific examples more tomorrow. I was just scanned the list of citations. Do the homework so you can be prepared tomorrow. Goodnight.--Motorola12 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. I've done enough homework already, I'm afraid. Anyway, you can feel free to discuss more of how homeopathy is represented in the literature, but please try to discuss new sources. My explanation above was an attempt to convey why the source was seen as it was by editors here, not an invitation to reopen a discussion on old sources which has been had so many times now. By the way, my "3 criteria" were just some of the things we'd generally expect, not site-wide criteria or an inclusive list. You should really read through WP:FRINGE when you have a chance. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to the original point: the entire method of homeopathy is a fringe view of medical practice, which has been clearly documented. Not pointing this out in the lead would be inappropriate. See also Piltdown Man, Red mercury, Turboencabulator or, hell, Bonsai Kitten. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Universal Life makes very valid points that I agree with. The lead is farcical. Cjwilky (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Argghhghg! - I just read the Talk archives here. We are doomed to re-live the debates of our Wiki-ancestors. Over. And Over. Again.
 * I would really help if when discussing the lead editors pointed to specific text and made a specific recommendation. On the evidence of the talk page, general comments just descend into go-nowhere threads just like - I fear - the one we are creating now. Alexbrn talk 17:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cjwilky the lead is farcical (- besides the fact the mainstream sources and the different opinions are misrepresented ). Therefore I don;t think there is consensus to keep the article and lead the way it is. --Motorola12 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note... Consensus does not mean universal agreement. To change the article, we'd need a good policy-based argument, backed up by sources. We don't have that right now. Just agreeing with other users doesn't get us there. To be honest, I'm about ready to move on at this point, unless anyone is prepared to actually make a specific proposal or list new sources. We all have lives to live, and just repeating the same stuff isn't accomplishing much.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is the judge that the sources have been represented correctly and they qualify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We discuss it. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Did JohnSnow just remove the quackery sentence? And move it into the body of the article saying that we agreed to this per talk? When did this get agreed on?Sgerbic (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He did, I've reverted. Please, John, note the top of the page, where it says
 * Clearly there is no agreement above on making that change.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from anything else, JS's edit was a bad idea as the content he moved was already in the body, so this move introduced duplication. Alexbrn talk 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, sorry - we may just have gone around in circles due to the long and convoluted nature of this talk page. We discussed moving the quackery tag in the relevant section above, and I think we arrived more-or-less at an agreement that the description was justified, but that it didn't belong in the lead.  Do challenge me on the specifics, but this was a considered move in favour of consensus (or at least an attemnpt at one!). John Snow II (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead is there to summarize the body of the article. And the information presented in the "Evidence" and the quite long "Ethics and safety" sections must be reflected there. Not including it in the lead would misrepresent the rest of the article. --McSly (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you see some editors do not concur with the quackery crusade thought including me. --Motorola12 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is fair to try to browbeat Motorola out of expressing his views. While I recognize that we need to apply WP:DUE, we shouldn't cite that Lancet meta-analysis of 110 studies without mentioning the raft of criticism Motorola has come up with.  It's not a question of whether I believe in this stuff (I don't) - the point is that "Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials." is a really, really damning statement and that the Lancet would publish such a thing is the kind of reason why many readers tend to page right past meta-analysis without even looking into it.  As you cover these controversies, you should think of homeopathy not merely as something to give to a patient, but its existence as a probe to investigate how scientists deal with statistical noise, inconvenient data, and potentially external pressures and inducements. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What is more likely to be an accurate assessment of the quality of meta-analysis, The Lancet's peer-review mechanisms, or an article in a CAM journal by Peter Fisher ? Isn't it forbidden by WP:MEDRS to use one-off primary sources to "debunk" secondary ones ? Alexbrn talk 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am skeptical, and yet... Motorola listed several other sources above that were saying the same thing as this one, including a response in the Lancet that said very nearly the same thing (though it doesn't say they refused to provide them).  So I don't think Fisher was lying when he said that.  The object here is not to "debunk" the study, but to give some idea of what the response was and more of an idea what it did and didn't evaluate, which I don't think is the same thing.  I should further add that personally I despise the vague abusable language of the MEDRS guideline on several regards, and this is an example - the "debunking" it prohibits is, in my reading, a prohibition on us as editors saying "but look I found this that contradicts it!", i.e. "original synthesis", not a prohibition on reporting that a study was criticized by others. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there is this which says "Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented". Alexbrn talk 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Wnt Your last premise is wrong. We absolutely, under no circumstances, should be reporting that a high quality medical source was criticized by some poor quality primary source in a CAM journal in such a way to represent the criticism as anywhere near equally valid to the research. Our policies absolutely forbid that... not just synthesis and original research. Now with that said, if there is quality criticism of Lancet in a reliable secondary source we could use, then surely we can cover it. Criticism of one study doesn't seem appropriate to put in the lead, however. That means that we would need to determine how significant the criticism was in the literature, which will determine if we should 1) put lancet in the lead and the criticism in the body, or 2) move the lancet out of the lead where it can be covered in tandem with the criticism. I'll reiterate that we should be doing this only contingent on a quality source meeting MEDRS for the criticism; that's the standard we use for research, so that's the standard we must use to "refute" the research.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If wp:MEDRS needs changes, the place for having that discussion is wt:MEDRS, not here. It is far more likely to be effected. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about interpreting it correctly (or, for that matter, ignoring it, which we actually can do with a guideline). I see Alexbrn cited another one of Motorola12's sources above, which I was also considering when I commented on this.  I should say specifically that I don't think that this "meta-analysis" should be put up on a pedestal as a "reliable secondary source" and be used to override all these other views.  To me, a meta-analysis is an experiment, i.e. no less "primary" than any other kind of paper.  However, in many (at least on paper, most) published experiments, researchers are expected to share reagents and techniques to allow others to reproduce their work.  If you publish a paper with a custom antibody, you're supposed to be willing to put a tube of it on dry ice and ship it to another lab across the country.  These guys... these guys won't name the 8 studies they finalized as the best ones?  Unbelievable.  My point is, if this were a true secondary source, an honest to God review article, I'd expect them to have paragraphs and paragraphs going through every study, explaining it, saying what they think about it, what its strengths and weaknesses are ... there's none of that.  This isn't just a primary article in this sense, but not even a proper one.  And I say that despite thinking that it has the right conclusion! Wnt (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make a little pure "OR" editorial here, I should point out that the real problem here is that it seems like proving a negative with homeopathy is being judged against a moving line that is always just ahead of the researcher. We're not evaluating a question like "does homeopathy make your penis 20% longer?"  We're looking here at whether homeopathy makes it significantly longer, i.e. distinguishable from control.  And if the standard study says that 95% confidence is a significant result, well ... we'll have positive results 5% of the time.  That's true if it is completely ineffective, and it's true if it makes it a little bit longer but not enough for us to detect.  And so we get into these contentious navel-gazing statistics because it seems like there's always something flickering just barely past what we can see with the torch.  And maybe there is, who knows? Wnt (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it simpler than that? Isn't the question WP needs to consider "what is the consensus of the reliable sources on the efficacy of homeopathy?" And the answer is similarly simply stated "at best no better than placebo, at worst actively harmful (through opportunity cost)". There are multiple good sources supporting this, which we relay as part of building our encyclopedic article. Alexbrn talk 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Wnt, MEDRS isn't a guideline in the sense that you're proposing (i.e., one that can be dismissed easily in a fringe topic with the effect of elevating criticism of the scientific consensus). I don't have a lot of time to continue discussing every detail here, but my position above stands: If we find high quality secondary sources meeting MEDRS that criticize Lancet, then we can include the criticism, and potentially push the Lancet out of the lead. If we don't have those sources, then we shouldn't do that. If we don't have those sources and you think it's warranted anyway, then we'd probably need an RfC, or something similar, in order to actively spur a broader discussion. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replying to USER:Wnt regarding 95% confidence and statistical significance: it doesn't mean that a small effect is impossible to demonstrate, it just means that larger sample sizes are needed to achieve statistical significance for smaller effects. In any case, homoeopathy does not report small effects in anecdotal accounts; it reports effects that are self-evident.  It is only when nonspecific factors are controlled for that the results get lost in statistical noise.  Brunton (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think USER:Wnt is reasonable. Shang's study in the Lancet is not the only one. LInde and Jonas published in the Lancet and even their qualified version arrives to a conclusion different than Shang's. It does not mean that the latest study disqualifies the previous reviews especially when it is has been criticized so heavily in the Lancet by a prominent group of researchers and also in other first rate secondary sources.   One would say that Shangs study departs from almost  any other past review state homeopathy is NOT only placebo but the conclusion cannot be definite. Shangs state it is all definitely placebo. It is astonishing  that any editor would want to readers to ignore all the uncertainties and controversies about the scientific evidence in homeopathy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And regarding USER:Wnt's statement that "the point is that "Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials"": while it is true that (as the letter repeatedly cited by Motorola12 stated) the the original paper did not specifically identify the eight trials, their identity was disclosed in an author's reply published in the Lancet on 17 December 2005 (i.e. in the very same issue of the journal as the letter), along with other information requested by the letter. See also The Myth of the Secret Eight.
 * The letter, and the criticisms it contains, are frequently cited on this page; the authors' reply, which addresses the criticisms, seems to be largely ignored. Brunton (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats good Brunton. BUT It does not mean that they are correct just because they replied, and the article should state their results as the supposed  scientific consensus- while other high quality sources depart from that. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The artice doesn't "state their results as the supposed scientific consensus". It reports the scientific consensus.  Brunton (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Falsely as our sources vividly demonstrate. --Motorola12 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the update about the eight studies. I wasn't claiming to have an expert knowledge of the debate, and this fact does greatly reduce my irritation about the Lancet article.  (If it was in the same issue, however, then it remains plausible that they initially did refuse to give this information to that particular person)  Even so, I don't think it's right to leave out coverage of the interchange; it would be better to cover it in full detail. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Motorola, this doesn't change the scientific consensus, I'm afraid. Our sources are crystal clear that mainstream science deems Homeopathy to be ineffective. What we're discussing is a minor issue only tangential to that topic, which is whether we should include a small quibble over one of the sources we use. I'm afraid that my resolve to include that criticism has diminished if it's true that the primary objection was clearly addressed by the authors in the same issue the criticism was published. I'd really want a secondary source to this debacle in order to summarize it adequately here. Do we have any secondary sources covering this? If so, they're more important than the initial criticism (a primary source on that criticism). If not, then we should take that as a reflection of how notable the criticism really was.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty we face here is that, as Wnt points out above, in order to distinguish zero effect (beyond placebo) from an arbitrarily small effect (beyond placebo) requires an arbitrarily large study population. Indeed, it is the wrong question for study designs to ask. If instead a homeopathic intervention were to be measured against a gold-standard medical intervention a quite modest sample size would be adequate to determine which works better. I wonder why we don't see more such studies? LeadSongDog come howl!  02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is original research;LeadSongDog But you should know homeopaths say that only studies with individual homeopathy shows the best therapeutic result for instance:
 * @Jess: :I always support the inclusion of whatever information about uncertainties and controversies.    I certainly do not see - as the typical reasonable reader -any scientific consensus when the prominent researchers's  disputes and heavy criticism  of the almost the review  (which reports homeopathy= only placebo) appear in the Lancet. This is a kind of strong evidence that there is NOT consensus; unless one wants to artificially create one. --Motorola12 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Motorola, we're talking about "uncertainties and controversies" within the scientific community, not among homeopaths, and as far as our sourcing is concerned, no such controversy exists. You would need to furnish lots of sources that were extremely high quality to begin counteracting the stockpile of high quality sources we have now that leave no room for ambiguity. Please do not confuse support for additional discussion about one particular paper for support of some larger shift in the scientific consensus. I'm not interested in repeating this again, so I want to be crystal clear: we are not currently discussing any inclusion of wording which indicates that homeopathy has any sort of acceptance within the scientific community; we are discussing including information critical of the methodologies used in one paper we cite. If you want the former, then you would need to furnish sources, and either seek WP:DR or start an RfC. I strongly discourage you from doing that, because other editors will undoubtedly see it as falling afoul of WP:STICK. Until then, to make any headway, we should keep discussion on the sources covering the Lancet, not on homeopathy's support generally. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is really amazing you believe that 'within the scientific community'', and as far as our sourcing is concerned, no such controversy exists. But I cannot argue against faith. Especially when the majority believes the same exact thing.  Talk to you later. --Motorola12 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony. Alexbrn talk 07:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Motorola12 wrote, "But you should know homeopaths say that only studies with individual homeopathy shows the best therapeutic result". They may say that, but the evidence from controlled trials doesn't.  See Linde & Melchart (1998) Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med. 1998 Winter;4(4):371-88, which reported results that are no better than for the reviews that include non-individualised trials, with a small effect from all trials but no statistically significant effect when only the best trials are considered.  The controversy is not within the scientific community; it is between the scientific community and homoeopaths.  Brunton (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the inclusion of the study Brunton. Regarding the controversy it might be my delusion--Motorola12 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first link is broken; your second to an article which (on further investigation) turns out to have been written by two homeopaths, and whose conclusions are hardly earth-shattering:
 * Alexbrn talk 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not continue the discussion here but since you are all asking me : Firstly it does not matter what they are. The criterion here is the source which is high quality and secondary.Well, they are NOT proving anything  they just dispute the H=placebo Shangs study findings - but you ( I mean we after Jess advice)   don't want the readers to know about it right ? and we want to falsely  report that the article has adopted the "uncontroversial" scientific consensus!  :  This is the second link.  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967878-6/fulltext --Motorola12 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it does sort of matter who they are - which is why journals require, and publish, COI declarations (Oh that Wikipedia could do the same!). So one article, from interested parties, concludes that a systematic review's conclusions "are not so definite as they have been reported and discussed"; that hardly erodes the review, let alone the combined effects of all the reviews. I think it would be totally misleading to include it as a "debunker" of the Shang study. As for the Linde and Jonas letter, that was discussed above ... their complaint was answered in the same issue of The Lancet as published their letter. If you're still convinced there's meat in this sandwich, then precisely what edit are you proposing? Alexbrn talk 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No it does not matter what they are - their review has been accepted in the high quality secondary journal - this is the criterion.  Ermst's profession is to research and debunk all alternative medicine he does not hide that  - does this disqualify him from being cited as a good quality source? We don't care about his point of view - we care if his work is published in a high quality medical journal and report it.  I did not say it "debunks" the Shang's but it is shows  that there is NOT a consensus among researchers who publish on homoeopathy in high quality secondary sources. The Linde letter is also another document which shows how  we ( I have to include myself here to not upset Jess)  have distorted their views to make them fit with those of Shangs so we can report a artificial consensus.  Since you are asking me for an edit I will reply- specifically in a while but in general  I don't think that the state of the literature permits the reporting of a clear consensus the way we do in the evolution or the creationism article.--Motorola12 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A few quibbles on the finer details of one systematic review in no way breaks the super-consensus there is among scientists on this topic. Alexbrn talk 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few quibbles? All the above?  Well, from this point we start to approach the issue metaphysically  Im afraid. Nothing in wrong with metaphysics   is just not what the NOPV dictates. --Motorola12 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Has this article ever undergone any sort of peer review? --John (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the "Article milestones" in the banner at the top of this talkpage, and click on "show". LeadSongDog come howl!  01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I missed it in all the clutter, hence the question. What action is being undertaken to address the issues identified at the last one? --John (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting too. Does anybody here have an appetite for actually improving the article, or are you all too invested in sterile bickering? If the latter, I will leave you alone, but I wondered if you'd be interested in trying for GA again? --John (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumbleweed blows. --John (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's go for it. I have made some (what I hope are) "bigger picture" edits today. What would be your proposed plan of action? Alexbrn talk 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, not everyone is on Wikipedia all day. You may not get replies for a day or two on lower-traffic articles like this. Oh, and the insults ("sterile bickering") aren't exactly encouraging anyone to work with you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just calling it like I see it, HandThatFeeds. Alexbrn, I'd like to begin by making and agreeing a summary of action points from the two reviews I mentioned (and any others). --John (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a few random observations/opinions from my (fairly brief) experience with this article, to go along with the existing stuff: Alexbrn talk 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead is obviously a touchy subject; procedurally I would prefer to see the body finalized first and then the lead can summarize that (as it should)
 * The article is too long; the summaries of sub-articles could be much more aggressive
 * The sources are generally good; I prefer the reference style used here to the References/Notes split often used in WP articles (as the two tend to drift apart over time without a great deal of editorial vigilance)
 * Some of the pictures are poor quality; and there aren't enough of them
 * There is a general lack of in-text attribution
 * The arguments, particularly contra homeopathy sometimes seem like the heaping of Pelion on Ossa; a more select use of sources would "work" just as well (see the safety and ethics section e.g.)
 * There is over-citing; again some lesser sources could be lost (or moved to "further reading") when a good source is carrying enough weight
 * I haven't yet got my head around whether this structure is good, but some things smell bad: a discrete "Public opposition" section for example. Also the top-level "Evidence" section doesn't seem very focused on evidence - I wonder if a "Reception" section is trying to get out ...


 * That sounds like a decent summary. I agree with your take on the problems with the article. Let's wait 24 hours or so for other comments and then start revising the article. I am confident this could get back its good status with a few nips and tucks as you outline. --John (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great to have you on board John, though I do worry about too many changes too quickly - give it at least a week of discussion before making significant changes.
 * It would be good to go through the body and then the lead as Alex says, though there are the outstanding aspects in the lead that are still farcical - ie the quackery slur, which is inflammatory and has no place in the lead, as has been said by all non devout skeptic eds here.
 * Beyond that, I suggest tackling a section at a time with the aim of describing homeopathy and not pedantically criticising itas is current. Criticism of course has its place, but currently its repetitive and reads like an adolescent rant - just calling it how it is chaps. Maybe first we could we think on how the criticisms will be placed? Also, the quality of references needs to be clarified and cleaned up - eg James Randi isn't qualified any more than Fred Flintstone, and if we are using eg Quackwatch on such hot potatoes as validity of homeopathy, then surely Alt Med Journals qualify too. Better to do this by picking a couple of sections to work on, baby steps :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to turn this into another section on quackery and homeopathy's efficacy. Keep that in the sections above, please. I also don't see any need to wait a week before making changes. If John has specific changes in mind to try out, he should go for it, and we can discuss after if there are any problems.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No one said we need to discuss quackery issues here Jess... Quackbusters, Randi and Alt Med Journals, yes, we most definitely do. As for edits, okay thats fine, though if too many happen too quickly, it could get messy, thats mainly where I was coming from. Cjwilky (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quackery label
Let's get this sorted out. Here are a couple of sources to consider for a "homeopathy is (regarded as) quackery" type statement: I think out of this there should be enough to support some kind of statement about quackery ... Alexbrn talk 11:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A long-form letter in a peer reviewed journal stating "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham".
 * The source it uses: a news item in The Guardian. A doctor rather memorably describes homeopathy as "nonsense on stilts". (well, Wikipedia does aspire to "brilliant writing" - though I'm not sure we could easily get consensus to use this). The article describes some motions in the BMA opposing homeopathy.
 * Relatedly, a piece in The Telegraph reporting the BMA motions passed and quoted a spokesman as saying "Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: 'Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace ...'".


 * Plus the ones I provided in the section above, and I think there were some in the archives too. It seems inappropriate not to mention the connection in some sense given the sources. I don't know what, exact, wording we should use. I was okay with "the medical community considers..." until it was brought up that there may be confusion over whether alt med is a part of the medical community. I think "scientific community" solves that problem, but we can certainly discuss that in more detail. I considered changing it to "the AMA considers...", which is strongly and explicitly sourced many places. I'd be ok with that, but if indeed the whole mainstream medical community, or scientific community, or some larger body considers homeopathy to be quackery, then diluting the sentence to just "the AMA" would be less accurate. Thoughts?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alex, I moved my and your comment (originally two sections up) to this new section, so it would be seen by more people and not polluted by the off-topic ramblings in that section. I'm hoping this will help the discussion and prevent it from getting lost.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mann_jess. Let's hope this is the last section we'll need - for now ;-) Alexbrn talk 12:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Before we go off on a somewhat misleading sources argument (again), let me state the following to frame the discussion accurately. There is no doubt that some (academic) sources describe homeopathy as quackery or sham. But there are also plenty of academic sources simply describing that homeopathy fails to produce any scientific evidence to support it and that it's explanatory framework makes no sense from scientific perspective. Now a good encyclopedic article is not written by simply picking the most extreme statements (supporting a personal POV) out there and compile them into an article, nevermind the lead. A good article strives first for a summary of the best sources in a neutral fashion without inflammatory language, that holds in particular for the lead. Now if some editors feel that some "inflammatory descriptions" are so common that the article should mention them, then that can be dealt with in separate section outside the lead. Personally I still fail to see the need for that as giving a (sourced) description along the line "homeopathy fails to produce any scientific evidence to support it and that it's explanatory framework makes no sense from scientific perspective" seems perfectly sufficient. Now I already suggested that people look up homeopathy in other reputable encyclopedias or medical reference works to get a feeling what such what a typical lead may look like and how they usually avoid the use of any inflammatory terms (see for instance homeopathy in principles of ambulatory medicine, homeopathy in The Skeptic's Dictionary, Britannica lead for homeopathy).

Finally an (imperfect) analogy to think about. Would use the term "quackery" or "sham" in the lead of an encyclopedic on a religious belief system (such as christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism, ..) or in the lead for some (economic) philosophy just because you can find some reputable academic sources calling them that (correctly so from their perspective)? Can you imagine any encyclopedia doing that or finding a consensus for such an approach? Probably not!

It is really important to keep in mind that we are trying to write an encyclopedic article. While it is perfectly fine to use some "frank" (and possibly inflammatory or polemic) language in a(n academic) journal or newspaper article to get a point across, it is usually not perfectly fine for an encyclopedic article, as they differ somewhat in goal and style. They're goal is not to get a particular point across, but to provide a summary in a neutral non-inflammatory tone.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kmhkmh. I think it may help to rephrase your first point: "There is no doubt that some (academic) sources describe homeopathy as quackery or sham But and there are also plenty of academic sources simply describing that homeopathy fails to produce any scientific evidence to support it and that it's explanatory framework makes no sense from scientific perspective." That the second type of sources exist does not somehow invalidate the first type; they are complimentary. Your proposed wording (beginning with "homeopathy fails to produce any scientific evidence...") is not synonymous with "quackery", and that's the problem here. When our sources say that homeopathy is quackery, they are saying something distinct from what our article describes elsewhere. The quackery label is pretty well sourced, indicating that the message is important to document, as it is prevalent in the literature. We are not using inflammatory language to discredit the subject, or indicating there is no dispute within CAM and the general populace (such as "Homeopathy is quackery"). We are documenting how homeopathy is viewed within the scientific and mainstream medical communities ("the scientific community considers..."). Choosing not to document that because a reader may be offended by the language would do our article a disservice. As a final note, we don't simply have a few sources which incidentally call Homeopathy quackery. We have sources which explicitly and repeatedly state that it is viewed that way within the relevant communities. See The Oxford Companion to United States History and The Encyclopedia of New York State, for just two examples of encyclopedic handling of the topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that second sources (without using quackery) contradict the first sources (using) quackery. But they do show that many (most?) reputable sources don't feel the need to use the term quackery. That's why i'm certainly not rephrasing that at all. And for documenting how the medical (scientific) community sees homeopathy you'd to weigh and summarize all sources without giving preference to most extreme ones and certainly not in the lead. As I said above already I personally still see no need for that term, but if editors feel strongly about it could be mention in a separate section but not in the lead (for reasons stated above already).


 * Also I'm personally I'm convinced that the scientific community sees at as a quackery/sham (a part of it based your sources certainly does), but the rest may see it as being without evidence and making little sense from the scientific perspective. Another problem with the terms like sham or quackery in particular in a single line like in the current lead that it doesn't provide inside at all, because it doesn't explain or provide inside what the alleged or real sham is. Who is committing the sham? The physician prescribing it? The pharmacist selling it? Even if they do that just for the placebo effect? Even if they state that there is no scientific evidence? In the single form at best they summarize an opinion of a certain group or individual as such, which is not the scientific community but just the author of the cited sources. This is btw. another reason to keep it out of the lead and cover it with more detail in separate section, that would provide some real inside and doing readers a real service.


 * As far as your 2 encyclopedias are concerned (New York State, History of the United States) from my perspective the Britannica clearly trumps them as far as reputation and probably expertise on that subject is concerned. So do the more specialized reference works I cited above (the skeptic Dictionary and the medical one).--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you missed part of my point. The two types of sources are not in conflict and not synonymous. If we had a source which said "Obama is a democrat" and another, "Obama supports universal health care", we cannot substitute the former with the latter just to avoid certain language. "Democrat" does not mean "supports universal health care"; "Quackery" does not mean your suggested wording. I get what you're saying, but the effect of your suggestion is to remove content on the basis of toning down our language. I don't agree with that. I'm not opposed to putting better context in the article body. I don't know how I feel about removing it from the lead. I'm supportive of better consolidating the various text we have in the article (including the lead) on the subject of scientific acceptance, efficacy, etc. That would help with expansion of important ideas without being repetitive or overly verbose.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss your point, I just don't share it this context and the Obama example doesn't really apply here. Obama doesn't stand for the "liberal community" but just one voice or group on it. While you may claim Obama supports health care, claiming that all liberals/the liberal community support universal health care is different thing. The point is, that it is rather safe to say that scientific community agrees on "my description" (as essentially the quackery and the non-quackery sources state agree on that). The quackery claim however is more extreme and not supported by all scientific sources but just by some. It is a matter of giving a description the scientific community universally shares and not just some of its members.
 * As far as the lead is concerned - yes I'm essentially arguing for toning it down the language because imho that is a characteristic of a good encyclopedic lead (rather than a polemic). As I said I looked at the subject in various other encyclopedias (in German and English) and they usually refrain from using sham/quackery (or German analogons). On that note the German wikipedia article (having a good article status) does fine without that as well. Ultimately it probably comes down to editorial discretion and there is no hard rule allowing to classify either version to "right" or "wrong". However for the reasons stated in various posts above, I strongly advise to have the quackery line not in the lead but possibly in more detail in later section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're at an impasse; it doesn't seem you've understood what I've said. I can take you at your word that you have, but I can't respond meaningfully if your response is focused on an apparent misreading of mine. My whole point was that "Democrat" and "universal health care" are not the same, in the same way that "quackery" is not the same as your proposal. That's why I used the analogy. I haven't seen a source using your proposal as a definition, and reviewing Quackery doesn't convince me it's common. You seem to recognize the difference, yourself, when you say "the quackery claim is more extreme"; it can't be more extreme if it's the same. Anyway, I don't feel I can explain this better than I already have, so I'm going to retire for now and allow other users to comment if they'd like. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are not the same, I never suggested that, but once again one is more "extreme" and implies the other. Quackery/sham sort of implies that there is no evidence (otherwise it would be no sham. So we have (different) claims A and B stated by members of the "scientific community" with A implying B. Hence we know that all those cited members do agree on B, but we do not know whether all those members agree on A (we just know they don't seem to contradict A explicitly). Hence B is much safer pick for the "scientific community" opinion (see also the general problem of equating opinions of individual members with the community in general). Does that make it clearer?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If something's significant in the body it should be in the lead, and WP:LEAD explicitly recommends to "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies". The quackery aspect of homeopathy is notable, since it recurs in multiple good sources. We shouldn't be "toning down" (or toning up) anything, but neutrally presenting what the sources say. I agree with Jess: if some sources say elephants have trunks, and others that they have tails, neither set invalidates the other. That in essence seems to be kind of argument being used against presenting the quackery/sham nature of homeopathy. Alexbrn talk 03:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, which changed "quackery" to "sham"... I'm not immediately sure how I feel about 'sham'. I think it's a little more ambiguous (which we should strive to avoid), and I think the link to quackery adds something to the article that we're missing with the switch. I'm open to being convinced (I haven't yet heard an argument made for "sham" over "quackery", so that surely colors my opinion). Is "sham" better supported in the sources? That might matter. Or is there something else we're trying to accomplish with the change?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have a source for "sham" (search the text for "sham" and you'll find it lower down). Not to say we can't add "quackery" too. Can't we use Quackwatch for that? (Quackwatch is established RS on the subject of quackery). My chief concern is merely that what there is, is supported by sources. Alexbrn talk 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The source we have for sham is very explicit. I do like that. I just think "quackery" adds something else, and I like the Oxford press sources. I guess it's mostly personal preference. I put "quackery and a sham" in the article, per your suggestion to do both. If you think that's too much emphasis, or whatever, feel free to revert me, or switch it back to just "sham". Thanks :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I like it. I think we now "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies" as WP:LEAD puts it. Alexbrn talk 06:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the lede statement, "Within the scientific community homeopathy is considered to be quackery...", those who haven't already should read WP:RS/AC. If you believe the article should say this in the lead, the very first step toward that is bringing to this talk page a strong source - a position statement from one or more major scientific institutions saying expressly that "the scientific community" views homeopathy as quackery. If there is no such source, perhaps you can find one that says this or that scientific or medical organisation declares it to be quackery, and change your statement to reflect that. "Be" is important. Present tense. Every doctor knows where the profession stands with regard to CAM, and neither the medical profession nor the scientific community has a monolithic view, sadly. Pretending they do makes this encyclopedia look like a joke. I see you've now added Randi to support this assertion. Can you please post the page number and the exact words from Randi that you believe support this view? Randi does not speak for the medical profession but,depending on the sources he cites, and the rigor of his review of the medical and scientific communities' views on homeopathy - that is, provided it isn't just him spouting an opinion - his encyclopedia may be a reliable source for this claim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The language is ambiguous: it could mean just a few in the scientific community think it's quackery, but is more likely to be read as reflecting a universal consensus.
 * There is no universal consensus like that in the scientific or medical communities.
 * Wahlberg (cited) says nothing like the medical community (it does not even discuss the scientific community) currently views homeopathy as quackery.
 * None of the above sources claimed to support this assertion do. They are either too weak to do so or simply do not make the claim.
 * Hmm, reviewing the quackery sources again I am inclined to agree; none of them really nail the quackery claim. This has been the problem all along, and I think if we don't resolve it this will run and run. For the meantime, I have changed this to source to Quackwatch and this can act as a placeholder until we find a watertight statement of what "a community" holds w.r.t. quackery. Which I doubt we will. Alexbrn talk 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are clear, but yes, I wouldn't say they "nail" the "scientific community considers..." claim. I mentioned that above, and said I'd be happy to discuss changing the wording for that reason. I had considered "the AMA considers..." instead. I do think that is pretty well "nailed" by the Oxford source. I prefer that wording to the "ultimate fake" wording from quackwatch; I like the quackwatch cite, but I don't think "ultimate fake" adds much new to our article. Any thoughts on that? I made that provisional change to Alex's wording - feel free to adjust as is appropriate, and let me know if you have other ideas.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me, though if I were playing advocatus diaboli I might ask whether the AMA's view as described is up-to-date enough ... Alexbrn talk 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about Nobel laureates, as reported by the Sunday Times: "Although fellow Nobel prize winners — who view homeopathy as quackery — were left openly shaking their heads..." I assume that's reporting some sort of consensus.  Brunton (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we are talking advocatus diaboli, for those who have access to highbeam: New evidence for homeopathy. (I could email a private copy to anybody interested without access). And for those who like Oxford University Press sources, here is a Cambridge University Press source with a totally different assessment of homeopathy: Cambridge Textbook of Effective Treatments in Psychiatry, S. 242-245''.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Highbeam, but is the text the same as this? Brunton (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first piece from 2008 is in Drug Week: categorized by HighBeam as a non peer-reviewed newspaper. What is it in the CUP book that you think is worthing looking at? Alexbrn talk 12:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the point of the highbeam thing is not the Drug Week publications itself, which is not a good obviously is not a good source, but the Lancet publications it cites. As far as the book is concerned, see the paragraph "Does homeopathy work?", which more or less implies it does (according to the authors assessment of available scientific sources). However that was just my "advocatus diaboli" comment. Nevertheless it might be considered as evidence that the opinions of the scientific community might be crudely described or visualized on a line/axis similar to a left/rght scheme the following way:
 * ---seeing evidence/undecided-seeing no valid evidence/no acceptable explanationseeing it as sham/quackery
 * My gut feeling and the impression of the sources I personally sampled is that the group in the middle is the largest followed by the group on the right and the group on the left being much smaller. Nevertheless in that picture it seems rather questionable to pick the one on the right and describe it as the universal or overwhelming opinion of the scientific community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not getting it: the Lancet article concluded "homeopathic medicines are just placebo". The Drug Week piece ("prepared by Drug Week editors from staff and other reports") doesn't give anything solid to contradict that. The CUP book might more or less imply something (though calling homeopathy an "evidence free zone" is hardly encouraging), but only quotes an analysis which is now 15 years old.

As to your gut feeling: I don't think you're right in viewing everything in terms of a "spectrum of hostility" towards homeopathy. Those researchers just plugging away studying data quite probably just aren't on this spectrum at all. However it seems clear to me, from the sources, that when reputable professionals and scholars consider the question of quackery in relation to homeopathy, all their conclusions are clustered quite tightly together as being overwhelmingly negative. Or can you produce a good source that considers these questions and positively affirms that homeopathy is ''not' quackery? Alexbrn talk 13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It says something positive. for homeopathy --Motorola12 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry as far as the Lancet is concerned - it was not the Lancet publication itself but papers published in reaction to it, unfortunately the drug week article only offers its own summary of those publications without citing them explicitly (when i first browsed that i wrongly assumed those reactions were published in the Lancet as well, which however doesn't seem to be the case).
 * As far as the quackery/sham is concerned, again the scientific community view is overly negative in the sense of not accepting it as a valid theory, but that is different from the value judgment quackery/sham which implies more than just being scientifically invalid. If you want to describe that more as the general opinion of the scientific community, it is you that needs to provide sufficient sourcing for that (see also Anthonyhcole's comments above) not for me to provide sources for the opposite claim. I don't intend argue "for" homeopathy, my concern is with imho unnecessary inflammatory/polemic terms and that I simply don't see the sources adding up to justify them as the universal scientific community opinion/assessment. If you want the article to state, that scientific community views overwhelmingly negative that's fine with me. But again that is something different from the term sham/quackery.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did pay attention to Anthonyhcole's reasonable comments and edited the article in response. However, as to quackery, I think we all here agree that homeopathy is (to quote the CUP book you mentioned again) at least "an evidence free zone". So then to offer (and especially, charge for) healthcare based on this is, logically, quackery, fraud, or unethical behaviour&mdash;that is a least what the sources say, so that is what WP relays. I'm not seeing a problem. Alexbrn talk 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we probably all agree that homeopathy is to the very least a "an evidence free zone". I'd also agree to mentioning the quackery/sham assessment being mentioned (attributed to individual sources as in "Author X/organizations Y describes it as sham/quackery"), probably not as single line but in greater detail in some section on the article. What I (and I guess some others as well) disagree with is describing quackery/sham as the the opinion of the "scientific community" or "medical community" and possibly having that line in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S.: To avoid confusion my comments refer primarily to the version of the article before I got involved in the discussion. I didn't not follow the various edits and reverts that happened in the mean time, which partially address te issue, but which imho would be better oerformed after the discussion reaches a conclusion here (assuming that possible in timely fashion) because otherwise the article is moving target and it becomes increasingly confusing who is refering to what (article) version exactly. As far as the current quackery statement is concerned, that's definitely an improvement since as the scientific/medical community issue is resolved by a correct attribution. Whether this line need to be in the lead however is still an open question (and ultimately editorial) discretion, personally I'd rather not see it there. Another problem is now the newly(?) added sentence, which seem to fall the same trap as the old quackery line. At least that line could be understood as an assessment of the medical community as such (rather the opinion of an individual source), which read that way is simply a false statement.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, progress. So we agree quackery is an apt description that WP should report (it is in the body already), and so it seems the tiny disagreements that are left are:
 * 1) Should the content also appear - in summary form - in the lead? (my take: yes, per WP:LEAD "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies")
 * 2) Should the description be in-text attributed? (my take: not in the lead, as the lead is a summary; possibly in the body ... though with the WP:OVERCITE I see there, this might be stylistically tricky) Alexbrn talk 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes some progress, but please see my post scriptum above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is a good thing that the article is becoming so bad that nobody would take it seriously. James Randi is considered a medical source? Ot a history book characterizing homeopathy quackery in 18something ?Or a letter to the editor - an opinion piece is regarded as the truth or consensus - maybe among the very active group against alternative medicine but not according to neutral point of view in wikipedia - I mean if anyone cares about it .  --Motorola12 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the lead now looks worse than ever with the desperate duck editing. And I'm not sure how "sham" can be seen as anything but inflammatory. Cjwilky (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sham" is solidly sourced & neutral. Who's inflamed? Nobody. And even if they were, it is not WP's job to steer reaction, it is WP's job to relay what the quality sources say. Alexbrn talk 18:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an acceptable source for wiki standards - it is an opinion piece - letter to the editor and James Rtandi? Is this an appropriate medical source to use to reflect consensus in the medial community ? All these MDs who practice homeopathy in Europe ( which is regulated ) are quacks?   co  How about all the article in medical sources which conflict with the current view in the article? --Motorola12 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Opinion piece"?! You need to read AACI's policies to appreciate that a "letter to the editor" in it is a substantial piece of peer-reviewed work (as should be obvious from reading the piece, which is meatier than many a conventional article). Dunno about Randi - what is the quotation in the source that supports the assertion in the text? Alexbrn talk 18:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going also to include this? as well Here it says something completely different.--Motorola12 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - we have high quality systematic reviews evaluating the evidence base and concluding that homeopathy is at best placebo, at worst actively harmful. We don't undermine that with individual studies (especially not ones that are 10 years old). Alexbrn talk 19:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are also meta analyses not individual studies and as I said before other high quality reviews states that which is different from what the article represents as a consensus? Which is your reason for not including this info in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The diarrhea paper you have just cited is not a general meta-analysis, but an analysis of three studies by the same team. I've already cited a later, larger study, also by the same team, which came to a negative conclusion.  And I've already explained, in detail, why the Annals of Internal Medicine paper is not used here.  See in the thread above titled "Misconception of neutral point view and homeopathy article - Suggestion for improvement".  Please stop bringing this up if you have no better arguments for including it.  Brunton (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex, the "sham" ref is from a law academic and a science policy group member putting their spin on a news article. The article they cite for that, doesn't use the word sham. However a member of the BMA's junior doctors' committee, who clearly has an attitude problem, call's hom nonsense on stilts. It seems you then extrapolate that to mean "The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham". That is nonsense on stilts, don't you think? Cjwilky (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source is fairly clear. "What did we find? A list of largely scientifically unsupportable treatments and services [See Table 1]. In Alberta, for example, homeopathy was the most common treatment advertised on the websites (94% of websites note this treatment) and the third most common in BC (79%). Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham" (bolding is mine).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source is fairly clear and falsely attributed and frankly it is a rerun of the quackery claim by medical or scientific community. A correct description and attribution would be something like: "According Timothy Caulfield and Christen Rachul the scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham". Note that this is rather different from simply claiming "The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham" (for a highly controversial topic). The first version is sufficiently supported by the source, the second is arguably not. Note that is problem now crept up for the third or even fourth time within the last 2 days alone (medical community/scientific community & quackery, medical community & unethical, scientific community & sham).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Jess, well, even that isn't what this article says. Please read what i wrote, that citation is interpretation and exaggeration. i know wiki likes secondary sources but you know as well as i do that to use this cited article is a mockery of wiki. We may as well as well cite magicians and fakers... cough. Cjwilky (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cj, I prefer to go by what the quality sources say exclusively, and so I am finding it increasingly difficult to respond when you immediately reject any sources with which you disagree. If you have a substantial objection to the source (not that the author's old profession is one you find distasteful), or ideally have a new source to discuss, then I'd be happy to. Until then, I'm going to leave our discussion at that.


 * @Kmhkmh, further attribution would be entirely appropriate if the view was in the minority (particularly a large minority). However, I think our sourcing is clear that it is not. Per WP:YESPOV, we should avoid stating uncontested facts as the opinions of one author. This discussion has been going on for some time now, and more sources keep coming in that support this content to some degree. On the other hand, no quality secondary sources have been furnished which represent it as anything less than the significant majority opinion within the mainstream scientific community. It seems to me that we would be contravening the first section of WP:NPOV by attributing a clear statement about the scientific community to only 2 authors in just one paper. That said, if we had a quality citation which said there was serious controversy within the scientific community, or something similar, then it might change the weight, and we could consider new wording. Until then, I think we should reflect the best sources we have without ambiguity.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you claim after the discussion of the last days (nvm earlier ones in the archives and arbitration) this to be an "uncontested fact" and consider that "proper sourcing" then from my perspective a rational discussion is not possible anymore. I'm not on a mission to fix this article to appropriate standard and looking at the past discussion (archives and arbitration) this rather unlikely to happen anyway. If people insist on POV being more important, so be it. My time is spent more productively elsewhere then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Uncontested fact" within the relevant scientific communities, not uncontested fact in the opinion of wikipedia editors. I do not see significant research, reviews, papers, statements within the mainstream scientific community which hold that Homeopathy is effective in any capacity. We have lots of sources saying it is not and speaking very harshly of it. We also have sources which call it quackery and a sham. We have other sources saying it is dangerous and unethical to prescribe. We do not have sources which say there is a controversy, or that it is not a sham, or that it is effective or worthy of practice. Therefore, it seems to be an uncontested view within the mainstream scientific community, just as our sources explicitly say, and representing that view as only being held by one author would violate WP:YESPOV.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the term psuedo-science. It's considered less pejorative. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jess, you just ignored what i said. The sham source is not valid, it refers from that wordage to a souce that doesn't use it. Its merely one academics POV. How does it extend to "The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham"? How does that warrant being in the lead? Cjwilky (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't ignore it. We have a high quality source which says explicitly that the scientific community sees homeopathy a certain way. That the sources used by that source don't also say it is a red herring.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I hope I have assisted here in taking the elements likely to be seen as more 'polemic' into a section entitled 'Scientific and public opposition'. The referencing of sham and quackery claims looks adequate to me, but they came across as too overtly one-sided to be in the lead/intro section.  The lead now looks more neutral and 'encyclopedic' to my mind, but still entirely clear as to homeopathy's implausibility and lack of evidenced efficacy.  If I've been too 'bold' or missed something vital, please discuss. John Snow II (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see the efforts of John Snow bulldozed by the skeptics.
 * Jess, we could take another source that describes it another way. Just because you find one source that fits your POV doesn't give it cred for the lead, or even for inclusion. Surely the deal here is to look towards the lower common denominators within quality refs, and sham and quackery are not words in that, as you have shown. For sure they fall off the pages of the POV quackwatch missions etc. If you choose to leave it as it is, then I assume you approve of the inclusion of other one off citations? Cjwilky (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a "one off citation", as I've shown repeatedly. Framing this as "John vs the skeptics" is poisoning the well. You've outright rejected the notion that any source would be sufficient for you, and based on our history here over the last few days, I don't see any way we can collaborate productively. If you think consensus is wrong on this issue, then you should seek dispute resolution for outside input, or start an RfC.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is individualized homeopathy?
In the discussion above, and mentioned briefly in the text, there is the claim that "individualized" homeopathy works better. But the article doesn't explain what that is, how it works, or how it is tested. This is a deficiency that one of the experts here should fix.

The focus of my interest: is it conceivable that individualized homeopathy has been found to be effective because the therapist is able to mix in a composition which is actually not totally inert placebo (in other words, something like Zicam) and this is either not noticed by the researchers or not declared at all, i.e. a sort of "illicit" herbal or medical therapy? Wnt (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Individualized" homoeopathy involves the homoeopath having a long (often aroung 45 minute) consultation with the patient, during which they will talk not only about the particular symptoms that the patient wants resolved but other aspects of their health, personality, etc. They will then prescribe a remedy that is supposedly tailored to all aspects of the patient, not just the particular disease they present with, so that two patients with the same disease may be given different remedies (or at least remedies with different names; it's a bit like the Nutrimatic Drinks Dispenser, which "makes an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism, and then sends tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centres of the subject's brain to see what is likely to be well received. However, no-one knows quite why it does this because it then invariably delivers a cupful of liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea").  It doesn't involve substituting non-homeopathic medicines.
 * Individualized homoeopathy can be tested using a double blind protocol (although proponents of homoeopathy often claim it can't), simply by allowing a homoeopath to go through their usual routine and, for the control group, sustituting a placebo sugar pill for the prescribed sugar pill. As I mentioned above, the only systematic review of trials of this type of homoeopathy so far published found that the results were no better than for non-individualized homoeopathy.
 * At least one study has found that the benefits of individualized homoeopathy are attributable to the consultation and not the the remedy, and it is often suggested that the long consultation may make individualized homoeopathy a particularly effective placebo. However, a review looking at this found that "placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine."  Brunton (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Brunton is almsot correct : the entire conclusion of the study was : The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.


 * Later meta analyses in specific conditions arrived in different results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorola12 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the results: "individualized homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo (pooled rate ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.23), but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen." As I said, no better than is seen in reviews that include non-individualized homoeopathy, and the fact that the best quality trials showed no significant effect strongly suggests that the apparent efficacy is the result of bias.  A small meta-analysis (not a systematic review) of three studies by the same team doesn't change this.  Brunton (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the same team but anyhow. That;s why I saId you almost right. I dont know if it changes or not. Some people (not me)  would say that It is a old study - . I cannot really judge it myself. I don't do research in homeopathy.  There is also another point of view. http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/another-point-of-view-for-the-homeopathic-trials-and-meta-analyses/ by  homeopaths. This is also interesting to read even if we disagree with the conclusions. --Motorola12 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is the same team: they specifically refer to the studies as "our previous three studies" (see page 230). But we're off-topic for this thread, which was started by Wnt to ask about how individualized homeopathy is defined.  Please try to avoid bringing up the same papers and issues in every thread.  Brunton (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You say "substitute a placebo sugar pill for the prescribed sugar pill", but is there a prescribed sugar pill in that instance, or many, many different ones? I should point out also that the homeopathic pills might not be sugar; they might contain magnesium or even more potent "inert" ingredients.  (For example, there was a hilarious experimental outcome with sevelamer hydrochloride for pseudoxanthoma elasticum in which the magnesium in the placebo was more effective than the carefully selected drug for human trials in the experimental pill! ) Wnt (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Magnesium? I highly doubt there's a pharmacopoeia that allows magnesium as inert ingredient (magnesium will react with the stomach's hydrochloric acid).--Six words (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There will generally be a single remedy prescribed for each patient - individualised (or "classical") homoeopathy avoids what it terms "polypharmacy". At a later consultation the homoeopath will reasses the patient, and generally prescribe another remedy if the patient's condition has not changed.  When the patient's condition improves (or worsens, which is termed an "aggravation"), the homoeopath will deduce that they have found the correct remedy.  And the pills are inert, usually lactose or lactose/sucrose pills.  Liquid remedies are usually made up using a water/alcohol mixture as the solvent.  Brunton (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the article includes a photo with caption "Old bottle of Hepar sulph made from calcium sulfide", so I thought magnesium seemed plausible (and couldn't resist mentioning that PXE study). Is calcium sulfide not representative? Wnt (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The calcium sulphide is the supposed active ingredient (i.e. the solute in the original preparation from which the remedy was made) rather than what the pills are made from. Possibly the caption needs clarification.  Brunton (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Individualised homeopathy isn't usually described as it is the normal way of homeopathy, as Hahnemann used. Even for treating an acute, where the emphasis is on the specific ailment, there can be hundreds of remedies for that same ailment depending on the individual characteristcs, modalities and illness progression, as well as associated factors such as mental/emotional symptoms. An acute consultation may take ten mins or an hour, a chronic consultation is anything up to two hours. Off the shelf homeopathy is common today, where there is choice of about 1 to 10 remedies for that ailment with the symptoms summarised in the guides or self help books to help in differentiation. In this latter style, low potencies ie up to 30c, are used as they are more effective for low grade ailments and accuracy of choice is less acute. Individualised homeopathy can be tested, but the method Brunton describes would be wasteful in effort and numbers which is why its rejected. Cjwilky (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pharmacopoeias?
Above someone mentioned that these exist. The article should explain what they are and who follows them. Specifically, is the case of Zicam evidence that these allow for genuinely active preparations, or not? (Does it use some very specialized loophole, or could you sell a 1X atropine or whatever?) I found a website at  and some description at  but again, I think an expert here could be much more effective in explaining the situation in the article. Wnt (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The United States homoeopathic pharmacopoeia has a special status as a result of its inclusion in the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. There is a mention of this in the relevant section of the "Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy" article.  Homoeopathic preparations appear to be included in the general European Pharmacopoeia.  There are other homoeopathic pharmacopoeias in use; this Cochrane review refers to "officially recognised homeopathic pharmacopoeias" and "the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia", and there is also, for example, a British Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, produced by the British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers.  Brunton (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in a pharmacopoeia is not evidence of efficacy or safety, if that's what you're getting at. A legitimate pharmacopoeia (USP, EP, JP, etc) sets standards for purity and analytical testing of drug substances and products.  Homeopathic pharmacopoeias are more of a cargo cult phenomenon.  Skinwalker (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me toward the other article. I would love more explanation of "Many homeopathic drugs can be sold "over-the-counter"; however, some are classified as prescription-only under all circumstances, and some are classified as prescription-only in various low dilutions."  I can imagine no more effective way to expose the prescription racket in the U.S. in general than to come up with an act of civil disobedience that involves felony distribution of water without a license!  Is that really true? Wnt (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How much goodies per pill?
A site ( http://www.ritecare.com/cgi-bin/cart.pl?db=Boiron_OTC_all_db.dat&category=homeopathic&method=phrase&search=Aconitum+Ferox ) advertises " Boiron Aconitum Ferox Multi-Dose (3x - 30x) - Boiron Homeopathic Single Remedy OTC Medicine: Multi-Dose (80 granules) 16 Doses" As I understand it the 3x (available for $6) is a 1:1000 dilution. But that's water and these are pills/granules. Can you explain how to calculate how much aconite would a person actually consume per pill if it were made up the theoretical way? (My fear is blunted in that I confess I have some skepticism as to whether any Monk's Hood has ever been sighted in homeopathy factories, but admittedly I am ignorant of the subject. Also, I recognize that even 1:1000 is a pretty weak formulation by historic standards of use of the herb) Wnt (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as much as you might think, perhaps. I'm not sure whether this applies to Boiron's manufacturing processes, but see the comment posted by User:Cjwilky, who I understand is a practising homoeopath, in the "AE" thread above on 18th December 2012: "The usual method from there is to put one drop of it into a bottle of pills. Eg I use about 300 pills per bottle, some may use as low as 50 ... the actual remedy is rarely reflective of the dilution. Hence why potencies of remedies is the correct term, not dilutions. A 1x potency is likely to be dilute by between 500 to 5000, not 10."  So if I undestand Cjwilky correctly, on that basis a 3X preparation would involve a dilution of between 1:50,000 and 1:500,000, and one drop of that is shared between 50-300 pills.  And remember that the "mother tincture" (i.e. the initial material from which the dilutions are prepared) for a plant remedy is not going to be 100% plant material, but typically a tincture made by extraction of the plant material in an alcohol/water mixture.  I don't think I've seen a RS that states all this explicitly though.
 * As far as I can tell, it is the number of times the remedy has gone through the dilution/succussion process that is important, not the actual amount of substance present. Brunton (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. The way I parse that is a little different - that the nominal dilution is delivered as one drop per 50-300 pills or 50-500 (I presume) liquid drops, so that each pill or drop delivers I would suppose 0.1 to 1 microliters of nominal solution (though the drop size isn't defined and I shouldn't assume it is what I'd think), so that the composition of one 3X pill would be expected (assuming perfect mixing, which I highly doubt from this description) about the contents of 0.1 to 1 nanoliters of aconite extract.  But a RS would be very much necessary, to see for example how much leeway someone intending to deliver drug, like Zicam, would have to not do that final step of dilution - or, alternatively, how much wiggle room a homeopath company would have should someone run a test and not find even the smallest trace of aconite in a product it sells. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

UK Chief Medical Officer's criticisms
The content/source is fine, but I'm not sure it belongs in the lead. It certainly must not be there in detail while not included in the body. (I have performed a revert to this effect). Alexbrn talk 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note I didn't put the content in the lead I only suggested it should be there in my edit summary. I just gave it a separate paragraph as it seemed as though it was being deliberately tucked away in an obscure section of the article.Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry - textual snow-blindness struck. I think it's fine where it is :-) Alexbrn talk 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be in the same paragraph with "pseudoscience and quackery" though, rather than starting a new paragraph. The paragraph itself is summarised in the lead (although there is an ongoing debate as to whether it is appropriately summarised there).  Brunton (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

'Quackery' in lead'
Shivang Tyagi (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) on 8th Dec 2012 i Tried To Remove The Line Stating Homeopathy As Quackery For All Those Favouring It : Its Accepted Form Of Alternate Medication In Many Countries Including India. Plese Go Through These Articles First.. We Should Not State Something As Quackery Without Knowing Its Basics. Some Articles May Help Gaining Some Positive Attitude :
 * understand-the-molecular-processes-involved-in-potentization
 * homeopathic-potentization
 * how-homeopathy-works
 * 'Molecular Imprints' Vs 'Bio-magnetic' - John Benneth Debates With Chandran Nambiar K C Over Sicence Of Homeopathy


 * Please read Identifying reliable sources, and in particular, Identifying reliable sources (medicine). We will not accept a website run by a homoeopathic practitioner (e.g. as a source such as dialecticalhomeopathy.com) for anything except the practitioner's own opinions - if they are of any note, for which there seems to be no real evidence. That homaeopaths claim not to be promoting quackery is hardly surprising. And we are well aware that in some countries, homoeopathy is promoted as 'alternative medicine' - our article says so. This does not change the fact that it is widely seen as based on unscientific and disproven premises by the medical community, and generally considered by this community to be quackery. This issue has been raised before here by supporters of homoeopathy, as a look through the archives will reveal, and it is quite evident that the article lede complies with Wikipedia policies, is properly sourced, and states the facts, as provided by the sources we recognise as valid. A few links to a random homaeopath's website aren't going to change this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * An Exerpt From Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Clearly says that studies of experts in relevant fields should be considered. we can provide his reference in the article if it provides any direction to the article.

"Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline."


 * "generally considered by this community to be quackery" general considerations vary from person to person and isnt a authentic measure to considered to keep a point in front on large masses. here we have a study in above mentioned articles. would soon be providing you with more in-depth studies . I AGAIN Request to go through the articles from a neutral set of mind.

Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy, and we know most editors on here consider it quackery. However, the article says "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." There is one source for this, but I wonder where in that source that is said? Anyone have access to it? Having discussed this particular point with several random medics, they all raised eyebrows and said they had heard that term used rarely. Some said it was used in more extreme criticisms. There is nothing in the world I have come across that supports this claim. I'd like to see evidence for this claim. Cjwilky (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy"? Cjwilky, you are well aware of WP:FRINGE (and WP:OR concerning your 'medics') - please take your soupbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The point here is re: "generally" and "quackery"... can you back that up? Cjwilky (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider reading this study : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potprobl.htm
 * with references of this article mentioned here : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potref.htm Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. We are not the slightest bit interested in such 'studies' - only material conforming to Identifying reliable sources (medicine) can be used here - this is not open to negotiation, it is Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See the answer to Q11 above. Yes, it's quackery. No, we don't says so in the voice of the encyclopedia. Yes, we do report that others say so. LeadSongDog come howl!  23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wahlberg ref was previously used to illustrate the last part of "The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery". I see BenKovitz changed the wording to its current version. Was this discussed? Where does the Wahlberg ref cite that homeopathy is generally considered quackery within the medical community? Cjwilky (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Q11 Above As Mentioned Demands Reliable Authentic Proof To Say It As Fraud/Quackery. Just On The Basis Of Ones Own Perception You Cant Claim The Whole Millions Of Homeopathic Doctors And The Branch As Of Quacks Without Actually Prooving Them So. You Need To Have Something To Either Proove It Wrong Or Withdrawing Such Words From Encyclopedia Used Without Neutral Consensus. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you actually bothered to read the article? Anyway, we don't have to prove anything, beyond what we say in the article - that reliable sources state that homoeopathy has not been proven to do anything whatsoever, that its supposed mechanism is incompatible with even elementary science, and that it is widely seen as pseudoscientific hokum by the medical community. And I've no idea where you get the idea that Wikipedia decides content according to any sort of 'consensus' of the opinions of contributors. It doesn't - it represents the sources. If you wish to promote homoeopathy, you will need to find somewhere else to do so. We don't misrepresent fringe theories as factual, no matter how profitable it would be for the promoters of such theories to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Article You Are Constantly Mentioning Should Be Referred To Others Too.. It Clearly States About Long List Of Acceptable Sources. I Don't Know What Personally You Don't Consider Among All Those Articles Mentioned As Against The Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here's A List Of PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL LITERATURE ABOUT THE BASIS OF HOMEOPATHY, EVIDENCE BASE, ITS RECOGNITION AND RESEARCH WORKS. KINDLY GO THROUGH THEM BEFORE COMMENTING.Some Articles Sourced From Europe & USA Based HOMEOPATHY SOCIETIES And Medical Journals. :

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research/biological-models

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research

http://homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board.html

http://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathy-now.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491607001051

http://homeopathyusa.org/faq.html (SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED)

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm (FDA Compliance )

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status (REGULATORY STATUS EUROPE)

http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html

By the Way FOR CONSENSUS Topic : WIKIPEDIA SAYS TO EDITORS (Below FAQs 2 column ) "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote."'' Shivang Tyagi (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes ShivangTyagi I think you are confused. There is no vote going on right now. Did you read the FRINGE link that AndytheGrump left you? We are not going to go through your long list of article from homeopaths. I did glance through one (http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status) and it is VERY outdated, it seems to just be a generic reference page that is unsourced and not reputable. I do not see what it has to do with your claim that the lede should be changed?Sgerbic (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not one of those citations qualifies as a reliable medical source. I know that homeopaths and real scientists look at reliable sources differently, but in this article, in this project, only peer-reviewed, secondary sources, published in high impact journals count. Websites, blogs, and homeopathic potion menus don't count. If you're unwilling to read Wikipedia guidelines, there will not be a good conversation here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes read Q11. Still no indication where its shown that the medical community generally call homeoathy "quackery". For sure a few people use the word, but hardly "generally" unless you can show different. Shivang - don't worry, most of them are usually like this, stick with it :) They are correct in what they say about sources needing to be quality, just a shame they made leaps of judgement sometimes like in the case of "quackery" and "generally"in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I Have Read All Those Links And Standards WikiPedia Needs. The Links You COMMENTED Think Are Not Merely Websites Or General Blog Sites. They Are Country/Continent BASED NATIONAL BOARDS OF HOMEOPATHY . I Don't THINK Calling SUCH REPUTED Media As Baseless And Unreliable Accounts To Anything. HAVE A LOOK AT THEM YOU WILL FIND PEER_REVIEWED JOURNALS IN ABUNDANCE, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND UNIVERSALLY FOLLOWED RESEARCHES. "Its Shameful to claim something without proper references and than demanding Further Reference TO REMOVE IT." And The One Calling Europe Board As OUTDATED.. Homeopathy Isn't New So, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ITS RECOGNITION TO BE OF RECENT YEARS??? ITS RECOGNISED DECADES BACK EVERYWHERE AND SAME IS BEING FOLLOWED UPTILL NOW .. Were You Expecting It Show You Recent Dates ?? That Gives You Dates Of Boards When They Were Formed And Accepted.

I Dont Think There's Any One MEDIC Here Who Can Actually Give ANY Proper Judgement Being Neutral. Its Of No Use To Argue With Non-Medics On Topics That They Actually Don't Understand. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article always has activity--and I think that's a good thing. What isn't however, is that the lead mentions "generally considered" with respect to the quackery claim, yet only has one source for this. I'd think "generally" would entail more than one source. Maybe even from a  journal that isn't rooted in soft science, as that one is. But that's just me. Seeing how so many rational, confident scientists assert there is no way homeopathy can work (despite multiple claims otherwise) I'd hope there'd be better sources to back up this view. I say view, because, like so many other aspects of the "medical community" what isn't understood is considered either alternative, complimentary or discarded altogether. Shame.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One Source That is A Book Of Wahlberg Mentioning Many Other Alternate Medicines As Quackery Not Only Homeopathy Is Considered A Reliable Source..???? Inspite Of Many Claims Otherwise Not Being Accepted !! I Really Don't Get The Users Here Want. Either They Want Their Thinking To Be Published Here Or They Just Don't Want To Accept Changes To What They Think. A Recent Edit By A IP User Was Acceptable Giving Some More Clarity To Article By Mentioning 2 Different Views Was Reverted back By Giving a "Self-serving special pleading." as comment. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Some suggestions: (a) read the Wikipedia policies you have been told that the article must follow - including WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE etc. There is no choice whatsoever over this - it is Wikipedia policy. (b) look through the talk-page archives for previous discussions - you aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said before, and we aren't going to waste time going over the same ground again for the benefit of people who clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. (c) Use a capital letter at the start of the sentence, and in other appropriate places, not at the start of every word - it will make your posts easier to read. If you carry on as you are, you are unlikely to achieve anything beyond irritating people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Emphasis Is Given to Words Which Actually Need To be Emphasised (U Need To Make The User Read Them).Wikipedia has other policies too. So I Suggest You To Read These Along With The Ones Suggested Above : WP:VERIFY WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV WP:CONS& WP:UNDUE You Might Have Forgotten These. Do You actually Know What WP:MEDRS Means ?? Shivang Tyagi (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * O.k. you've ignored my advice. I shall ignore your postings, and recommend everyone else to do the same, given your clear inability to either comprehend the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy, or to engage in a meaningful discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Was Going Through The Previous Archives . Consider Reading These Discussions From Archives. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery_category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_17#Quackery

Shivang Tyagi (talk)


 * First off, when you capitalize every word, you are no longer emphasizing anything. It's just poor grammar that serves no purpose.
 * Second, what in those archives do you think is compelling about this specific issue (aka "quackery")? We are not going to argue the validity of homeopathy here. That's a WP:DEADHORSE. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We're discussing the use of "quackery" and "generally" in the first para - don't suppose you have evidence to support that, becuase nothing I've seen here supports the use of those words. Cjwilky (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * C'mon, you could just check Scholar. Or are you just saying we should drop "generally"? LeadSongDog come howl!  23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even using that very random method, 1300 results for quackery v 14900 for homeopathy, which puts it in the minority, and hardly generally. Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Used that quality google method and get 1800 for quackery and psychology, 500 with orthopedics, 900 with gyno, 1700 with antibiotics - will you be writing more leads in wiki medicine in the near future? Cjwilky (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery. Unlike those others though, it lacks the redeeming factor of an evidence base. Not that I expect you to accept this. The psychologists would see it as a cognitive dissonance problem. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery." Not sure what relevance this has to the issue here? My point above is that your "evidence" looks slim ie by using that evidence you are also saying many other mainstream medical disciplines and methods (antibiotics, gynecology etc) are quackery. Cjwilky (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing substantial to back up the statement of "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." has been offered. So how about changing it to something like "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered unproven."? Cjwilky (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'quackery' claim is substantiated in the "Ethics and safety" section, isn't it? Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A few writers have used the term, but I see no evidence of "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." Cjwilky (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For a "what is generally considered" source you'll probably want a news article, history-of-medicine text or similar. How about this as a starter? Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, thats a start. So there's 400 out of 82,895 registered doctors in Australia (2009 figure), higher now?) plus how many medical researchers and scientists? - and of course there are many other medical professions including, nurses and midwives (330,000 combined), alternative medical practitioners, health visitors. Lets say 450,000 in total. I make that 0.089% reportedly call it quackery in Australia. And Australia has a population of about 23m out of a world population of 7,000m, so Australia represents 0.33% of the world population - lets be generous and say 1% of doctors, medical researchers and scientists? So a rough guestimate would say thats 0.0009%. Got anything to add to that? Cjwilky (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it shows (taken together with the existing refs) a certain body of belief among "the medical community" about homeopathy being quackery. Would you need a "world survey" to satisfy you? Or a handful more of articles? Is there evidence of a counter-view from within that community, or is all the evidence pointing one way? Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It shows that 400 people, 0.089% of relevant people in one country choose to use it. There are 4 or 5 cites of others that use it. Thats 405 people, and a few assistants maybe. Thats not evidence for the statement in the lead by a factor of about 1000 for Australia alone, at least 50,000 to actually back up the statement. If there isn't anything substantial to back up that statement, it should be removed. Evidence pointing one way...? I think its clear that most articles mentioning homeopathy don't mention quackery - even using the scholar method suggested above, there are 52,700 results for homeopathy, and 2,340 results for +quackery +homeopathy (not many of which are saying homeopathy is quackery if you read them). This has been up for discussion for nearly 3 weeks now and no one has backed it up. Cjwilky (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the question that we need more citations from good sources that state that the medical community considers homeopathy, quackery. I've started a list of sources and it seems to be growing far faster than I expected. Should I list them here?Sgerbic (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst of course evidence is what we're looking for, I'm not sure a list of 20, or 100, or 1000 in itself where the authors choose that term is evidence of the statement, especially if they include the same authors. How many have you found where they don't use that term? Cjwilky (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the terminology needs tweaking. It may be better to say "Within the medical community the consensus is that homeopathy is quackery", since it seems from the evidence there are some who hold this view and there is no sustained/significant opposition to it and so, by definition, there is consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Erm...no. There is no evidence for that statement as you personally have shown. I'll change it temporarily to something that does reflect the real world, as opposed to planet Ernst, though it will need evidence too. Cjwilky (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, actually there is evidence in the links discussed: if voices are calling homeopathy quackery and there is no counter-view, then that's a form of consensus. And your edit is not only "watering-down" the article but has introduced a possibly contentious claim - that homeopathy is only "generally considered" to be unproven. Still, I'll not edit war over this. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, you have put forward evidence of one pressure group of 400 out of over 400,000 in just one country. Aside from that, there are a few individuals who write about research, who are in the main part of a pressure group too. Even if you take them as independent, the bulk of writing on homeopathy within the medical profession does not use the term quackery. What does come through is that there is a majority, not a consensus, of people that consider it unproven. That is clear. There are many (but less) who assert that it is proven to have no effect. You cannot take the words of a few scientists as representing the views of the medical profession as a whole - that is making very wild assumptions for which there is no evidence. I also ask you the question that Sgerbic has avoided, how many have you found that don't use the term quackery? Cjwilky (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If an author doesn't mention quackery in relation to homeopathy then we can't know what they think about it - they may consider the topic too obvious to merit mentioning, or simply irrelevant to the thrust of some unrelated argument they are making. What would be needed is, rather, works considering the question and deciding that the medical profession did not generally regard homeopathy as quackery. I have found no such works. Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Logic is good I agree :) However, in the recent discussion here about whether choosing homeopathy means you don't choose no diagnosis, Moriori says "A follows B when a reference says so". HandThatFeeds says "asking us to make the logical deduction "A follows B" would be the epitome of synthesis". Maybe you'd like to add your voice there?
 * The bigger picture here is that using quackery is inflammatory, it isn't a word most of the medical community use, it is a word skeptics use and we know skeptics have a mission (eg the skeptics on here, nearly all the eds, search for negatives not positives for homeopathy because they have already decided, it would be heresy to do otherwise) - its not NPOV. Cjwilky (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, without looking at the specific debate, WP:SYN has always seemed pretty clear to me: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The only place where this is any wriggle room here I think is topic sentences and ledes, where the need to summarize has an unavoidable element of synthesis - but such must be done uncontroversially. As to quackery, if something is called quackery, WP should neutrally relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about WP:SYN, and if you're genuinely supportive of that I'm sure you'll add your voice below to support what I said? Quackery, yes, some people use that term, but its not mainstream amongst the medical community, not by a very very long way, and there isn't evidence to support its use as was. Cjwilky (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So in the mean time my list of the medical community calling homeopathy quackery grows. Possibly Cjwilky you are using a different definition of "mainstream" than I would use? We have a WP page for every term so far I've seen, what is the guidelines for this term?Sgerbic (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt it does - how many hundreds out of the millions of people in the medical community have you evidence for? Mainstream in the context I just used it would mean the significant majority way the medical community calls it. This is less than a consensus, as per the statement that was used. Consensus means with agreement of all. You also didn't answer my question to you. Cjwilky (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity (especially on Wikipedia!). However, unfortunately there is no consensus on what single definition consensus should have, so on reflection it's a problematic word to use in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have some quality sources which call Homeopathy quackery. More could be furnished, I'm sure, but the single dissenting editor has already said that no source would be sufficient. Cjwilky, I'm sure you see why this is a problem; discussion and collaboration cannot continue in this way. I think it's time to let this conversation die and move on. There is clearly consensus. If you have additional concerns, you may wish to raise them at another venue, such as RSN or DRN. If you try beating this issue any further, I imagine you'll very quickly hit WP:SHUN territory, which is really no good for anyone. Please drop the stick and move on. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice try Man Jess :) More than one dissenting editor above, and no evidence to support the claim - just a few scientists referring to homeopathy as quackery... though you know the score. I've said that giving souces of individuals calling it quackery does not amount to it being generally referred to as that. I've also asked for evidencee that it is the case that its gerally called quackery, and I would of course accept that. And as has been said before, using that term is inflammatory, certainly not POV. You know the score here too. So, what you say above is untrue.
 * As everyone knows here, this is a sensitive article and should be dealt with properly. Playing team tag with a group of editors is not the way forward.
 * Whilst we're still discussing this, I'll change the wording to something that is accurate, though really has no place in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but inserting your own WP:OR won't work. And incidentally, wouldn't the fact that only a very small (i.e. diluted) proportion of scientists have explicitly called homoeopathy quackery make their arguments more effective... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Cjwilky, since you were edit warring just earlier today, I would strongly suggest not editing the article against consensus as you've indicated above. Because of your comment just now, I'm going to warn you about edit warring on your talk page. Hash out your changes here first; don't try to force your content in.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind on this - I think Cjwilky is right, per WP:RS/AC: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" (my empahasis). That seems clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a bunch already. Here's more: Even homeopathic sources admit that the scientific and medical communities see homeopathy this way:
 * The Oxford Companion to United States History: After 1847, when regular doctors organized the American Medical Association (AMA), that body led the war on “quackery,” especially targeting dissenting medical groups such as homeopaths, who prescribed infinitesimally small doses of medicine. Ironically, even as the AMA attacked all homeopathy as quackery, educated homeopathic physicians were expelling untrained “quacks” from their ranks.
 * The Encyclopedia of New York State: Prominent voices in the medical community warned patients against the "quackery" of homeopathy.
 * Supersense: Why we believe in the Unbelievable: Needless to say, the scientific community regards homeopathy as supernatural quackery.
 * The Sage Age: While Benveniste's findings might be seen as a boon for homeopathic practitioners, it is mostly considered quackery in allopathic based fields of science.
 * Muscle, Smoke, and Mirrors, Volume 1: The healing solution would apear to only contain water along with some mysterious echo pattern that left the scientific community scratching their collective heads and therefore rejecting the practice as quackery.
 * dialecticalhomeopathy.com: Nothing to wonder scientific community dismisses homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’!

And, of course, there's a boatload of other sources backing up the quackery label: The source we're using now is fine, but if we must add another, the Oxford Companion would be fine. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 09:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * nelm
 * randi.org
 * quackwatch
 * Okay, play the games here and keep on with your perennial tactic of POV tag team edit war and bullying. You have a cheek to suggest the edit war is from me. I discussed it here for over three weeks without evidence of the statement, and its others who decide to leap in and change the article without discussion - desperate measures, and for what reason I wonder? You've a lot of face to lose is the issue, not genuine evidenced based discussion. The consensus most definitely is not supporting whats there currently - Man Jess.... that you can't acknowledge that is very poor show and against wiki ways, and you know that. I'm away for a while, will get back to sorting this shambles of a talk page when I'm back. Cjwilky (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Close, but no cigar I think. Researching this (and I looked quite hard for a source) it seems part of the problem is that parts of the "medical establishment" are - or have been - all-too-woolly in their approach to homeopathy. Skeptics and scientists agree on quackery, on the other hand -- why not just stick with stating their consensus view? Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alex, I don't get it. We are stating the consensus view. You're talking about the current version of the page, and not a past version, right? You said we needed sources directly stating it, and I provided that. What's insufficient about those sources, and what "consensus view" are you proposing we change it to?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced – isn't the whole thrust of Wahlberg's piece that in the UK the medical community is becoming increasingly contaminated by CAM thinking ("The mobilization of CAM in the UK continues to gather pace today"). Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We already had several sources that say homoeopathy is regarded as quackery. We now have a bunch more here.  It is perfectly adequately sourced.  Cjwilky, the consensus is clearly against your position.  Brunton (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Boy, some of you are desperate (jess) to the extreme to keep your quackery in the article! Brunton, you are summarising from your POV, it is not the consensus here and the refs are not convincing, and read what else is in this talk section... explain how you come to your conclusion?


 * Apart from Alex, you are all just putting one side, and so its clearly a POV.


 * The Oxford ref - does that mean we should qualify the lead as being wiki's opinion on homeopathy in the 19th century? Ooops, no.... the second ref is in the first decades of the 20th century. But then with Supersense, you've nailed it - a cognitive psychologist says so. No refs from him that I could see. The Sage Age refers to quackery in allopathic science (again, he says so, no refs) - not quite the medical community is it? Then another two refs claiming the scientific community (no mention of the medical community), next "they foster the encroachment of quackery in medicine" (again, doesn't back up the statement does it), and then the "boatload" of POV skeptic sect refs - randi, quackwatch (erm.....) - which have no validity here.


 * If the hardline skeptics here can't come to a reasoned take on this, we need help from someone who isn't a skeptic (do they exist on wiki?) or a mate of your selves in some way or another. Shall I request help? Cjwilky (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior and rhetoric are obnoxious. Consensus is obviously against you, yet you persist in arguing points that were refuted multiple times. If you continue to disrupt this article I will request arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Skinwalker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * re "Shall I request help?" &mdash; I'm not entirely sure you wanted to phrase it that way ;-> But yes. Could this be as simple as a RS question: i.e. "is the Wahlberg source sufficient to support the text in the article"? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I posted a query here. Let's see what the wise ones say. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Skinwalker, if you're going to start accusing, please be specific.
 * Your argument about consensus being against me has no legs - maybe you'd like to be constructive and suggest some? You haven't contributed here. It seems you've just chosen to pile in for some grievance you feel, and merely added to what I say about the bully boy tactics employed by some skeptics in this article, as well as other articles on the skeptic mission noticeboard.
 * Yes, I'm calling a spade a shovel here. I'm not the only one who's done so. Others have given up due to bullying. Its about time something was sorted here. And just to be clear, I'm not claiming every skeptic is a bully, many have been positively helpful, many are constructive even though they are one sided - thats to be expected in a debate. Though it has to be said that very few if any have contributed evenly. The tendancy is for them to always look for one side of the argument. That is not being a sceptic, its about having an opinion and looking from there.
 * Thanks Alex for doing that, will check it out :) Cjwilky (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who's waded through many a meta-analysis, I don't actually differ from the conclusion that homeopathy=quackery. However, I am not convinced that it is sensible, necessary or appropriate to include such a sweeping line as "the medical community considers it quackery" in the lead. I'm not sure it is necessary because the rest of the article is sufficiently well-edited that readers are quite capable of reaching their own conclusions. I doubt that it is appropriate as it appears to push a point of view - one with which I happen to concur, but this does not set a tone concomitant with sober neutrality. I am concerned that it may not be sensible because its inclusion could reasonably be seen as discourteous, and that seems likely to inflame editorial tensions as well as presenting a written style out of place in an encyclopaedia. Could we perhaps move on from the argument about who's most right and edit this one line in the interests of Wikipedia's quality? John Snow II (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. In general it is a good idea to pursue less loaded and more neutral formulations in the lead. I.e. the lead should state that the medical establishment/academic medicine disregards homeopathy and considers it as a part of "alternative medicine" but there is no need to use the term "quackery" as such. A good comparison might be to look up homeopathy in some encyclopedia/medical reference work, I'm pretty sure the term quackery won't be used there at all (see for instance: Britannica lead). We need a similar encyclopedic language here and not sourced polemics for or against homeopathy.


 * Another thing to consider is that the term "medical community" is dangerous as in different publication/sources the term might be used differently (which may not be transparent to readers without background knowledge in the field). The medical community in the sense of practicing and publishing (university educated) physicians contain a significant number of people using alternative medicine (for complimentary treatments, for placebo effects, "holistic" approaches and occasionally even because they "believe" in it), who are hence unlikely to use the term "quackery". However if you restrict the "medical community" to the conventional academic medicine (in German: "Schulmedizin"), then the term is more appropriate as a general view of the community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that helpful response, Kmhkmh. Would you or other editors like to collaborate on arriving at a better wording?  My broad sense is that any discussion of quackery could simply be moved to a later, relevant part of the text (perhaps detailing how homeopathy has been critically received by conventional medicine). John Snow II (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be able help in proofreading or commenting on suggestions, but I don't have time to actively participate in a larger rewrite myself and this topic isn't really my primary area of expertise either. I agree with you that the term quackery if other editors insist on it should be handled in a later section but not the lead. In addition I really recommend some of the involved editors here to look up homeopathy in other encyclopedia to see what less polemic and more neutral description (including) criticism looks like. People need to able to take step back from their personal convictions about homeopathy and focus on writing an appropriate encyclopedic article rather than insisting on the article reflecting their personal convictions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an additional note. The subject of this question ("quackery in the lead") is apparently covered by the FAQ (see question/answer 11) already and supposedly some earlier consensus of editors. Interestingly enough the answer is no, essentially for the reason I outlined above as well (no inflammatory language, neutral tone).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, not precisely. The FAQ entry documents that we shouldn't, ourselves, call Homeopathy quackery, but that we should document how it is seen (i.e. quackery) within the scientific and medical community. For instance, "Homeopathy is quackery" is not appropriate. "The AMA considers homeopathy to be quackery" is. I appreciate you both contributing to the topic, but this issue has been worn down so much with so much repetition, I doubt anyone is going to read or respond to more messages in this section. Would you mind starting another section so we can start discussion fresh? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The point being raised is that it isn't good to have an inflammatory term in the lead, and actually the references don't support the current use, thats an extrapolation you have made Jess. This issue has not been processed. If you look above you can see how it goes - discussion followed quickly by the skeptics claiming a concensus has been reached when in fact it hasn't. Par for the course in this article, unfortunately. The preceding sentence does say enough, the quackery sentence is not adding anything, and makes the article look one sided from the off. Cjwilky (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the FAQ a bit differently as otherwise it would just reiterate the basic rule for source and WP:OR/personal opinion. Note something not being sourced has no place in lead or the article to begin with, the same holds of personal opinion of an WP editor. So it seems rather pointless to point out that his is true for the case of inflammatory language as well, as it obviously holds for any language.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of whats been said above by John Snow and Kmhkmh above. The lead is inflammatory, very badly sourced and the discussion of this by other eds is negligable. It seems some eds have a mission to keep such words in the lead, their editing is far from neutral. And then they will revert in tag team ANYTHING they don't "like". Cjwilky (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)