Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homeopathy/2

Homeopathy

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Homeopathy/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. This is a highly charged article with a lot of strong opinions. Saying that the discussion here has been relatively positive and focused. Based on the original reasons for delisting and the articles present state I agree that it fails the focus criteria, but not the neutrality one. Although that can, and is, debated what can not be is the presence of cleanup tags on the article and the poor prose in the Ethics section (both brought up below). Those alone are reasons enough to delist. It at least needs a good copy edit and better use of summary style before it is renominated AIR corn (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy fails these GA criteria:
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Specifically, the lead section presently contains only 4 sentences devoted to explanation of the concepts of homeopathy, and 11 (!) sentences devoted to critique. Attempts to consolidate the critique and introduce fundamental concepts in the lead section are reverted with accusations of being POV. Mkweise (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is because Homeopathy is undeniably a fringe theory (as defined by WP:FRINGE - which is Wikipedia policy), and it is also pseudoscience (as defined by WP:NPOV). WP:FRINGE requires us to give the majority of weight to the mainstream scientific view - which is without doubt that homeopathy does not, nor cannot work - that it fails every scientific test designed to check it's validity.  Hence the correct WP:WEIGHT and the WP:NPOV is to spend the vast majority of the article explaining that homeopathy doesn't work, cannot work, why it cannot work and the experimental evidence that demonstrate that it doesn't work.  The weighting of the article does that correctly...please note that the guideline is "giving due weight to each"...not "giving equal weight to each".  That is a common misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE that is critically important to the authoring of fringe topics.


 * Some guidance from WP:FRINGE:
 * "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."
 * "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."
 * "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."
 * " Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported."
 * We should also be especially cognizant of the ArbCom decisions on fringe science: Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science. The most telling finding of which is:
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus."
 * So, this article does indeed "primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus" - which is that homeopathy is nonsense.


 * Furthermore, documenting "the concepts of homeopathy" in an accurate and unbiassed manner is almost impossible because no two homeopathists seem to agree on what's going on. Trawl back through the Talk:Homeopathy archives and you'll find many cases where practicing homeopathists have flat out contradicted each other.  There is no single POV that we can reflect here.  To cover all of the random crazy ideas that are out there would result in an article that had so many weasel words like "some homeopathists claim that..." that the preponderance of these disparate views would result in a gross violation of WP:UNDUE because those descriptions of minority-held views would overwhelm the main message of the article, which (per WP:FRINGE) is definitely going to be that homeopathy doesn't work and it's proponents are quacks because that's what mainstream science clearly says...and Wikipedia will always give that viewpoint overwhelming WP:WEIGHT.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse weight with wordiness. A simple statement that the theory of homeopathy is incompatible with science would actually carry more weight than the 11 sentence rant currently comprising the bulk of the lead section. Good encyclopedic writing doesn't make the reader feel like it's trying to convince him of something. Mkweise (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, why use inflammatory words like "nonsense" and "quackery" instead of neutral ones like "disproven" and "ineffective"? I'm sure there's a good reason you have strong feelings on the subject, but the editor's emotions should never be reflected in encyclopedic writing. Mkweise (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no expectation on wikipedians to use encyclopedic style writing in their comments, and I don't see the relevance to the article or the review. The article rightly sums up the multiple issues with homoeopathy in the lead. It is these issues etc which have the weight in the sources. It is against WP:WEIGHT to remove coverage of this and instead talk about some other aspect. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a neat summary would be a conclusion statement like, "Homeopathy has been largely disproven by scientific studies." This satisfies WP:WEIGHT, due to lack of any statements supporting its validity. WEIGHT = 1/0. Mkweise (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Guide_to_writing_better_articles, "cramming [...] the lead [...] in order to fully state and prove their case [results] in an unreadable lead." Mkweise (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead has a lot of article to summarize. 4 paragraphs of a lead isn't undue. You appear to want to replace it with a single sentence, which doesn't actually summarize any of the main points of the article. You stated that there was "4 sentences devoted to explanation of the concepts of homeopathy, and 11 critiquing", Here is the breakdown I saw, maroon is the fringe beliefs, and blue is the results of studies and trials, and the perspectives of science and medicine about homeopathy, green are other statements which don't fit into either of the two:








 * I think it's apparent that the 4 lines description and 11 critique isn't the case. Reporting on the results of tests isn't a critique. The lead is pretty well balanced. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the first paragraph and the first 3 of the 2nd are devoted to explaining, "What's the idea of homeopathy?" Nearly the entire remainder is critique--i.e., it addresses the question, "Is it valid?"--a question that can be answered simply and authoritatively. Compare to the lead of Nazism, which is focused entirely on describing that ideology and its history. Do we need to cite a dozen studies to discourage the reader from adopting it? I don't think so. Mkweise (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law - game over. SteveBaker (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And to make a slightly more serious point, homoeopathy is not a political ideology, or (as has also been used as a comparison recently) a religion. It purports to be a system of medicine, so needs to be evaluated and reported on that basis, not as a belief system.  That is what the article does.  Brunton (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Mkweise's analogy is certainly flawed. The Nazism article is written in the past tense.  It's a historical article, so direct comparison with Homeopathy (which is still a very active meme) doesn't make much sense.  Any remnants of the Nazi ideas that are still being followed are actually described in Neo-Nazism...so if you really must make such a comparison, that would be a better article to compare against.  However, even that is a poor example because, unlike homeopathy, neo-nazism isn't a single idea - it's a combination of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.  But those things, while clearly "bad ideas", are mostly not fringe scientific theories. "Nationalism" isn't a fringe theory - it doesn't make testable scientific claims.  So even those sub-topics aren't really covered by WP:FRINGE or the ArbCom ruling on such matters.  To the extent that you could draw a comparison with the topic of homeopathy, you'd have to look at an article like Scientific racism (which is that sub-division of racism that really does make testable scientific claims in the way that homeopathy does - and which is similarly disparaged by mainstream science).  So here, finally, we arrive at a fully analogous article who's stucture you could reasonably compare with Homeopathy...and if we do that, what do we find?  Well, right there in the first paragraph of the Scientific racism lede:
 * "Scientific racism is the use of pseudoscientific techniques and hypotheses to sanction the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. According to the United Nations convention, superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere."
 * This is a fairly close structure to the lede of Homeopathy:
 * A sentence describing what this is (which labels it as pseudoscientific).
 * A statement that says that it's not true.
 * A statement that it's "morally condemnable" and "socially unjust".
 * ...with a nice authoritative WP:RS to back it up. That's essentially identical to the structure of the homeopathy lede.
 * QED
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:24,25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and the thought that went into it. What I've been asking for all along is a simple statement that it's not true (scientifically disproven,) instead of the elaborate list of objections presently comprising most of the lead. The book on homeopathy as a scientific theory was closed ~100 years ago; our lead is written as though it were still worthy of serious scientific debate. It reads like beating a dead horse.
 * Then we have the present-day phenomenon, which lies outside the realm of science: You say pseudoscience, implying that believers have been tricked by fabrications. I say quasi-religious phenomenon, meaning some choose to believe in it for reasons unrelated to scientific proof or disproof--and that their beliefs will never be swayed by rational argument or scientific evidence (see magical thinking.) But we can agree to disagree on that philosophical distinction.
 * My objection to the quality of the article is not over facts, but over their presentation:
 * The lead should summarize the major facts, and not lose itself in details.
 * Encyclopedia entries should not be written from the POV of wanting to convince (or "save") the reader.
 * Inflammatory language should be avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing or offending anyone.
 * Mkweise (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is (as I have explained to you on many occasions) that we are required by WP:FRINGE to put the majority of the "weight" of the article into explaining the mainstream view. That's not optional in fringe articles.  We are simply not allowed to state the mainstream view briefly and then move on because WP:UNDUE requires those views to occupy a large majority of the article.  If you are correct about it being long winded and overly detailed and we somehow agreed that this required pruning of the mainstream stuff...then step one would have to be to reduce all of the non-mainstream material down to the bare bones minimum in order that we can reduce the amount of mainstream material and still keep the required balance.  This would result in some fairly drastic pruning of the description of what homeopathy claims to be.  I'm not keen on tossing out so much of that material - so the solution is to put deeper content into the mainstream view so that it does not come across as repetitive or redundant yet does not get overwhelmed by the fringe view.  Actually, I don't think this is a problem right now...but if that's your view, then the solution may be (ironically) the opposite of what you're probably thinking. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that homeopathy is a "religion" or a "quasi-religion" doesn't stand up to the facts. The Wiktionary definition of "Religion" is:
 * The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.
 * A particular system of faith and worship.
 * The way of life committed to by monks and nuns.
 * Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
 * eg: At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
 * (obsolete) Faithfulness to a given principle; conscientiousness. [16th-17th c.]  [quotations ▼]
 * Homeopathists do not believe there is a personal god or gods involved in the curing of disease - so it's not (1). There is no "worship" involved - and because it's really easy to do scientific testing, you don't need to rely on "faith" - so it's not (2).  There are no monks or nuns involved, so (3) is out. (5) is obsolete - which leaves us with the meaning of the word that you'd use in discussing Star Trek fans.  OK, maybe this meaning could be applied to homeopathists - but that meaning doesn't grant homeopathy any kind of religious status.  Sticking "quasi-" in front (meaning "Similar to, but not exactly the same as;") simply says that homeopathy isn't truly a religion, it's just kinda similar to one.  Either way, your assertion doesn't move our discussion here any further forward.  We're never going to treat homeopathy in the way we treat (say) Christianity or Islam...because it simply does not fit with the English language definition of a religion - it's falsifiable (and false), it doesn't require faith, there is no god/gods involved.
 * To the contrary, you say "some...choose to believe in it for reasons unrelated to scientific proof or disproof" - which would be religious thinking requiring blind faith if homeopathy were unfalsifiable - but since there are perfectly valid scientific tests which actually do disprove it, your description is essentially the dictionary definition of a pseudoscience: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."...these people purport to be scientific (they do "provings" and follow elaborately proscribed methods of preparation) - yet (as you say) choose to believe it without paying attention to the results of the scientific method.  That is precisely what a pseudoscience is - and exactly what a religion isn't!  There shouldn't be any debate about that...just read any English dictionary! SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Homeopathists do not believe there is a personal god or gods involved in the curing of disease - so it's not (1). There is no "worship" involved - and because it's really easy to do scientific testing, you don't need to rely on "faith" - so it's not (2).  There are no monks or nuns involved, so (3) is out. (5) is obsolete - which leaves us with the meaning of the word that you'd use in discussing Star Trek fans.  OK, maybe this meaning could be applied to homeopathists - but that meaning doesn't grant homeopathy any kind of religious status.  Sticking "quasi-" in front (meaning "Similar to, but not exactly the same as;") simply says that homeopathy isn't truly a religion, it's just kinda similar to one.  Either way, your assertion doesn't move our discussion here any further forward.  We're never going to treat homeopathy in the way we treat (say) Christianity or Islam...because it simply does not fit with the English language definition of a religion - it's falsifiable (and false), it doesn't require faith, there is no god/gods involved.
 * To the contrary, you say "some...choose to believe in it for reasons unrelated to scientific proof or disproof" - which would be religious thinking requiring blind faith if homeopathy were unfalsifiable - but since there are perfectly valid scientific tests which actually do disprove it, your description is essentially the dictionary definition of a pseudoscience: "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."...these people purport to be scientific (they do "provings" and follow elaborately proscribed methods of preparation) - yet (as you say) choose to believe it without paying attention to the results of the scientific method.  That is precisely what a pseudoscience is - and exactly what a religion isn't!  There shouldn't be any debate about that...just read any English dictionary! SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No offence intended, but I think it would be more appropriate to have a Good article review from an experienced editor with more recent contributions. Mkweise has made less than 40 edits other than this assessment and respective article in the last 5 years, and has made more comments on this thread than his other editing in that time. Many wikipedia policies have changed considerably since 2005, I don't think WP:FRINGE was around for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mkweise has also demonstrated some pretty strong opinions about the subject on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the lead
The lead itself should summarise the body of the article. If the majority of the body of the article is criticism then so should the majority of the lead. There may be a case for a bit more history to be mentioned in the lead and the prevalence and regulation sentence is weak (although probably the best that can be done). I would probably add a sentence on its rise to popularity in the 19th century as a second sentence in the first paragraph. The only sentence I would have issue with in terms of tone in the lead is The low concentrations of homeopathic remedies, often lacking even a single molecule of the diluted substance,[9] lead to an objection that has dogged homeopathy since the 19th century: how, then, can the substance have any effect?. I don't like how this is framed as a question and it basically repeats information from the previous sentence. The contrary to homeopathy, sentence fragment seems a bit overkill in this regard too, we already mention that it dilutes the substance and I think this is getting close to the point of rubbing it in. I am not sure why italics are used in the second paragraph either. The remedy link doesn't appear useful either (I never saw the point in linking to sections within an article, let alone the very next one - plus it doesn't work). There are also three citation needed tags and quite a few page needed tags within the article. Apart from the tags I don't think the other issues are necessarily enough to demote the article. AIR corn (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that The low concentrations… shouldn't repeat the point of the previous sentence. Repetitiousness is probably the article's most serious flaw right now. Another current flaw in the lead is that, after harping so much about low concentrations, it then says that the high concentrations in some remedies make them dangerous. This is true, but it's a small point, and doesn't belong in the lead. I like the low concentrations sentence, though. It's actually not a question; it states a question that many have asked, making a quick summary of the history of homeopathy while introducing the topic that the rest of the paragraph explores. As much as I oppose the article's tone of advocacy against homeopathy, I do think that the extremely low, often zero, concentration of the diluted substances is important enough and covered enough in the literature to merit an entire paragraph in the lead. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with devoting a paragraph to the dilutions, it is just that the phrasing of that sentence does not appear encyclopaedic. As a suggestion, why not bring the last sentence down to the start of the paragraph and then change reword it to something like Dilution usually continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains. Since the 19th century this has lead to objections questioning how the remedies can work if they often lack a single molecule of the diluted substance. AIR corn (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fails neutrality due to harping and tendentious wording
Two ways in which the current version fails neutrality are that it mentions arguments against homeopathy repeatedly, well beyond the need for clarity, and it refers to opposing views simply as "the medical community" and "science" as if homeopathy were not alternative medicine or an idea opposed to mainstream science.

An example of the needless repetition ("harping") is the article's pointing out in several places that not even one molecule of the original substance is present in homeopathic remedies. This is an important point to state, and it is rightly stated in the lead, the explanation of dilution, and in the section on plausibility. Once each in those places would make the point clearly and forcefully. Currently, the article states this point 13 times.

Referring to mainstream medicine simply as "the medical community" in an article about a system of healing sick people that opposes the mainstream is simply disrespectful. Since the article is about a form of alternative medicine, there needs to be a way to contrast it with—well, that other sort of medicine, the mainstream kind. Refusing to call homeopathy medicine at all, even medicine that has been proven ineffective, is unclear and certainly sounds like anti-homeopathy advocacy.

These forms of rhetoric come across like a little kid trying to persuade an adult by intrusively repeating his point over and over in every conversation, and refusing to name an opposing idea in plain language lest that "concede" any validity to it. Childish rhetoric does not belong in any article that we should rate as "good".

Harping and tendentious wording cause this article a lot of damage because they dissuade people from reading the factual substance of the article. The factual substance of the article makes it abundantly clear that homeopathy is ineffective. But the smug tone suggests to a reader that the article is a "hit piece" rather than a fair summary of the known facts. It undermines the article's credibility.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fails to address one main aspect of the topic: the homeopathic theory of disease and cure
The article makes only brief mention of the homeopathic theory of "miasms", and no mention at all of the homeopathic theory of how and why its remedies cure diseases. I'm not familiar with this theory myself, but in a cursory search of Google Books, I found that the theory has something to do with it being impossible for two diseases to coexist in the same body. This topic is well represented in the literature on homeopathy, and is needed for a reader to understand why anyone would find homeopathy plausible enough to consider, even in the 19th century. The article cannot be rated "good" until we give at least basic coverage to this aspect of homeopathy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that there are so many of these crazy satellite theories surrounding Homeopathy. It's hard to decide which of them are more "mainstream" within homeopathic circles and which are fringe theories within a fringe theory.  We can't describe them all without running into WP:UNDUE issues...so we can only mention the main ones, and then only briefly.  (So people really believe that it's "impossible for two diseases to coexist in the same body"?  So someone who has cancer can't catch a cold?...Or maybe catching a cold cures cancer?...Of that if you have a cold, you can consume large amounts of known carcinogens without getting cancer?...Or that cancer and the common cold are really the same disease...and therefore, by extension, that cancer and ebola are the same disease and therefore the common cold is just a mild case of ebola?)  Are these people complete idiots?!) SteveBaker (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed extreme fragmentation of thought throughout homeopathy, then that sounds important enough that the article should at least mention it. However, I'm not so sure that there isn't a main homeopathic theory of disease, easily distinguished from the "satellites". On the talk page, we recently identified an important omission: the difference between homeopathy and immunization. In any event, our assessment of whether the article has Good coverage of the topic should be based on how well the article reflects the literature on homeopathy, not on homeopathy's flaws. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a summary style article so the current section on miasms seems appropriate. Part of the GA criteria is focus and for overview articles this is especially important. As for the different theories within homeopathy they should be covered even if briefly, maybe under philosophies. Minor ones should maybe just get a mention in a list sentence (i.e. "other theory's in homeopathy include the belief that two diseases cannot co-exist in one body and ....). Any explaining of these should be left for the main article (a philosophies of homeopathy should possible be split out). Come to think of it the evidence section is probably too long for an overview article and should probably be split. AIR corn (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree...that would be a good way to take the article in the future...but I don't think this rises to the level where a "Good Article" assessment should not be acceptable for this article as-is. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Summary style does tangentially fall under the criteria and focus is definitely there. I have commented previously that other articles should probably be delisted for these reasons. Admittedly at the time (it has improved significantly since) it was worse in that regard than this one. Though technically easy, due to the nature of the article I don't think any splitting of the Evidence section is likely to happen before this reassessment finishes. At the very least I would consider paraphrasing and condensing some of the block quotes and tidying up the list of study sentences so they don't all start "in 2002", "in 2003", "a 2007" etc. I don't see the value of the infobox in this section either. The passed version from 2007 reads much better in this regard. In its current state I don't think it meets the Good Article standards. AIR corn  (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the article's current coverage of evidence: the information is excellent, but a lot of it is written like a research review article or textbook, not an encyclopedia article accessible a lay reader. This can be fixed with a bit of work; we're just not there yet. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)