User talk:Avathaar

"I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Statement by JWSchmidt. There seems to be some confusion about why I am editing at this page. "Avathaar" seems to have a significant body of knowledge about homeopathy. I'm interested in making sure that Wikipedia can benefit from that knowledge with resulting improvements in the Homeopathy article. Note for Avathaar: Some other Wikipedia editors have suggested that I am not helping when I edit here on this page. If you ever grow tired of me, just say so, I have plenty of other things I could be doing. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey John, relax. I'll never get tired of you. I'm here to get mentored by you and I'll start editing articles here only when you allow me to (by lifting the ban, I guess).—Avathaar (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

professional qualifications and licenses
This thread started on another page
 * I inserted a WHO document which showed that professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries, which was accepted and that's why I asked that the term, "quackery" be removed.  -NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you satisfied with Homeopathy and Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy or do you think more needs to be said about licensing and government regulation of homeopathy? What is the "WHO document" you mentioned? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear John,
 * Thanks for taking all the brickbats and still helping me.
 * The WHO document talks of regulation in different parts of the world.
 * The wikipedia articles don't mention that professional qualifications and licenses are needed in most countries (this is a must in India).
 * Thanks again for all the help.
 * Regards,

Avathaar (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to this particular "WHO document"? I agree that Wikipedia should describe homeopathy in India, since it is well known that India is a leading nation for the use of homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Avathaar is obviously referring to this. This document has long been a reference for Homeopathy, where it is currently footnote 7. (By the way, I am watching this talk page and there should normally be no need to send me email, especially not with long documents that are also on the web. I agree that the WHO document supports mentioning Hippocrates, but since it's not a particularly reliable source on the history of medicine we can't use it to say homeopathy is based on Hippocrates. Perhaps we can add somewhere that he had similar ideas, though.) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey
A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:


 * Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

-- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
In the article on homeopathy every statement has been criticized, not to mention inflammatory terms like placebo therapy, pseudoscience and quackery (scientific studies which show it is effective aren't being allowed into the article)-I hope you can do something to make it as neutral as the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic.-Avathaar (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above seems to totally contradict your statement number 3 at the top of this page. 龗 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * request for User:龗: Can you explain what you mean? I do not see the contradiction. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with 龗...whilst "quackery" has been a term facing considerable dispute on the homeopathy talk page, "placebo" and "pseudoscience" are very well established by high-quality sources. Avathaar's hyperbole (that scientific studies supporting homeopathy "aren't being allowed into the article") is divisive and incorrect. The "Research on medical effectiveness" section draws extensively from sytematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature precisely because there are hundreds of primary research articles from which it's remarkably easy to cherry-pick data. The reviews overwhelmingly note that the measured efficacy homeopathic treatments negatively correlates with the design quality and power of clinical studies.
 * This is bordering on advocacy (in violation of #3 above), in my opinion, because it's clearly a "personal partisan point of view" with no attempt at providing any evidence to support his claims. It's merely an assertion that others are doing bad things and a call for someone to "do something" on his behalf.
 * If Avathaar wishes to suggest inclusion of any source(s) not currently used, or an alternate interpretation of those that are, he would be wise to demonstrate some familiarity with reliable sourcing, especially as it pertains to scientific and medical claims. Let me assert this now: do not post that giant list of studies that you've spammed a dozen times before. Pick an article--a review would be strongly preferred--and present an accurate and neutral description of the work. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He said, "scientific studies which show it is effective aren't being allowed into the article", which I suspect can probably be demonstrated from the edit history. The terms 'quackery', 'placebo' and 'pseudoscience' can be inflammatory when mis-used. The issue of how these terms are used in the Homeopathy article is a valid topic for discussion. I think this page should try as much as possible to function as a place for discussion of specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia articles. Is there an important scientific study that should be mentioned in the Homeopathy article but is not there yet? Is there a better way to discuss the placebo effect in the Homeopathy article? Are terms like 'quackery' being correctly used to describe quackery or are they being used without adequate care? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He's been banging this drum ("Every statement is criticised and no defense is allowed") for months now (i.e., ) without ever offering anything specific or constructive in the way of supporting data or workable suggestions. I agree that, if this experiment is to work, this location should be a place for discussion of article improvements...However, I'm still waiting for any evidence that this editor is willing to discuss specific improvements without resorting to petulant allegations of bad-faith editing and conspiracies. I don't think it's a good sign that Avathaar's first foray into this new plan is a re-hash of the same ol' stuff from the last year; my hope is that it changes...
 * Avathaar, my support for this endeavor--your mentorship by JWSchmidt--will be strengthened if you can provide valid, useful critiques of the article and reasonable (policy-based) suggestions for improvement; it will evaporate quickly if you choose to continue in the manner of this thread's opening statement. Please take JWSchmidt's questions seriously. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the plan was to keep the disruption to a minimum by Avathaar staying on his talk page. If we start fighting the same old battles here that we used to do on the homeopathy talk page, it seems to defeat the purpose. I thought it was implicitly part of the contract that we don't do this. In the same way that it was implicitly part of the contract that canvassing using the helpme template is simply not on. Apart from that there seems to be the danger of a many cooks effect. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a violation of his promise above. He is using exactly the same message he has used dozens(?) of times now in his disruptive campaign to enlist meatpuppets. Just because he's enlisting meatpuppets now from this page doesn't make it any better. On the contrary, he's violating an agreement. He shouldn't be discussing the topic of homeopathy at all. This just goes to show that he doesn't understand the real meaning of the promise above which he didn't compose himself, and he obviously hasn't learned what our policies mean. The issues he mentions have been dealt with repeatedly. The use of the words he objects to have also been dealt with and this isn't the place to rehash it.


 * It's time to reinstate the indef ban. BTW, I have disabled the "helpme" template. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"This is indeed a violation of his promise", "he's violating an agreement" <-- I do not see the "violation". Can you explain what you see as a "violation"? "he's enlisting meatpuppets now", "He shouldn't be discussing the topic of homeopathy" <-- I do not agree with either of these statements. My hope is that this page will allow for exploration of specific proposals for improving articles, including the Homeopathy article. "The use of the words he objects to have also been dealt with and this isn't the place to rehash it", "It's time to reinstate the indef ban" <-- I do not agree with either of these statements. If the topics of discussion on this page are not of interest to you, maybe you should stop reading this page. I remain interested in hearing specific suggestions for improvement of the Homeopathy article in areas such as which studies to mention, how to correctly use terms like "quackery" in the article and how to reasonably balance the desire of Wikipedia readers to learn what homeopathy is with the desire of some Wikipedians to tell readers what to think about homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Realize that this must not have any influence on the homeopathy article. Such discussions should happen at the article's talk page, with the input of the other editors. Since these discussions have already happened many times with this same user, this is just more disruption. He'd better begin to show some sign that he understands NPOV. Have you tried to teach him anything yet? You are apparently supposed to be functioning as his mentor. Are you doing that? Have you told him not to return to his old arguments and habits that have gotten him into trouble, because that's what he has just done. That you don't realize this indicates that you don't know his history and are unqualified to act as his mentor. You're acting in ignorance and therefore are acting as his defender, which is very improper. You're supposed to be teaching him how to do things right here, not to merely defend him. You're supposed to be representing Wikipedia, not him. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "this is just more disruption" <-- what is being disrupted? "Have you tried to teach him anything yet?" <-- yes. "Are you doing that?" <-- I've been asking him to make specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia. Its up to him to that. If you have other strategies, feel free to help provide guidance. "acting as his defender" <-- I'm happy to work with Wikipedia editors who are making an effort to improve the encyclopedia, even when they do not yet understand all the rules. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for defending someone who doesn't know all the rules yet, John. I'd posted about some studies from this web-site: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html but it was unacceptable to the critics/skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article. Please read the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic, you will realize that they're pretty NPOV, but the article on Homeopathy isn't. You may wanna read what other encyclopediae like http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270182/homeopathy and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy have to say about homeopathy-Avathaar (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can help on that one: the problem with using that site as a reference is because it's an advocacy group . While the content might be quite good, it's generally not appropriate to use for an article reference. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John, abusing the helpme template in this way is a definite violation. I hope that Dr J completely ceases this disruptive behaviour as he is actively harming his cause (as Whig said), and it shows he is still, after KBs of text, only interested in his version of WP:THETRUTH. I have yet to see DrJ make any effort to improve the project, only subvert it. Verbal  chat  14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "abusing the helpme template in this way" <-- I do not understand your claim of "abuse". Please explain the abuse. The Wikipedia welcome template (see above on this page) invites editors to get help by using "Wikipedia:Questions" the user talk page of the person leaving the welcome message or use the " " template. Of these three options, the only one available to "Avathaar" was to use the help template. I feel when he used the help template he raised valid concerns about Wikipedia content. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes against his promise above, and the helpme template is not for content issues. None of those options are open to DrJ for this kind of behaviour. You should explain that to him rather than defend him. Verbal   chat  16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as if both sides here are looking for ways to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Why can't we simply all agree that he shouldn't use the template since it's against the spirit of the agreement and JWSchmidt being around is more than enough, that he may well not have been aware that we would object, and that he is now instructed unambiguously not to use the template again? --Hans Adler 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "it's against the spirit of the agreement" <-- I suppose it depends on questions such as what you think a "specific suggestion" is. I have been trying to get "Avathaar" to be more specific and suggest published studies that might be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Comparing a few Wikipedia articles and suggesting that it might be possible to improve the Homeopathy article by making it as good as other articles seems like a reasonable suggestion even if it is not the kind of specific suggestion I am looking for. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems above addressed at noticeboard
See The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm allowed to post there, so I'll stick to this page. John, I hope you've realized that even some of the Admins, like Scientizzle, Verbal and Tim Vickers are not neutral-I just hope you can lift the ban on me eventually. Verbal aka sesquipedian verbiage, in fact, has lost the battle on chiropractic and no longer posts negative stuff there now.-Avathaar (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Battle at Chiropractic? What are you talking about? I'm hardy involved there, having only infrequently edited as I find chiropractic dull. Posting "negative stuff"? Eh? Maybe I should put it back on my watch list. From the way you are going the ban looks like being reinstated. Have you now admitted all your sockpuppetry, because NootherID denied he was you. Not agreeing with you does not make someone biased. Thanks for the vote of confidence in promoting me to admin. If you make further personal attacks against me or anyone else I shall press for you to be fully banned. Verbal   chat  14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

References for Homeopathy
copied from above in the hopes of actually discussing issues by -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk

I'd posted about some studies from this web-site: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html but it was unacceptable to the critics/skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article. Please read the articles on osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic, you will realize that they're pretty NPOV, but the article on Homeopathy isn't. You may wanna read what other encyclopediae like http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270182/homeopathy and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy have to say about homeopathy-Avathaar (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I can help on that one: the problem with using that site as a reference is because it's an advocacy group . While the content might be quite good, it's generally not appropriate to use for an article reference. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Avathaar: Can you list here (below) one or two specific studies that you think should be mentioned in Wikipedia? I would like to discuss studies of this type which I think go a long way towards explaining the popularity of homeopathy: Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting. This study was previously discussed but I cannot follow the logic of that old discussion, where the claim was made that this kind of study is "meaningless". I do not understand why it is "meaningless" to compare patient outcomes and satisfaction for two different medical approaches. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd posted a whole lot of studies that were even better, which one could download for free from http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/indice.htm but that wasn't acceptable either, so I believe that the skeptics/critics want it to remain negative and that's why I'd posted about the article on homeopathy on the NPOV noticeboard in my earlier incarnation (sadly, it was deleted soon after). It does make me wonder how the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are so neutral?-Avathaar (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You may wanna follow the links at http://www.hpathy.com/research/ as well.-Avathaar (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to discuss one or two specific articles that you think should be mentioned in Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are neutral and so, I want even the article on homeopathy to be just as NPOV. I must also inform you that a whole lot of homeopaths have been blocked/banned from wikipedia for flimsy reasons, I hope you can get them back (if possible)-e.g.Amy from the American Institute of Homeopathy, Dana Ullman (you can read about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman) etc.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion continues in next section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about sourcing
I also believe that reference#131, 'Case of Baby Gloria, who died in 2002:' should not be mentioned in the article on homeopathy, because newspaper reports aren't accurate - even if this report was accurate, one case can't be used to paint all homeopaths 'black sheep', imagine if all allopaths were portrayed murderers/manslaughterers &mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know of a better reference than the Daily Telegraph article? I think that the astronomy blog is not a good reference for the trial; it is an opinion piece from a source that has no authority for such a topic. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Astronomy blog?&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Homeopathy article (reference#131) links to this astronomy blog. I do not think that this meets the Wikipedia guidelines for citing blogs in articles. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bad Astronomy blog is a very notable column in Discover magazine, and is considered just as reliable a source as any other science magazine or newspaper column written by a well-known science columnist. Of course it's his opinion, and that's perfectly fine as long as it is used as a source for opinion, and in this case the wording is clear -- "Critics of homeopathy". He's a critic, so he qualifies. In this case the columnist (Phil Plait) is also a scientist and prominent scientific skeptic, which makes him more qualified than most columnists who don't even understand the scientific method, a problem they share with most homeopaths. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did Phil Plait get his medical degree and what type of medical experience does he have that makes his opinion on any medical issue reliable? He states "homeopathy kills" without providing any evidence to support that opinion. Phil Plait wrote, "whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs" but the article he linked to that claim does not support his claim. Phil Plait wrote,"their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby", but what evidence supports that claim? If he is a scientist then by his own standards he should provide the evidence to support his claims. In this case he has not done so. If you are saying he can be cited by Wikipedia because he is a scientist then his claims need to be supported by evidence. Opinion of a scientist that is not based on evidence is not reliable. There are millions of people who are not experts in a subject area yet they publish blogs with unsupported opinions. Wikipedia is not in the business of linking to such unsupported claims. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He has also been published by the journal (cough) Homeopathy. Claiming he needs a medical degree for us to use his opinions is ridiculous. Verbal   chat  06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Claiming he needs a medical degree for us to use his opinions is ridiculous" <-- Who made that claim? He published his opinion about the cause of death for a person. I'm asking about the basis for that opinion. Why should Wikipedia link to an opinion about the cause of a death when that opinion is not based on either expertise or evidence? Of particular concern here is that the unsupported claim involves two living persons as the cause of death for a third person. Wikipedia has special rules that come into play for opinions about living persons and serious matters such as causes of death. We need to get the facts right, not go out beating the bushes for unsubstantiated opinions. --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is based on both expertise and evidence, to argue otherwise is nonsense. Verbal   chat  07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "It is based on both expertise and evidence" <-- Please list the medical qualifications he has for identifying the cause of death. As far as I can tell, the sources he cites do not make the same claims that he makes, so I'm looking for evidence that supports his claims. For example, can you quote any medical experts who said what the cause of death was? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been telling you all along - that anything negative (criticism/skepticism) is allowed into the article, even if it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I believe the articles on chiropractic, naturopathy and osteopathy are neutral and so, I want even the article on homeopathy to be just as NPOV. For the moment, I'm sure you can add a POV tag to the article, because it contains only the viewpoint of the critics/skeptics. Thanks in advance for the help!&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A "POV tag" is not the kind of specific suggestion for how to improve the article that I'm looking for. I agree that the cited Daily Telegraph article is not very good, but the topic seems relevant and of interest to Wikipedia's readers. Is there any coverage of this case that goes beyond newpaper reporting? From what I read here it does not seem likely that "The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema," as claimed by Phil Plait, the author of the blog. Can we find a source that gives a coherent account of the child's medical condition and exactly what the court case decided? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read through numerous articles about Baby Gloria, and the talk page discusses the matter, including sources. There is no question about her cause of death. You are welcome to read all those sources. There are myriad other sources. We just found a couple good ones that covered the story from different angles and moved on. It should be a settled matter, rather than creating more disruption by digging into it again. This case was so high profile that she deserves her own article here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is no question about her cause of death" <-- I have questions about the cause of her death. I'd like to see an objective analysis of the medical evidence by someone with medical training. "a couple good ones" <-- I'd be interest to see the criteria you are using to rate those two sources. How much medical training and experience did the authors of those cited articles have? "creating more disruption by digging into it again" <-- how is it disruptive when editors try to improve Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- That "you" have questions might be interesting to you and for discussion's sake, but it's not relevant to the article. We follow the sources. I don't recall any significant disagreement in the sources I read, and most of them quoted the evidence used in the court case. We can't get much better evidence than that. If you can find multiple good sources that question the cause of death, then they might be good to use, although the relevance is likely unuseful and distracting in this situation. OTOH, if the subject of the whole article was about her, IOW Baby Gloria death, then such a question would be very relevant. Here it really has no relevance. As far as disruption is concerned, improving Wikipedia is always welcome. It can be a problem if matters that aren't really defective are "improved" to further the POV of a banned editor who is only here on very thin probational ice. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be defending the practice of having a Wikipedia article linking to the blog of a non-expert who claimed to know the cause of a person's death, but who provided no supporting sources or evidence to backup his claim. In contrast, I'm asking for better sources that coherently describe the medical evidence. I'd like to be able to quote medical experts who have described the cause of her death. If we had such sources it would improve Wikipedia. Are you actually arguing against making such an improvement to Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A blog written by an expert, published by Discover magazine and articles from which have appeared in Homeopathy and other journals, and books from solid publishers. Remember that WP:BLP applies to claims made here. The cause of death was established in court. Verbal   chat  08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that it was homeopathy that killed her is of course problematic, since it was the lack of proper treatment that did it. We can argue that homeopathy caused this lack of proper treatment and therefore indirectly the death, but it appears it wasn't the only cause. Hans Adler 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article uses the 2 links about Gloria as a source for the statement "Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment". It doesn't claim that homoeopathy killed her (and neither does Plait, who says she died from complications of eczema, which could have been managed with treatments that were withheld in favour of homoeopathy).  Note also that this is stated in the article to be a critical viewpoint. Brunton (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "the lack of proper treatment that did it" <-- Can you point to quotes from medical experts who said that the cause of her illness is known and that death could have been prevented? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The cause of death was established in court" <-- does anyone have a copy of the court ruling and a copy of the medical expert testimony? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, Talk:Homeopathy is the place for this discussion. MastCell Talk 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the sources given, Brunton and MastCell are right. Further discussion on this point should take place on homeopathy talk, however there really is nothing left to discuss about these sources and the statement they support. There is a difference between playing devil's advocate and being disruptive. Verbal   chat  16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Plait, who says she died from complications of eczema" <-- What is the evidence to support this claim? Where there medical experts who supported this claim with medical evidence and testimony? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would we need evidence to support this claim when it isn't even proposed that the article should include it? These sources adequately support the statement for which they are being used as a reference. Brunton (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "There is nothing wrong with the sources given" <-- If Plait incorrectly identified the cause of death then he is an unreliable source. If he is an unreliable source of opinion and has published false claims about living people then Wikipedia should not link to those false claims in his blog. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of sources for this case, the Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald are quite in-depth but the Discover magazine blog probably passes WP:V as well, since it is published by a reputable organization. No objection to adding more sources if any more are needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What false claims JW?? You are skirting the boundaries of WP:BLP with your unsubstantiated accusations against Plait. You have failed to show any WP:RS or WP:BLP issues with the statement or the sources used to support it, and just seem to be ignoring everyone else - a case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? Verbal   chat  16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Plait invented an incorrect claim about the cause of the girl's death then Wikipedia should not link to his blog and send readers to look at his unsubstantiated claims. I'm asking for quotes from the medical experts who testified in the trial. Was there expert testimony about the cause of death? Does the expert testimony support Plait's claim or not? As far as I can tell, the sources he linked to do not support his claims. "You have failed" <-- It seems like a rush to judgment, I'm still trying to get more information from the trial. "unsubstantiated accusations against Plait" <-- Please list all of these "unsubstantiated accusations". --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that Plait "invented an incorrect claim"? <-- That's an unsubstantiated allegation, I suggest you don't make any more. You have been presented with much WP:RS that he hasn't, and it is all irrelevant to the homeopathy page anyway. Verbal   chat  17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "What evidence do you have" <-- I cannot find any evidence that supports his claim about the cause of death. I've been looking for expert medical testimony from the trial that might support his claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this or this, both of which, as news reports of court proceedings, seem to meet WP:RS criteria as "material from mainstream news organizations"? Brunton (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing this source and this source, they both seem to agree that the child died of an infection, which was a result of untreated excema, which was untreated due to the parents' belief in homeopathy. I can't work out what the difficulty is here, could somebody please state it in plain language? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [I misindented this response, then it was detached from where it belongs. 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)] I don't know if that's what JWSchmidt is driving at (I guess not), but I see two potential problems: 1) The sensationalist blog post headline "homeopathy kills" oversimplifies the situation you describe and might be misunderstood. 2) An earlier article in the same paper you cited has important additional information that shows the situation is a bit more complicated. (Oversimplified version: "Parents' social duties kill.") Hans Adler 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * JWSchmidt, the child died of septicemia resulting from severe chronic eczema, exascerbated by infection-induced malnutrition. Prosecutors argued that "the couple did not heed the advice given by various health professionals for conventional medical treatment and instead continued to treat her with homeopathic remedies", an argument that convinced the jury to find them criminally negligent and guilty of manslaughter. Plait's claim that the child "died of complications due to eczema" is entirely consistent with the facts of the case as presented in mainstream media accounts. My third link even has direct quotes from an expert witness from the trial. Plait linked to this article in his post, which states:"The pathologist who did the autopsy...had never seen a child so malnourished and her condition was at a level more commonly observed in third world countries"This article discusses the testimony of one of the treating doctors. All of these articles were trivial to find and clearly substantiate Plait's claims of the cause of death as well as the parents' refusal to treat beyond homeopathy as the child's condition declined. Plait's opinions on the matter can be attributed to him. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide some quotes from the medical experts who testified in the trial about "infection-induced malnutrition". The source you cite only says, "all her nutrition allegedly went into coping with her severe eczema". "clearly substantiate Plait's claims of the cause of death" <-- Plait wrote that, "their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby". Please provide quotes from the cited news articles that support Plait's claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can add anything else to this conversation, as sources seem to have been provided that discuss in detail the parents' beliefs and the role of these beliefs in the death of the child and I don't understand your repetition of a question that seems to me to have been answered. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Tim. JWSchmidt you asked specifically for sources that support "she died from complications of eczema" and they were provided. The sources also repeatedly make clear that the parents refused to treat outside of homeopathy, which did not relieve the eczema. "The pathologist who did the autopsy, Ella Sugo, said she had sought advice from experts outside Australia because she had never seen a child so malnourished and her condition was at a level more commonly observed in third world countries."
 * We do not have to prove the veracity of Plait's claims, only the veracity of Wikipedia's claims. Plait's plain factual statement, that the child died of complications of eczema, is widely supported. Plait's opinions, that homeopathy is "a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice" and that belief in homeopathy contributed to the parents' refusal to seek out "science-based medicine", are his. We're talking now about proximate and ultimate causation; the septicemia was the proximate cause of death, the court ruled the ultimate cause to be the parents' perceived criminal negligence in pursuit of proper medical care, and Plait believes ultimate causation extends beyond that to the belief in an "antiscientific medical practice" that caused (or encouraged) the parents to eschew "real, science-based medicine". Thus, we can confidently say that at least one critic of homeopathy expressed "concerns over homeopathic remedies, most seriously, cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment" as currently stated in the homeopathy article. Thus, if we accept that the Discover post as a WP:RS-appropriate source for the claims of a critic of homeopathy, and that there are no obvious factual errors in the Discover post, it seems a reasonable source to use to support the given claim. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What can happen in court cases is 1) the prosecutor makes claims and 2) court reporters repeat them, even if the claims are not supported by evidence or a finding of the court. Then bloggers and wiki editors repeat those claims as if they were facts. I'm looking for quotes from the court testimony of medical experts or a copy of findings from the court. I'm interested in finding reliable sources that quote what medical experts said on the cause of death. Based on the evidence available to me, Plait's blog post makes claims about the cause of death that are not supported by testimony of medical experts. Since these are claims about living persons, I think that blog post does not meet Wikipedia requirements for use as a source. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While those are interesting OR suppositions, where are the RS that make them? Your statement ("Based on the evidence available to me, Plait's blog post makes claims about the cause of death that are not supported by testimony of medical experts.") indicates that you are in possession of such RS. Why aren't you sharing them with us? Until now, all we're seeing is OR and refusal to read the numerous sources that quote from the court testimony. If you really have evidence that shows you know more than the courts, then provide RS to prove it. If there is a dispute among the RS, then that would be relevant IF this were about the yet unwritten article Baby Gloria's death. So far we're still only using those sources to back up a statement in the homeopathy article, and those sources back up the wording perfectly, as has been explained to you numerous times. Now please provide your sources. You are the one making the extraordinary claim (contrary to all the RS sources we've seen), so the obligation is on you to provide the evidence or stop making the claim. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "refusal to read the numerous sources that quote from the court testimony" <-- I've read the sources and, as far as I can tell, the quoted court testimony does not support the claims that Plait published in his blog. Please list the quotes from medical experts who testified about the cause of death; then we can compare those quotes to what Plait said about the cause of death. "those are interesting OR suppositions" <--Please list the "suppositions" you are referring to. "you are in possession of such RS" <-- I don't know what sources you you think I have. I've previously said that I am trying to find some reliable sources because I feel that the sources used in Wikipedia are not very good. "You are the one making the extraordinary claim" <-- Please tell me what this "extraordinary claim" claim is. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. I'm beginning to wonder what your mother tongue is, since it apparently isn't English. I suspect a language barrier here. That's my attempt to AGF. Otherwise other characterizations might apply. If you really don't understand what all of us have been trying to tell you, just admit it. Then it might be a good idea to move on to an encyclopedia in your own language, since your multiple failures to understand are causing problems. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "your multiple failures to understand are causing problems" <-- Please list those "multiple failures". Please list the "problems" you are talking about. Why should anyone have to strain to assume good faith when they see an editor looking for better references than those already cited in Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. The reliability of the sources in establishing the text in the article has been well established. I suggest that editors interested in improving the homeopathy article go to the homeopathy talk page. That has the added benefit of being under WP:AE so disruptive behaviour can be dealt with quickly, hopefully. I will try not to post here any more, and ask others to do the same, following MastCell's excellent advice above. Verbal  chat  14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you lift the restriction on Avathaar's editing then we'll be able to move to other Wikipedia pages. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, you (John) are the one who asked him to stay on this page, so it's up to you when to lift it. Personally I don't think you should be in a hurry to do so, but there's no formal community sanction involved so the decision is yours. However, it would probably be a good idea to bring it on on WP:AN or WP:ANI before doing so, since it will almost certainly end up there anyway. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 10:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify before anyone over-reacts: Avathaar (and socks) is not personally under formal sanction as part of the ArbCom ruling. He was (more or less) unblocked by JWSchmidt under the community ban policy (since he became the admin "willing to unblock"). This means that no one has any more authority to undo the restrictions than JWSchmidt does, so if he feels it's appropriate to lift the restriction, he can do so. Personally I wouldn't (especially in light of the SHOUTING ACCUSATIONS below), but neither I nor anyone else has any individual authority to prevent it as things stand now.
 * Whether JWSchmidt himself might be crossing the lines of the Arb ruling is another matter. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, looks like all the critics of homeopathy have been posting here. John, do you now realize how prejudiced these guys are? They've linked to a blog which says 'Homeopathy kills' - but it wasn't homeopathy but the septicemia that killed the kid.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (NOTE: The capitals in this comment have been revised by Avathaar.)


 * Avathaar: please try to limit your editing at Wikipedia to specific suggestion for how to improve specified Wikipedia articles. I know that some of the other editors on this page are not being constructive, but you should set a good example, even when they do not. Thanks. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * John and Johnny, I'm sorry it seemed I was shouting - I wasn't, my caps lock button was on (and I di'n't realize it, until I finished typing) and I di'n't have the time to reverse the caps. I've corrected the same now. I promise to set a good example, I just hope the others follow suit.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cure for eczema
cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that could have been diagnosed or cured with conventional medicine

It was reported that the prosecutor in the case charged that baby Gloria did not receive proper treatment for her eczema: "THE parents of a nine-month-old girl who died from septicemia were responsible for their baby's death because they shunned conventional medical treatment for her eczema"

Baby Gloria was diagnosed with eczema, so the claim must be that she could have been cured by conventional medicine. What is the cure for eczema? --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If only there were a freely available, online reference source where one could rapidly find the answer to such questions... :) MastCell Talk 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, recently published articles such as this one agree that there is still no cure for eczema. It therefore seems like the baby Gloria case might not be a good example to illustrate that a user of homeopathy failed to get treatment for a disease that can be "cured with conventional medicine". --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read any other articles beside that one you picked? It has been made entirely clear that real medical treatment would have saved the child's life. Nevard (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of respect for this attempt at mentorship, I will refrain from further comment. The above probably speaks more loudly than I could, in any case. MastCell Talk 05:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Have you read any other articles beside that one you picked?" <-- I'm not sure how to respond to this question. Maybe it is a rhetorical question and you expect no answer. Maybe this question is your way of saying that you know of articles that describe a cure for eczema...If so please list them. Maybe you seriously think that I have only read one article, if so, the answer is "no". Some editors are sure that the cause of death was untreated eczema (see discussion above on this page). If so, then this case should not be used as an example of a patient treated with homeopathy who could have been cured of their disease. I have seen no medical testimony supporting the claim that eczema was the cause of death. In fact, the testimony suggests the possibility that the diagnosis of eczema was a misdiagnosis. Expert medical testimony at the coroner's inquest showed that the baby had a nutrition-related problem that was not recognized by any of the many doctors and nurses who saw the patient in the months leading up to her death (see). One doctor testified, "The most likely cause of the problem was vitamin A deficiency". I think that particular analysis may have been in the context of trying to understand the observed eye pathology, and it does not seem to account for the observed thymus pathology and the noted zinc deficiency. Many of the symptoms described by the medical doctors sound like zinc deficiency symptoms. Rare genetic disorders sometimes cause the death of children and no "real medical treatment" can save them. I've seen no testimony from a medical expert claiming to fully understand baby Gloria's medical problems so I'm not left feeling that anything about this case is "entirely clear" beyond the fact that a jury felt that the parents should have done something different in their efforts to help their child. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Errr, I have been looking at this trainwreck and I just had to intervene. The eczema left the baby vulnerable to pathogens, the baby spent all the nutrients she received in fighting those pathogens, which caused undernourishment. Before the sentence you quoted, there was another sentence saying "Gloria, who had been properly fed, died from an infection her body could not fight because all her nutrition allegedly went into coping with her severe eczema." In the sentence that you quoted "the problem" was the problem in the eye, not the eczema and not the cause of the death. It the same sentence he says that deficency of vitamin A is a "common problem in "malnourished communities", which is consistent with the other sentence, and later continues as ""In a Third World country it is often (brought on by) measles or pneumonia ... an acute drop in an already compromised level of vitamin A,", but in this case it was not brought by measles or pneumonia, but allegedly by her by eczema, as pointed in the sentence above. Seriously, the sources make it abundantly clear that the root cause of the death was the lack of treatment of the eczema, which in turn was caused by the parent's insistance in using homeopathy. We can drop the "allegedly" part when the judge makes a ruling (depending on what he says in the ruling, of course :P ). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to make an argument on par with 'AIDS didn't kill such and such, and it doesn't exist, pneunomia did', but you managed it. Nevard (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Proper homeopathic treatment could have cured the septicemia and controlled the eczema - i.e. it could have been cured temporarily, till it recurred. The astronomy blog says Homeopathy killed her, which is wrong (besides the blog doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines). If the ban on me is lifted, I can post on the Homeopathy Talk Page, but are you guys ready to let an expert homeopathic doctor post here on wikipedia (I see that every homeopathic doctor has been blocked/banned from wikipedia)?&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "trainwreck" <-- Enric Naval, all you have done is repeat the claims that were made by the prosecutor. Based on the sources available to me, the expert medical testimony does not support the claims made by the prosecutor (claims that were simply repeated by a few newpapers as if they were facts). Repeating allegations as if they were facts would be a journalistic train wreck, which is why I have been searching for better sources. It appears to me that the sources currently cited in Wikipedia are not reliable and their statements (that have been taken by a few Wikipedia editors as "fact") are not verifiable. "the sources make it abundantly clear that the root cause of the death was the lack of treatment of the eczema" <-- you forgot to add, "as alleged by the prosecutor". "was caused by the parent's insistance in using homeopathy" <-- you forgot to add, "as alleged by the prosecutor". Please quote the medical testimony that supports these claims, I have been unable to find any. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * JWS, you write "Based on the sources available to me" and "...the medical testimony that supports these claims, I have been unable to find any." Now which is it? You claim to have "sources available to [you]", and yet you state that you "have been unable to find any". That seems self-contradictory.


 * Your statement is very similar to your statement above: "Based on the evidence available to me, Plait's blog post makes claims about the cause of death that are not supported by testimony of medical experts."


 * What sources/evidence do you have "available to you" that we're not seeing? Please provide them. We need to follow the sources, not your undocumented objections. So far you have objected to court testimony and what is reported in numerous RS. Do you have RS that contradict them, and do you also have RS that place the conflict between your sources and all the other sources in context, or are you engaging in OR? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "That seems self-contradictory" <-- I do not see any contradiction. I've read the newspaper coverage of the death of Gloria Thomas, which includes some quotes of medical experts who testified about her medical problems. I have found no testimony from medical experts that supports claims (described above on this page) made by Plait in his blog post about the cause of death. "So far you have objected to court testimony and what is reported in numerous RS." <-- I have objected to court testimony? When? I've said that I am trying to find better sources that describe the court testimony from medical experts. "what is reported in numerous RS" <-- There seems to be very few reliable sources available. Many of the available sources seem to just repeat allegations made by lawyers as if those allegations were facts. Here (below) are some sources that report on the testimony of nurses and doctors.
 * November 6, 2007 Testimony from forensic pathologist Ella Sugo and geneticist Bridget Wilcken
 * November 7, 2007 Testimony from nurses at Earlwood Early Childcare Centre
 * May 8, 2009 Testimony of Dr Brian Symons
 * May 16, 2009 Testimony of pediatric ophthalmologist Ian Kennedy
 * I'm still looking for better sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the links. I don't see anything in them that contradicts what we have been telling you. They all back up what has been discussed by us, but which you apparently dispute. I don't see any problem. You're going to have to be more specific. Please provide the exact wordings in each source and explain how each one contradicts the wording in the sources we have used in the article. Note that the two 2007 references have been surpassed by numerous testimonies since then, although they may still be of interest. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "They all back up what has been discussed by us" <-- please quote the testimony of medical experts that would "back up what has been discussed by us". Plait made claims about the cause of death of Gloria Thomas, including specific related claims about two living people, but I can find no evidence in his cited sources to support his claims. If it is clear to you that Plait's claims are correct then please explain how you can verify his claims: quote the expert medical testimony that supports Plait's claims about the cause of death. There is no requirement that Wikipedia find sources that contradict invented claims made by a blogger. Citing and linking to a blog post that makes unsubstantiated claims about living people is a violation of policy. Wikipedia's standard is to have absolute certainty for claims like those made by Plait. If a newspaper article repeats unproven allegations as if they were facts, then we know that newspaper article is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, the newspaper article about Gloria Thomas that is cited in Wikipedia simply repeats allegations made by lawyers as if those allegations were proven facts. --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil Plait isn't just a blogger. Just as portions of many newspapers and magazines, his blog happens to be the internet format for his column in Discover magazine, which is an increasingly common phenomenon for very notable columnists, politicians, and other notable writers and public persons. Such blogs are usually allowed under our RS policy. Sometimes they are allowed as RS for factual matters, and other times for the opinion of the author. (The part of the blog for reader comments is of course not considered a RS.) In this case Dr. Plait has repeated the same statements made by lawyers and others in the case, IOW he's citing other RS. He makes no unusual statements. As a very notable scientific skeptic (he is President of the James Randi Educational Foundation), his opinion on the matter is a good source for the skeptical opinion that the use of homeopathy instead of proven medical treatment can have fatal consequences. The Baby Gloria case is such a notable example.


 * The judge has apparently accepted the testimony of what you desparagingly call the "allegations made by lawyers" as if they "were proven facts". If you have a beef with the judge's decision, then contact the lawyers for the Sams and get them to make an appeal with this new evidence you seem to have. Wikipedia is not the place for your synthesis or original research, and it certainly is not a RS, nor do your suppositions trump all the RS that discussed this trial.


 * As to your objections based on the BLP policy, you don't seem to understand it. It refers to UNSOURCED negative information. We are using very common RS, and there are numerous RS which make the same statements. You are the only one I've seen who contests those sources. RS do not make the counterclaims you are making. You're the one making the unusual claims. The negative statements about the Sams are made in RS and they were determined by the courts to be accurate, and they have been convicted based on those negative statements. There is no violation of the BLP policy.


 * Now please produce the precise wordings I asked for. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Dr. Plait has repeated the same statements made by lawyers" <-- Based on the medical testimony I've seen, Plait's blog post was built on a foundation that involves repeating unsubstantiated allegations as if they were facts. Further, Plait's blog post makes claims about two living persons (Manju Sam and Thomas Sam) that appear to be original opinions of Plait, never expressed by anyone else. If Wikipedia cites this blog post then it must meet the standards of Biographies of living persons. As far as I can tell, Plait's blog post does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for use as a source. "he's citing other RS" <-- In my view, the tabloid newspapers that covered the legal proceedings for Manju Sam and Thomas Sam do not qualify as reliable sources under the requirements of Biographies of living persons. In this case, Wikipedia's standards are higher than those of Dr. Plait. "He makes no unusual statements" <-- Phil Plait wrote, "whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs", but the article he linked to that claim does not support his claim. Phil Plait wrote, "their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby", but what evidence supports that claim? "his opinion on the matter is a good source for the skeptical opinion" <-- His apparently unsubstantiated claims do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for claims about living people. "The judge has apparently accepted the testimony of what you desparagingly call the 'allegations made by lawyers'" <-- A prosecutor's allegations are not "testimony". Testimony is the statement of a witness. "If you have a beef with the judge's decision" <-- what decision are you talking about? "this new evidence you seem to have" <-- what evidence are you talking about? "your synthesis or original research", "your suppositions" <-- Please list the "synthesis", "original research" and "suppositions" you are talking about. "The negative statements about the Sams are made in RS and they were determined by the courts to be accurate" <-- I question the reliability of the sources. For issues related to living persons we need "high quality" sources. Wikipedia policy specifically states that our standards are higher than those of tabloid papers. In this case, Wikipedia is using a tabloid newspaper article and a blog post that appear to present unsubstantiated allegations about living people as if they were facts. This appears to be a violation of Biographies of living persons. "determined by the courts to be accurate" <-- provide sources to support this claim. "produce the precise wordings I asked for" <-- As far as I can tell, you asked for sources that contradict unsubstantiated allegations. Nobody has an obligation to provide such sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the one making BLP violating accusations against Dr. Plait. You are making claims that the news reports and his mirroring of them are "unsubstantiated allegations". You have made the claims, and you have thus obligated yourself to provide the proof using reliable sources that contradict them. If you can't do that, then you will have proven to all of us that you have been stonewalling all along, and in a deceptive manner at that. That's a pretty serious matter. You were desysopped on English Wikiversity last year for similar behavior, and you're heading for a loss of your adminship here. This is a repetition of your nasty previous history. You've been "playing to the crowd" here, just as you did there, but no one is buying it and I'm calling your bluff.


 * Now quit the stonewalling and produce some evidence showing that what you've been saying has any truth to it at all. We need RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "You are the one making BLP violating accusations against Dr. Plait" <-- please list all of these "BLP violating accusations". "You are making claims that the news reports and his mirroring of them are 'unsubstantiated allegations'." <-- please provide links to the "claims" you are referring to. "you have thus obligated yourself to provide the proof using reliable sources that contradict them" <-- proof of what? "you have been stonewalling" <-- I'm not stonewalling. You have been making a demand that I have no obligation to fulfill. "in a deceptive manner" <-- what "deception" are you talking about? "You were desysopped on English Wikiversity last year for similar behavior" <-- My custodianship was terminated because another administrator published a bunch of false charges against me and a few other people believed those false charges. "you're heading for a loss of your adminship here" <-- Trying to improve the references used at Wikipedia is now reason for desysopping people? Please link me to this new policy. "your nasty previous history" <-- I have no "nasty previous history". "playing to the crowd" <-- I was participating at Wikiversity by creating a learning resource. Your characterization ("playing to the crowd") is mistaken. "produce some evidence showing that what you've been saying has any truth to it at all" <-- I don't know what you are referring to. You seem to want me to find published sources that contradict claims made by a blog. I'm under no obligation to do so. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're slick as an eel, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself. Discussing something with you is like trying to pin Jello to the wall. Your constant evasions and distractions make it hopeless to discuss with you. Thanks for providing more evidence to be used against you in the near future. I give up. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Your constant evasions and distractions" <-- I've evaded nothing. I have no obligation to respond to a demand that I provide sources that refute a claim made by someone else. If you find attempts to improve the sources cited in Wikipedia to be "distractions" then maybe you should turn your attention to other tasks. However, you accused me of BLP violations, I requested that you list those violations and then you failed to provide evidence to support your accusation. accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The allegations were made by the counsel assisting, not by "the prosecution". That person, Chris Hoy, is a coroner, so he is medically qualified oooops, he is probably a lawyer, and he advices the actual coroner. And the judge still has to rule, that's why it's "allegued".


 * Also I just noticed that the article only says "cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment" which is well sourced fixed for better wording and "allegedly", so why are we even arguing about eczemas.... wait until the judge rules... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen Chris Hoy described as "Counsel assisting the coroner", "Counsel assisting the inquest" and "lawyer", but I've seen no mention of his medical qualifications. "why are we even arguing about eczema" <-- mainly because Wikipedia is citing (as a "reliable" source) a blog by an astronomer who made claims about the cause of death for baby Gloria, claims that do not seem to be supported by expert medical testimony in the case. Those claims specifically concern two living people. Wikipedia policy is to get the facts absolutely correct in matters concerning serious (and potentially libelous) claims about living people. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are right, Chris Hoy is not a coroner, he seems to be a solicitor. I also just noticed that the trial already finished about a month ago and that the parents were already convicted of manslaughter, so there was no need of saying "allegedly" (I see that Brunton already fixed that).


 * Apparently, the only problem left is that you don't like that the article cites Phil Plait's blog. Despite the title of his article, Phil actually says in the body of his post that Gloria "died of complications due to eczema", which is supported by the sources. About Phil needing to have medical qualifications, he is commenting on pseudoscience and not on medical science, and Plait probably qualifies as an expert in pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.D.: I notice that Plait's blog was probably added to source that "there are critics of homeopathy citing the concern of people skipping conventional medicine treatment", since the The Daily Telegraph article simply sources that at least one case exists where that problem lead to death. (and that case is probably cited because, if I remember correctly, people were complaining in Homeopathy's talk page that it was a baseless concern because there had been no serious cases where people would have died due to relying in homeopathy over conventional medicine, and this case would negate that complaint). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "no need of saying 'allegedly'" <-- if Wikipedians are repeating allegations about living persons for which there is no supporting evidence then it is a violation of Biographies of living persons. "Gloria 'died of complications due to eczema', which is supported by the sources" <-- Please quote the medical experts who described the cause of death. If either Plait's blog post or a newspaper article repeats an unsupported allegation about a living person as if it were fact, then those are unreliable sources. I can find no published evidence supporting Plait's claims, and Plait made some claims about the parents that, as far as I can tell, have never been made by anyone else. Using Plait's blog post about baby Gloria as a source in Wikipedia appears to be a violation of Biographies of living persons. The June 05, 2009 article in The Daily Telegraph also appears to repeat allegations that were not supported by evidence during the trial. Such apparently poor journalism indicates that Wikipedia should not view that article as a reliable source. "there had been no serious cases where people would have died due to relying in homeopathy over conventional medicine, and this case would negate that complaint" <-- Please cite a source with a quote from a medical expert who said that Baby Gloria "died due to relying in homeopathy over conventional medicine". --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am interested in discussing this further, but will only do so at an appropriate venue: either WP:BLPN or Talk:Homeopathy (my preferred choice). I think it is unfair to DrJ and the others interested in this topic to use DrJ's talkpage in this way. Please start a new thread about this topic at homeopathy where we can contribute usefully. Verbal   chat  16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I think it is unfair to DrJ and the others interested in this topic to use DrJ's talkpage in this way." <-- discussion of this topic started when "Avathaar" (A.K.A. "DrJ") questioned the reliability of published sources covering the Gloria Thomas case. I then read the published sources covering the Gloria Thomas case. It appears to me that many of the sources covering the Gloria Thomas case are not reliable. It also appears to me that these unreliable sources pose a problem for Wikipedia because of our high standards for sources about living people. I'm continuing to search for better sources covering the Gloria Thomas case. Can you explain how discussion of this topic on this page is "unfair"? "Please start a new thread about this topic at homeopathy" <-- who is this directed towards? --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * a, he questioned the source, others have replied. You now feel there is a problem. Take it to the appropriate venue or stop being disruptive. It is not the sources that are unreliable. b, To you. My point is that discussion on this topic here should stop. Avathaar has been clear on his opinion, and your disruption is bringing him unfavourable attention and has wound him up, resulting in his all caps posts and personal attacks against other editors here who are arguing with you, not him. Verbal   chat  19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Verbal. Raise the issue at WP:BLPN. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, in the spirit of . It's tempting to re-raise this at AN as well because of the numerous subtle jabs being exchanged on this page. -- SB_Johnny  &#124; talk 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "stop being disruptive" <-- are you saying that an examination of currently cited sources and an attempt to find better sources for Wikipedia is "disruptive"? "It is not the sources that are unreliable" <-- as far as I can tell, the sources do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy. "personal attacks against other editors here" <-- please list all the "personal attacks". --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder
Guys, if you look at what was on this page a day or so ago, JWSchmidt was actually doing a good job challenging Avathaar to find good, reliable sources. Those of you who have been fighting tooth-and-nail with the guy for the past weeks (months?) should really just unwatch this page and let them be. AFAIK, Avathaar is keeping to this talk page, and JWSchmidt isn't editing the article(s) in question either.

There is already another admin observing (namely me), so there's really no need for anyone to interfere with the mentoring here. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "interfere with the mentoring here <-- What mentoring? Who is mentoring who? RS please!" although saying that, I agree with the essence of the post which is just to forget about this page. My last post above is also relevant. Verbal   chat  14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with letting JWSchmidt handle this. Also, discussion about the eczema thing should really be happening at Talk:Homeopathy. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone can lift the ban on me, so that I can post at the Talk:Homeopathy Page. There are quite a few objections I have to the article on homeopathy:-

(Note: Avathar included a list of objections here, I moved that list to the next section)


 * I'm wondering if we can have a POV tag on that article?
 * &mdash;Avathaar (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Talk:Homeopathy page, Eubulides says the citizendium articles on homeopathy and chiropractic are not NPOV, but the wikipedia article on homeopathy is worse, it is an attack piece, written completely from the POV of the critics/skeptics, every sentence/statement is criticized.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Avathaar: it might seem frustrating and inefficient, but I suggest that you restrict yourself to making specific suggestions for how to improve specified Wikipedia articles. Your objectivity has been questioned by Wikipedia editors and you are under voluntary editing restrictions. I ask you to examine the nature of your statements on this page and ask yourself if you are sometimes drifting into advocacy of a particular POV. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * JWS, I am encouraged by your mentoring words of advice, and the section below isn't totally out of place, but I have some concerns about it. It appears more like collaboration and meatpuppetry with and for a banned user than mentoring. Until Dr. Jhingaadey understands policies here, he doesn't deserve any collaboration/meatpuppetry to edit articles. I suggest you stick more to mentoring than collaboration. It should be done publicly right here. Give him the advice he needs. Help him understand why he's gotten into trouble, without placing the blame on those who have criticized him. If you side with him, then you will be failing your duty as a mentor. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, I think collaboration is a fundamentally important part of Wikipedia and I think that collaborating with editors is a good way to help them learn how to participate constructively at Wikipedia. "meatpuppetry" <-- I'm not sure what you mean by this term. "Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (apparently) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position.". You seem to be saying that I appear to be meatpuppet. I've been a Wikipedia editor for more than 6 years, so I doubt that qualifies me as "a new community member". "Until Dr. Jhingaadey understands policies here, he doesn't deserve any collaboration" <-- I suggest you start a new policy page: Don't collaborate with editors until they understand policy. "If you side with him, then you will be failing your duty as a mentor." <-- I'm not sure what you mean. I "side with" editors who help improve Wikipedia. "placing the blame on those who have criticized him" <-- I'm not sure what you mean. Blame for what? --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Avathaar: I would like to discuss each of these objections as the basis for specific proposed changes to the article. I do not have time to work on this until I get home from work. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The following objections were moved here from the preceding section by JWSchmidt:

Speculation issue

 * 1. Homeopathy is described as a form of alternative medicine that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations that cause effects similar to the symptoms presented, first expounded by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, but the critics/skeptics have made it “speculated to cause.....” which no homeopath would accept, especially since those effects can be seen.
 * It looks like the term "speculated" was removed. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just been changed to "thought to" which I feel shouldn't be there, but if there's a wiki policy which says it should be there (is there one?), I won't argue about it.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that "preparations that are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented" means: homeopaths think that homeopathic remedies cause effects similar to the symptoms presented--JWSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted the "speculated/thought to" to be removed because those effects can be seen (when a person takes the undiluted drug, the effects can be seen).&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "those effects can be seen" and "when a person takes the undiluted drug", so it sounds like you are talking about something other than the actual subject of this particular sentence. I take this sentence to be specifically talking about homeopathic remedies that are highly diluted. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the point of homeopathic provings that they demonstrate effects of highly diluted preparations? By the way, I just noticed this: "the profile of a homeopathic remedy". Does it make any sense for that link to go to "Profile (engineering)"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The effects with both the remedy and the undiluted drug can be seen. No, I'm not talking of profile_(engineering)".—Avathaar (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The effects with ... the remedy ... can be seen" <-- What is the best documentation of this? Pardon my ignorance, but I have never seen a homeopathic proving. Are they controlled and independently reproduced? Can you link to a good example? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This web-page: http://www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/projects/homeopathic.htm gives an explanation of what homeopaths mean by proving. For effectiveness, you may wanna read http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286 —Avathaar (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter" <-- if true, this would seem to suggest that repeatability of results and objective verification are not goals of homeopathic provings. The article "Scientific framework of homeopathy: evidence-based homeopathy" by Michel Van Wassenhoven seems to reach different conclusions than does the Wikipedia article on homeopathy. Can you explain this difference? Some of the information on treatment cost-efficiency and in the section "Results of 'echo studies'" might be useful for the issue in the page section. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer is relatively simple and obvious. Notice the repeated use of the word "positive", which I will highlight:


 * "Abstract: This paper aims at considering all important aspects of the scientific framework of homeopathic practice, looking at the levels of scientific evidence of each aspect in an objective way, through an extensive review of literature. Levels of evidence considered are: I) existence of meta-analyses and/or systematic positive reviews of literature; IIa) multiple positive randomized controlled trials (RCTs); IIb) some positive RCTs; IIIa) positive multiple cohorts studies; IIIb) positive studies with some cohorts; IV) opinion of experts (clinical and daily practice cases). Conclusions are clear: homeopathy must stay within the framework of medical practice, and it is even a necessity for public health."


 * When one only looks at the positive results, the conclusion follows. If one picks enough cherries, one can make a small cherry pie.  Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Lord, notice in the conclusion he says "Data presented in this review are indisputable." I've never, ever seen such a statement before in my 30+ years of experience with the scientific literature. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've submitted some studies which meet WP:MEDRS from the guna web-site, please comment on it. The wikipedia article on homeopathy has been written only from the critics viewpoint and is an attack piece, which isn't right-compare it to the article on homeopathy by other encyclopediae like the online Encyclopedia Brittanica and Citizendium.—Avathaar (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral description of dilution and potency

 * 2. “......under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment” should actually be “to get the next, subsequently higher potency”.

Current: Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking ("succussing") after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment; this process is referred to as "potentization".

Proposed, 1: Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking ("succussing") after each dilution to get the next, subsequently higher potency; this process is referred to as "potentization".

Proposed, 2: Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking ("succussing") after each dilution. Homeopaths believe that this increases the effectiveness of the treatment; this process is referred to as "potentization".--JWSchmidt (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1 is better, but can you edit the article?&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the article is supposed to reflect the main content that comes later in the article. Later in the article it says, "In homeopathy, a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency, and more dilute substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting remedies." Do you also object to these qualifiers ("is described as", "are considered by homeopaths") that come later in the article? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I feel that's O.K. (I may at most want a proper description like "a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency, as long as it has been succussed after every dilution)&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the literature like a dose-response curve for homeopathic remedies? It seems like removal of the qualifiers such as "Homeopaths believe" would require some kind of published evidence to support the idea that "potentization" works. What is the best evidence that "potentization" works? --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For evidence, you may wanna read http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286 —Avathaar (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That source does not seem to mention potentization. The question is, is there evidence that dilution increases potency? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Index of symptoms

 * 3. “......and a remedy is selected based on the index of symptoms”, should be “and a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms”
 * I think "index of symptoms" has a specific meaning within homeopathy that is not related to the symptoms of an individual patient, so this is an important change. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In homeopathy, a remedy is selected based on the sum total of important symptoms and not just an index. I'm not allowed to post on the Talk:Homeopathy Page yet, so I posted it here! I hope you can guide me about whether it would violate wiki policies to make that edit (when the ban on me is eventually lifted). Thanks.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your suggested change is a good one. Can you provide me with a short description of the meaning of "index of symptoms" within homeopathy so that I can explain the problem on the Talk:Homeopathy page? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An index is a short description (sometimes a single word) of the entire problem, but it isn't the index but the totality of symptoms that's used to find a remedy.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised this issue at Talk:Homeopathy --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Whig has replied that "totality" is more appropriate, so I hope you can change it.—Avathaar (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a good source that documents, "Homeopathic reference books known as repertories are then consulted, and a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualify: sometimes

 * 4. “However, homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk with advice to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[4] anti-malarial drugs,[5] and antibiotics.[6]” should have a sometimes in it, because that doesn’t happen all the time (neither the advice nor the criticism)
 * This was recently changed to say "some homeopaths have been criticized". --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinical evidence

 * 5. “Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.” Should read “Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and evidence, although there is clinical evidence for the same.” – clinical evidence is what the doctor sees in his clinic (and we do see that the medicine heals people)
 * "what the doctor sees" <-- what published sources describe this? Maybe Wikipedia could cite a study about patient satisfaction such as:


 * Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting
 * Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine--JWSchmidt (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you're right. There are a lot more studies/surveys but I don't have the time to go search for them. I have a lot of patients who not only tell me they feel better - their investigations also show things are better, but I guess I can't quote my Patients' testimonials (can I?).&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes quotes are included in Wikipedia articles, but I'm personally more impressed by results from clinical studies that report averaged outcomes for large numbers of patients. I'm not sure that two sources I listed above are the best ones. We should probably put some effort into searching the literature for other similar studies. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html ?&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of citing websites, even if there are websites that are used as sources in the Homeopathy article. I wonder if there is a published article that discusses the importance of clinical studies that measure patient satisfaction with homeopathy...something like a meta-analysis. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For effectiveness, you may wanna read http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286 and http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/indice.htm, but I'll look at other data available.—Avathaar (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you pointing to here? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first of those 2 web-sites isn't working, but here's the matter from it:-


 * (I was able to download the PDF for "Scientific framework of homeopathy: evidence-based homeopathy" at http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/286/354, so I removed the reference list from this page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) )


 * —Avathaar (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The matter available at http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/286/354 is different from the matter available at http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/indice.htm
 * I observed that the guna web-site had some problems, so I posted the studies it mentioned (these studies meet WP:MEDRS). The web-site may not be important, but the studies are, so I hope you can bring them back on this page.—Avathaar (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. You wrote "The first of those 2 web-sites isn't working", so I assumed you meant the "Scientific framework of homeopathy: evidence-based homeopathy" article. Is there something in particular in that list that could be cited in Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about "The first........" post. The studies can be used as evidence that homeopathy works, so can you at least bring it back on this page (I plan to eventually use it in the article on homeopathy).—Avathaar (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some errors in the way these studies appear. Can you correct them please?
 * •Colas H., Aubin M., Picard P., Lebecq J.C.. "Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution". Ann. Homéopat. Fr., 1975, 6: 1-11.
 * •Mansvelt J.D., van Amons E. "Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercury chloride". Z. Naturtorschung, 1975, 30: 643-649.
 * •Poitevin B., Aubin M., Royer J.F. "The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils". Ann. Homéop. Fr., 1983, 3: 5-12.,
 * •Aubin M. "Effect of aconitum and veratrumon the isolated perfused heart of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)". Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 1984, 776: 367-369.
 * •Aubin M. "Elements of homeopathic pharmacology". Homéopathie Franç., 1984, 72:231-235
 * •Wagner H., Jurcic K., Doenicke A., Rosenhuber E., Behrens N. "The effect of homeopathic preparations on the phagocyte activity of granulocytes. In vitro tests and double-blind controlled trials". Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1986, 36: 1424-1425.
 * •Poitevin B., Aubin M., Benveniste J. "Approach to quantitative analysis of the effect of Apis mellifica on the degranulation of human basophils cultivated in vitro". Innov. Tech. Biol. Med., 1986, 7: 64-68.
 * •Wagner H., Kreher B., Jurcic K. "In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and

lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents". Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1988, 38: 273-275.
 * •Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J. "In vitro immunologicaldegranulation of human basophilsis modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica". Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444.
 * •Wagner H., Kreher B. "Cytotoxic agents as immunomodulators". Proceedings of the 3rd

GIRI meeting, Paris, 1989, 31-46.
 * •Boiron J., Belon P. "Contributions of fundamental research in homeopathy". Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1990, 1: 34-35.
 * •Bornoroni C. "Synergism of action between indoleacetic acid (IAA) and highly diluted

solutions of CaCO3 on the growth of oat coleoptiles". Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1991, 1 (4/5): 275-278.
 * •Boiron J., Abecassis J., Cotte J., Bernard A.M. "Study of the action of Hahnemannian dilutions of mercury chloride on the mitotic index in animal cell cultures.". Ann. Homéop.Fr., 1991, 23: 43-49.
 * •Bellavite P., Chirumbolo S., Lippi G., Andrioli G., Bonazzi L., Ferro I. "Dual effects of formylpeptides on the adhesion of endotoxin-primed human neutrophils". Cell. Biochem. Funct., 1993, 11: 231-239
 * •Chirumbolo S., Signorini A., Bianchi I., Lippi G., Bellavite P. "Effects of homeopathic preparations of organic acids and of minerals on the oxidative metabolism of human neutrophils". Br. Hom. J., 1993, 82: 227-244.
 * •Doutremepuich C., Lalanne M.C., Ramboer I., Sertillanges M.N., De Seze O.

"Platelets/endothelial cells interactions in presence of acetylsalicylic acid at ultra low dose". Omeomed 92 (C. Bornoroni, ed.), 1993, Editrice Compositori, Bologna: 109-115.
 * •Fougeray S., Moubry K., Vallot N., Bastide M. "Effect of high dilutions of epidermal growth factor (EGF) on in vitro proliferation of keratinocyte and fibroblast cell lines". Br. Hom. J.,

1993, 82: 124-125.
 * •Enbergs H., Arndt G. "Effects of different homeopathic potencies of Lachesis on lymphocyte cultures obtained from rabbit blood". Biol. Tier., 1993, 4.
 * •Gibson S.L., Gibson R.G. "The effect of homeopathic potencies of house dust mite on the migration of house-dust sensitive human leukocytes". Complement. Ther. Med., 1996, 4: 169-171.
 * •Kanui T.I., Enbergs H. "The effects of Nux vomica, Homaccord and Atropinum comp. on intestinal activity in vitro". Biol. Tier., 1996/1, 43-47
 * •Sainte-Laudy J., Belon P. "Application of flow cytometry to the analysis of the

immunosuppressive effect of histamine dilutions on human basophil action: effect of cimetidine". Inflamm. Res., 1997, 46:S27-S28.
 * •Chirumbolo S., Conforti A., Lussignoli S., Metelmann H. et Al. "Effects of Podophyllum peltatum compounds in various preparations and dilutions on human neutrophil functions in vitro". Br. Hom. J., 1997; 86-16.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "In vivo and in vitro studies on the efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized substances". BT, 1997, 2; 40-46.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "Experiments with the effects of Ubichinon-Injeel and strong

Ubichinon-Injeel on an acellular system". BM, 1997, 3; 99-104.
 * •Enbergs H. "Efficacy of the homeopathic drugs Suis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on

lymphocyte and phagocyte activity". BM, 1998, 1; 3-11.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "Influence of dilutions and potencies of cAMP on different enzymatic systems". BM, 1998, 2; 55-62.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "Studies of the principles of homeopathy; the change over from in vivo to in vitro experimental research". BM, 1998, 2; 55-62.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies". BM, 1999, 1; 4-8.
 * •Gomez J.C. "Contribution to study of the efficacy of homeopathic potencies of phosphorus". BT, 1999, 2; 53-57.
 * •Harisch G., Dittmann J. "Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase in the presence of Ubichinon comp.". BM, 1999, 4; 188-194.
 * •Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G. "Biochemical efficacy of homeopathic and electronic preparations of D8 potassium cyanate". FKM, 1999, 6; 15-18.
 * •Palermo C., Filanti C., Poggi S., Manduca P. "Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibia derived osteoblasts is promoted by the homeopathic preparation, FMS Calciumfluor". Cell Biol Int, 1999, 23(1): 31-40.
 * •Schmolz M. "Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)of homeopathic active constituents". BM, 1999, 5; 248-250.
 * •Datta S., Mallick P., Khuda Bukhsh A.R. "Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice". Complement Ther Med, 1999Jan; 7 (8): 62-75 (a).
 * •Datta S., Mallick P., Khuda Bukhsh A.R. Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice". Complement Ther Med, 1999 Sep; 7 (3): 156-63 (b).
 * •Heine H. "Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug". Ärzteitschrift

fürNeturheilverfahre, 2000; 41: 542-7.
 * •Kundu S.N., Mitra K., Khuda Bukhsh A.R. "Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice". Complement Ther Med, 2000 Sep; 1 (3): 157-65.
 * •Crocnan D., Greabu M., Olinescu R. "Stimulatory effect of some plant extracts used in homeopathy on the phagocytosis induced chemiluminescence of polymorphonuclear leukocytes". Rocz Akad Med Biochemist, 2000; 45: 246-254.
 * •Dittmann J., Harisch G. "Difference between the efficacy of single potencies and chords". BM, 2000, 1; 18-23.
 * •Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G. "Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of uricase, acid phosphatase and thecytosol glutathion-S-transferase". BM, 2000, 3; 125-131
 * •Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G. "Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases". BM, 2000, 6; 289-296.
 * •Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F. "Neuroprotection from glutamatetoxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate". Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9.
 * Avathaar (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The studies can be used as evidence that homeopathy works" <-- I suggest that you pick one of these (from the list above) and then list additional sources showing that other labs have independently reproduced the original result. For example, "Characterization of differing effects caused by homeopathically prepared and conventional dilutions using cytochrome P450 2E1 and other enzymes as detection systems" says that they had different results for standard and homeopathic dilution. This is an interesting claim. If this was reproducible it would be major news. What is "BM"...a journal? --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe those studies were reproducible. Yes, BM is a journal.—Avathaar (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "BM" an abbreviation for something? In my view, showing that:


 * there is a difference between the physiological effects of diluted substances depending on how the dilution is done


 * would be an extraordinary result. I think such a result would need to be carefully reproduced by multiple independent investigators. This is not the kind of thing that can be left to a matter of belief. You really need to carefully cite several reliable sources from groups that independently tested and provided support for such a claim. I suggest that you pick one article from the list (above) and show that the results from that article were independently tested and confirmed by other researchers. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever "BM" is, it doesn't seem to be indexed in pubmed. Brunton (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

pseudoscience and quackery

 * 6. I also object to the words pseudoscience and quackery, because homeopathy needs a license and qualification to be practised
 * Maybe the article needs to be systematic in distinguishing between homeopaths who have medical training and homeopathy that exists independent of trained and licensed doctors. Some of the references used in the article make this distinction.

Cited sources
 * This webpage is cited in the article to support "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience", however the webpage does not say that "lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience", it only links to another webpage.
 * "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of ‘dangerous practitioners’ in the United Kingdom" <-- I do not have a copy of this article. The abstract seems to refer to "Roy Porter" for claims about homeopathy.
 * "'Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative" <-- I do not have a copy of this article, but the part I can see does not mention quackery.
 * "Efficacy of Homeopathic Arnica: A Systematic Review of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials" <-- I do not have a copy of this article, but the part I can see does not mention quackery.
 * "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?" <-- I do not have a copy of this article.

The homeopathy article has a large link for "Pseudoscientific concepts" but the pseudoscience article does not seem to discuss "pseudoscientific concepts".

The homeopathy article is in Category:Pseudoscience, but it seems there are no cited sources that explain how homeopathy can be called a pseudoscience. I could make a request for direct quotes from the articles that characterize homeopathy as pseudoscience and explain why homeopathy is quackery. Do the cited articles document fraudulent medical practices?--JWSchmidt (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do make such a request. Homeopathy is regulated in some way or the other worldwide, so I'd object to the word quackery (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery) to describe it.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably need to get copies of the cited articles in order to see exactly what these articles are saying about quackery. Another concern I have is what Wikipedia takes "quackery" to mean. I think there are legal definitions and laws under which quackery is prosecuted, but the Quackery article presents a different, non-legal definition. If quackery is taken to mean "overpromotion in the field of health" then the term is much watered-down. "medical definition of quackery: a treatment of which the supposed benefits are unsubstantiated...to the general public calling someone a quack is an indication that this person is a swindler and practises medicine unlawfully"--JWSchmidt (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So can the words pseudoscience and quackery be removed from the article or can we at least have a POV tag?&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to get copies of the cited articles. Avathaar, it might be useful for you to read past discussions, things like this, this and search through the talk page archives for past discussions. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * POV. The claim has been made that Wikipedia homeopathy article must be presented as a critique from the perspective of "conventional" medicine, on the assumption that Western medicine accounts for the majority of medical interventions in the world. This is an interesting claim that can be examined. Supporting such a claim would seem to require that it be shown that most people make use of conventional medicine most of the time, rather than alternative/traditional medicine. Here is the first source I found that gives some estimates of the popularity of various medical systems: Lessons on integration from the developing world's experience. I'm going to try to find some better sources that estimate what percentage of medicine in the world is "conventional". I suspect the World Health Organization probably has estimates of the percentage of the world's population that has access to conventionally trained physicians for the majority of their medical needs. --JWSchmidt (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Example of a WHO Global Survey


 * "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". At Wikipedia, articles about theories can be placed in the pseudoscience category if those theories are generally considered pseudoscience. The homeopathy article does not do a very good job of explaining "the theory of homeopathy". The homeopathy article does not have a sourced statement saying, "the theory of homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". In fact, it makes a much weaker claim about homeopathy being described as pseudoscience. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The online Encyclopedia Brittanica and Citizendium articles on homeopathy seem to be NPOV, but the Wikipedia aticle on homeopathy is an attack piece written only from the critics viewpoint, so I hope you can put a POV tag on the article.—Avathaar (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "a POV tag" would accomplish much. What is needed is specific suggestions for how to improve the article. I think the article is weak on the issue of the roles of science and scientific theories in homeopathy. I suspect that the most that can be said is that some theories that have been proposed in relation to homeopathy are pseudoscientific. It seems a stretch to say that homeopathy as a whole is pseudoscientific. I still have not read any reliable sources that explain why we should label homeopathy as whole as pseudoscience. The one book I have on homeopathy does not even have "science" or "theory" in the index. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the critics viewpoint is seen in the article, with every sentence/statement being criticized and that's why I'm asking for a POV tag on the article so that people/visitors who read the article know that it isn't neutral.—Avathaar (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be convinced that the words pseudoscience and quackery don't have "any reliable sources that explain why we should label homeopathy as a whole as pseudoscience", so can I ask you to remove those words from the article?—Avathaar (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to read the cited articles. Do you have access to any of them? --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking of removing those words from the article on homeopathy here on wikipedia!—Avathaar (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that. Before I can decide that those words should be removed, I need to think about what is best for Wikipedia. Currently, my thinking is that these words can be included in the article because they are part of the criticism of homeopathy. For me, the questions to consider are: 1) does the article correctly summarize what has been published in reliable sources where homeopathy has been described as pseudoscience and quackery? and 2) do the cited sources satisfy Wikipedia's requirements/guidelines for which articles should be categorized in the pseudoscience category? I still have not gotten access to any of the cited sources, so I am not ready to come to any conclusions. Have you read the cited sources that deal with psuedoscience and quackery? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Balance criticism and support

 * 7. Criticism by Sir John Forbes, James Young Simpson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Edzard Ernst, Anthony Campbell, Ben Goldacre, James Randi, Jack Killen, Robert L. Park etc. have been incorporated in the article, but words of support by Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth, Mahatma (M.K.) Gandhi etc. aren’t being allowed into the article. In fact, every sentence/statement is criticized.
 * Do you have a proposal for specific changes to the article? --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Citizendium has many oxymorons (or at least the next sentence has the opposite viewpoint) where quite a few sentences have both viewpoints and I'm sure we can use the same formula here.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not read the article at Citizendium. Can you formulate a sentence or two that illustrates what you think might be a way to add balance to the Homeopathy article?--JWSchmidt (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One example of a sentence with one viewpoint, followed by another sentence with the opposite viewpoint is "Some people wonder if the water used to make homeopathic medicines already has other memory imprints from its history prior to use in medicine. However, the water used by homeopathic manufacturers undergoes double-distillation, a process that homeopaths contend eliminates or substantially reduces previous memory." An example of an oxymoron is "The most characteristic — and controversial — principle of homeopathy is that the efficacy of a remedy can be enhanced and its side-effects reduced by a process known as "dynamization" or "potentization".". You may wanna read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron and http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/oxymoronterm.htm &mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Naturstud believes that all criticism should be put under one section, just like in the articles on Naturopathy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic on wikipedia, but that is for you to decide - whether the wikipedia articles on Naturopathy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic are better or the citizendium article on Homeopathy (to add balance).&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been a while since I looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for criticism in articles. I'll have to read the current guidelines such as Criticism sections. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you can tell me which formula is right.—Avathaar (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good exercise for you. You should read the relevant guidelines and then describe here, on this page, what you think the existing Wikipedia policy is. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Naturstud believes that all criticism should be put under one section, just like in the articles on Naturopathy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic on wikipedia, so I think we ought to follow the same formula in the article on Homeopathy. For the moment can you please insert a POV tag there?—Avathaar (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Naturstud believes that all criticism should be put under one section"<-- what does Wikipedia policy/guidelines say? --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was expecting you to tell me what it is. The articles on Naturopathy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic on wikipedia have all the criticism put in one section, likewise, I believe the article on Homeopathy should also have all the criticism put in one section.—Avathaar (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the skills that is useful for participation at Wikipedia is learning how to read the policies and guidelines and decide for yourself what the best approach is for editing articles. I'd like to see if you can 1) read the relevant policies and guidelines concerning criticism of the topics of articles, and 2) decide for yourself what they say. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

claims about nosodes

 * 8. No homeopathic medicine is made from any vomitus, but the article says that some nosodes are made from vomit, feces etc.
 * This sentence may have been left over from when there was an un-referenced article for "nosodes". We could ask for references. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please ask for references. I thought it was added just to add repugnance value to homeopathic medicines, but I may be mistaken.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now that the next sentence ("While Hahnemann was opposed to such preparations, modern homeopaths often use them although there is no evidence to indicate they have any beneficial effects") in the Homeopathy article cites two sources. I do not have copies of either of these articles. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for supporting quotes. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they haven't provided any references for any kind of vomit being used. I hope you also noticed how they made disparaging comments about condoms etc. being used to make homeopathic remedies (which has never happened)!&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never? Brunton (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Avathaar, two references are already used. They are being questioned, but they are used, so it's not an unsourced statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Brunton, I think that's still in the experimental stage, besides it isn't the condom, but the material used to make it that may be used in the future. Brangifer, none of the references you posted about can be read, can you give me an idiot's guide on how to read it or at least give me the full matter of those 2 articles you're referring to?.&mdash;Avathaar (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the two sources in the following sentence say anything about vomit. The sentence in question has been without sources since it was added. This edit introduced some questionable sources that still remain in the article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim about vomit was removed from the article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions
Dear John,
 * It's been some time now. Can I ask that my editing restrictions be lifted so that I can edit wikipedia articles?
 * Thanks in advance for the help.
 * —Avathaar (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can ask. Getting the restrictions lifted will probably require that someone start a page such as Requests for comment/Avathaar; see Requests for comment and Requests for comment/User conduct. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added matter to the Requests for comment/Avathaar page, please do what it takes to get the restrictions lifted.
 * Thanks in advance for the help!
 * —Avathaar (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the instructions at Requests for comment and Requests for comment/User conduct? --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably want to copy/paste the template at Requests_for_comment/Example_user and place your reasons in the adequate places.... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the 3 web-pages you guys mentioned above, but they seem to be to get someone banned/blocked for disruptive behavior, so I hope you, John, can help me with it (If I'm right, I think you can also post what you're telling me to do).—Avathaar (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the process for requesting comments on users is not usually used in this way, but I think it could be a valid way to try to get a wider audience of editors to look at this situation. Right now, there seems to only be one person disputing the continuing utility of your editing restrictions. I'm not sure it is worth trying to push for an end to your editing restrictions until at least one other editor agrees that the restrictions should be lifted. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mailing me
I have been getting mail privately, but it took me some time to figure out how to do it privately, so for the newcomers, if you want to e-mail me, please click on the 'E-mail this user' link, under the toolbox heading in the column on the left, to e-mail me privately through wikipedia. I'm not gonna post my e-mail address here!—Avathaar (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Socking again

 * User:117.192.134.64

* Are you also User:Dbrisinda?

Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record: This looks like a severe case of WP:ABF to me, and it's quite rude in this form. Hans Adler 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A CU request has been filed. This fits his pattern, so there is no bad faith. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a user who has previously shown such behavior, lied about it, and been very clueless, all of this multiple times, with multiple blocks.:


 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey


 * Brangifer (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that you did this in good faith. I said you were assuming bad faith, which a lot of people do in perfectly good faith. You are supposed to control your paranoia here. You are allowed to have it, but you are not supposed to make so much wind without a really good case. (And yes, I am aware of WP:AAGF. If you think like invoking it in your defence, I suggest you ask someone you trust for a neutral opinion. It would be really nice if you could learn something from this situation, especially now so short after you have become an ABF victim yourself.) Hans Adler 17:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite sure that these are not the same individual, the writing styles are entirely different and I do not think there is any possibility that it is a sock. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I struck it out. Hans was right. Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IP geolocates to Bangalore, where his other IPs geolocate.  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try this one. It's the most specific service I've found yet, and locates the IP to the same location as the other IPs he's used:


 * http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/117.192.134.64


 * Brangifer (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you guys have figured out that I'm not indulging in any sock puppetry and that I'm not User:Dbrisinda. Now chill out and stop harassing me!—Avathaar (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Dbrisinda has been stricken, while you are still accused of misusing an IP sock for community ban/sanction evasion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you complain about this 'I.P. sock'? The allegation will fall flat on it's face! [Reference to severe, unfounded allegation by BullRangifer removed. Hans Adler 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)]—Avathaar (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [Reference to previous unfounded personal attack removed. Hans Adler 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)] A complaint about the IP sock has been filed and a CU confirmed that it geolocated to exactly the same location as your previous IP socks. Just because nothing has happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Call to order: BullRangifer, India isn't a civilised country in the same way as e.g. Denmark. The Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (warning: NPOV issues in the article) is not some kind of police force, it's a political organisation that commits violence to further its political goals. Your personal attacks against editors you don't agree with must stop. Perhaps you can learn from this incident that you have a tendency to jump to conclusions, which you must learn to control. You have removed your original unfounded allegation, so I will not report you for this, although I actually hope that this post attracts the attention of an admin, in which case I can provide further details privately. I have also removed two later references to it.

Avathaar has had enough chances now and will no doubt be banned with no chance for further revision. This does not give you the right, and in fact should have removed any perceived necessity, to commit harassment of this kind. Hans Adler 07:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment removed by Avathaar 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC).Brangifer (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. If this is the raid I think it is, I'm fairly certain that it's a different guy -- the clinic is at a different address from his. The possibility of mistaken identity is all the more reason not to bring up stuff like this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. If you're right, then I certainly apologize. Everything fits, including location, TTBOMK, but maybe you're seeing something I'm not. Email me with any details. We may well be talking about two different incidents. The link I found doesn't list a precise address, but only Karnataka, which is where his clinic is located. (Bangalore is located in Karnataka.) I deduced it was him by the names and descriptions. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [Own post removed. Hans Adler 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)]


 * Unless this has any relevance whatsoever to his edits at Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you drop the topic. Like, now. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. It makes no sense to discuss this further. I removed my post above. Hans Adler 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good!-Avathaar (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
Today I blocked as a probable sock of. Considering this account was an unsuccessful and apparently abandoned attempt to allow Dr.Jhingaadey a third chance to be a constructive Wikipedia editor, dependent upon some behavioral limitations, I have blocked it indefinitely. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)