Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 15

message: I'm stuck for what would be an appropriate edit here, because I know that what I should write (or simply delete) will be attacked with vigor.  The following can't stand as it's written, however:
"Some modern homeopaths are exploring the use of even more esoteric substances. These are known as "imponderables", because they do not originate from a material but from electromagnetic energy or other energy presumed to have been "captured" by a substance like alcohol or lactose. The captured "energy" can be in many forms, such as X-rays, Sol (sunlight), Positronium,[27] Electricitas[28] or even light collected using a telescope (for example, from the star Polaris). Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include Tempesta[29] (thunderstorm), and Berlin wall.[30]"
The whole thing suggests that there is actually evidence that these various "energies" have any bearing over human health in a homeopathic sense.  Sure, electricity and light have been used therapeutically, but have been explained and justified in terms of known and reasonable physical interactions with the patient.  There is no reasonable argument that can be put forth to suggest that the light from Polaris or positonium emmision into a glass of ethanol should have any effect on a person's health.  There needs to be some indication that this is all hypothetical and poorly documented.  I'm more than happy to change it, but those who want to keep it relatively intact should take a crack at it first.209.59.122.46 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy

message: I have changed this statement:
"The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified. A failure to cure homeopathically can always be attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:"
to the following:
"The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified. A failure to cure homeopathically can always be ostensibly attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:"
The original reads as if the only reason that homeopathy ever fails is due to the incorrect selection of a remedy.  It needs to be more clear that failure of a remedy may also be attributed to the fundamental theories of homeopathy being flawed.  I don't think the word "ostensible" suggests anything about the validity of homeopathy; it simply suggests that remedy failure is not necessarily due to choosing the wrong remedy.  Also, I had a bit of trouble with the placement of the word "ostensibly".  There are a lot of places it could be inserted in the sentence, but I think its current location gives the least biased and most accurate meaning to the statement.209.59.122.46 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy and Treatments

message: In the main article, it says there are more than 100,000 practitioners around the world. While in the subsection, it says India alone has more than 300,000 qualified practitioners. (BTW, I know that more than 100,000 will cover everything.)--nids(♂) 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any good numbers on this topic.  It is really hard to quantify, because the qualifications one needs to practice vary widely from place to place.  Unless someone can find a reference from a good source, probably all mention about numbers should be removed from the articles. Abridged talk 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of practiotioners 

message: What is a "molecular dose"? I do not think the term is used in this article in a standard way.--Filll 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that term means anything.  It should be removed in place of whatever meaning the editor was actually trying to convey.  Abridged talk 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Outstanding.  Thanks Peter.  Abridged talk 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the term molecular dose from the early part of the article. I might include it later or put it in another daughter article. I took what peter wrote and made a new article called molecular dose--Filll 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We need that article back.  Abridged talk 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular dose 

message: What is it? Some sort of Indian Medicine?--Filll 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suddha 

message: *Nature 438, 902 - 902 (14 Dec 2005) 
Can you help me? Or use an alternative reference? Or in addition?--Filll
Here is my stab at this one...It could be: Chanelière,T. et al. Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memorie. Nature 438, 833-836 (2005). Also useful is: Davenas, E. et al. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum againstIgE. Nature 333, 816-818 (1988). both here:  and Nature 438, 902 - 902 (14 Dec 2005) News in Brief.  "Prizewinning Homeopathy Article is Withdrawn." Nature. Vol. 438; Dec. 2005, 902.  also  also a ref: Giles, J. Nature 438, 900-901 (2005). listed here:  but no real link. Chanelière,T. et al. Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memorie. Nature 438, 833-836 (2005) listed here  so no real conclusion to this. Does this help? Peter morrell 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks. I think I have improved this a bit.--Filll 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in references that is poorly cited

message: I have gone lightly over the first couple of sections, and tried to clean them up a bit. I realize that we have some severe problems in this article and it needs a lot more work and better explanations of many points. In particular I think that some of this material should be farmed out to daughter articles to make the main article shorter and more manageable. What do people think of subsiduary articles like History of homeopathy, Homeopathy around the world, and Legal status of homeopathy, for example? The article is just too long and unwieldy, in my opinion, at 89K. --Filll 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There were some little articles in the past, but there was a big push by one editor to collapse all the articles and redirect to the main article.  Abridged talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think "legal status" would be a subsection of "around the world", but yeah farming off most of the history would probably be a good idea. ornis 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be careful with multiple articles.  In the past pro-homeopathy editors have used them as POV forks to escape the sourced criticism in the main article.  They've ended up reading like ads.  I can provide diffs if you like.  That said, I am not opposed to multiple articles as long as their number is limited and appropriate criticism is kept in.  Thank you for your efforts to improve the article, Filll.  Cheers, Skinwalker 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Typically the daughter articles are listed in a "See also" section at the bottom, if they cannot be worked into the text itself (which is the preferred format, and something I will aim towards). The only articles listed at the top are usually disambiguation articles, or links to introductory articles. --Filll 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the best way is to just link these articles in the main body, and the one that is standard Wikipedia procedure. For now, until things get a bit more developed, I will just put them in the standard "See also" section at the end. Any regular editor who wants to see what happened will look here to the talk page or look at the edit notes which are part of the history. These edit notes clearly indicate what happened to the missing text, so hopefully people will not be unduly alarmed.--Filll 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter, there are not explict enough callouts to the new articles.    The way you did this is a bit inappropriate.  Each of the new articles should have been summarized in the main article, with a call out the the new article at the top of the section.  Abridged talk 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not worry there will be more links to the new articles once this process is complete. And we might very well make very short summary sections in the main articles with links to the longer daughter articles at their tops, which is the common WP practice. I just cannot do it all at once since this is such a huge mess.--Filll 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvement

message: BTW there is a very weird wiki article 'out there' called Homeopathic Classification of Diseases edited by some German guy...ideally that needs sorting out big style as it is in an even bigger mess than this one!...take a look, maybe you can make contasct with them [User:Filll] and do the two at the same time? just an idea.Peter morrell 16:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I saw it before. It looks like a translation of the German wiki article, in process. Since I only speak French and English, not German, I might not be much use. I can of course use automated translation tools, but they are not always so helpful. Maybe this is best left to someone who speaks German. I am reluctant to link it in until it gets a bit farther along.--Filll 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By the way

message: A previous article on Classical homeopathy was previously deleted, and obviously not all the material was folded in. This is what is so frustrating here. If you just want to edit war, and not write some articles that properly describe your field, it will just remain as a mess. What is your goal here? World War III? Or some articles that are readable? Because believe me, homeopathy will NOT win in a war with science. Sorry. I am on the side of producing NPOV articles, but I will not tolerate edit warring like . Do you want to write or fight? If you want to fight, just look at my past record. I can fight and I will fight. And I will recruit lots of other science oriented editors as well to help. So please, let's try to operate in a more reasonable, consensual manner. Otherwise, I advocate reverting all these articles back to the disgusting crap piles they were when I first showed up. Your choice..--Filll 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Peter, but User:Abridged has taken it upon himself to try to shape these new articles into one-sided articles. I am afraid that they will not survive as one-sided articles favoring homeopathy. I would like to blend the disclaimers into the text better, but if we do not, these articles will be deleted for sure. Please help us Peter to resolve this problem with User:Abridged, otherwise these articles will just descend back into the morass of edit wars that they have been in for the last 5.5 years, without much noticable improvement.--Filll 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On a similar note, I strongly object to this edit's effects on the introduction.  I am OK with some condensation of the intro, but the intro must describe that homeopathy is considered pseudoscience by scientific critics.  Burying this information further down in the article is not acceptable.  Any article that is created from this effort must contain this information, or they are likely to be deleted as POV forks.  Skinwalker 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we start fighting immediately before these new daughter articles are even ready, then they will just descend into a mess. I propose that parts showing opposition by mainstream science and allopathic medicine be blended in, as much as possible, to these daughter articles. For example, in the history of homeopathy article, it can be written to show the history of opposition. In the homeopathy around the world article, opposition arounnd the world and legal definitinos of homeopathy as pseudoscience be discussed. In the homeopathic techniques article, discussions of mainstream science views of homeopathic techniques should be introduced. Otherwise, as I stated above, these articles will not survive. Does anyone doubt that. If you are a homeopathic advocate, you are under a VERY bad delusion if you think that the science cabal here (of which I am admittedly a member) will let you get away with describing homeopathy as a viable safe treatment without the appropriate disclaimers and warnings in a mainstream encyclopedia. Does the past history of this page not tell you anything? I would ask you to ask yourselves, what is your TRUE goal for these articles. Do you want them to describe homeopathy or not? There is NO WAY that they will survive without disclaimers. Absolutely none. That is my evaluation. Sorry.--Filll 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record,  I think the articles need to be DESCRIPTIVE and that is my goal for the encyclopedia.  I disagree with skinwaker that homeopathy needs to be described as pseudoscience, but think the intro could state that it has been characterized as pseudoscience by whoever has classifed it that way.  There is a subtle difference that I'm not sure other editors are appreciating.   An article on the HISTORY of homeopathy should not have a huge disclamier saying "HOMEOPATHY is BULLSHIT ALERT ALERT ALERT" on top of it.  It is just not relevant to a history  article.  It should have a call out to the main article where evidence for and against homeopathy should be fully discussed.  That would be appropriate.  Abridged talk 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More material

message: User:Abridged has completely torn up the main article and the daughter articles in some frantic attempt to slant this set of articles towards a one-sided view of homeopathy. If you have spelling or grammatical errors, that is one thing, but after 5.5 years all that this kind of activity has produced is a bunch of wasted text, poorly written, ungrammatical, not linked to the relevant articles, with huge gaps in it. For gosh sakes, the article did not link in psora or Miasma theory of disease or nosode or Organon or the major homeopaths (even those with articles already on Wikipedia) or even homeopathic proving or dozens of other concepts. Without this, the reader cannot understand what is written. Period. If you agree or disagree with homeopathy, you should at least want an article that is understandable. Because believe me, homeopaths will never win a fight here with the medical and scientific crowd. All that will happen is that the homeopaths will find themselves blocked from editing, and banned. Now, let's be sensible here and not continue with this ridiculous edit war. Because I saw the results of what you produced after 5.5 years of edit warring already, and it was not pretty.--Filll 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to make the article more cogent.  I was working in good faith.  You yourself hacked up the article by removing great swaths of material to subarticles without the proper callouts, but I guess that was ok.  The article is horibly really badly written with the same sentences appearing all over the place again and again, no coherant sectioning or flow.  I was honestly tryng to make it better.  Anyway, I am a busy physician and can see I am wasting my time here by trying to contribute.  This is a playground for ideological warriors.  Abridged talk 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many different viewpoints here, and the only way that things are done is through compromise. Call it ideological warfare if you want, but you have so little experience here that you obviously do not understand the mechanics of WP. It is not possible for biased text to survive. There will be more links included when this is finished, but we are talking about 100 K of material, which is a LOT to organize. Yes the wording stinks. Yes the flow is awful. Lots of things are wrong with it. However, you have been editing here for 4 months. I have been here for 1 day. What did you accomplish with your 6 edits, spread out over 4 months? Did you actually clean any of the problems up? Obviously not, since it was a mess when I got here. So give me a break...Let's try to be constructive instead of working at cross-purposes.--Filll 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I'll revert to your last version and remove my user pages from Wikipedia.  Abridged talk 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: Is this really suppressed gonorrhoea? Is this current mainstream medicine? Current homeopathy? Was it ever a belief in homeopathy or allopathy?--Filll 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to mean something like a rash under the beard in standard allopathic medicine, but does not appear to be connected to suppresssed gonorrhoea in allopathic medicine. I am checking, however.--Filll 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[sycosis]] (suppressed [[gonorrhoea]])

message: Do I understand correctly that this is basically connected to the same miasmas found in Miasma theory of disease ? And that the miasm theory in homeopathy first appeared in 1828 in Hahnemann's book The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure ? Did Hahnemann publish any other books on Miasm Theory? This is a bit confusing, for sure. I wish this was explained more clearly.--Filll 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I will continue to link miasm to Miasma theory of disease. I wondered if there was something subtly different. You are quite right. I am struggling here since I am neophyte in this area. I am trying to understand it, however, and make it clear to the readers. Your contributions on both Suddha and the Nature article will both be folded in, never fear. Thank you very much for helping. I plan to write a separate article on Suddha, since the present link to Suddah is something else. The Nature reference we have needs more detail so your contribution there will help for sure.--Filll 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miasm theory in homeopathy 

message: I copied this to the article on hahnemann himself, where it is more appropriate. Can I delete it here, where it really is out of place and makes the article overly long? --Filll 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 3 on Hahnemann's other contributions

message: What exactly does this sentence mean and is it properly placed?
This modern approach also harks back to the ancient 'doctrine of signatures,' which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork.[29]
--Filll 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I of course added the long paragraph back in. And appealed to JoshuaZ to leave it in. Also I didnt want to remove this sentence unless I understood. Are there any words I could add to make it clearer to the average reader? I did read about it a bit and I am familiar with it, but somehow I miss the point to it being there in that paragraph. Any help you could offer would be most appreciated.--Filll 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence I do not understand

message: The only content on this article is criticism. There is very little information about Hahnemann or the history or the mechanism of homeopathy, especially in relation to the amount of criticism of homeopathy. Instead of being titled "Homeopathy" it should be titled "One sided Criticism of Homeopathy." Until the title is changed, there should be a tag noting the lack of neutrality of the article.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by A fly in my soup (talk • contribs)   04:30, 14 July 2007 
:Hi A fly in my soup, criticism doesn't imply bias.  It simply implies that the article is written in the opinion of homeopaths and that scientists criticize their views.  If the article were written in the view of scientists, we would have criticism from homeopaths.  So you see, criticism doesn't equal bias. Could you state any specific invalid or insignificant criticism that should be removed? Pdelongchamp 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am finding just the opposite, although the article is possibly changingon an hourly bases due to edit wars.  The sections on Philosophy and modern advances in homeopathy are ridiculously biased in the favor of homeopathy.  The wording suggests that the unfounded and quite arbitrarily formulated assumptions of why homeopathy should work are actually fact.  Comments such as "failure of a homeopathic remedy can *always* be attributed to choosing the wrong remedy" are just idiotic.  How about the antithesis tht "failure of homeopathic remedies can be attributed to the fact that the claims of homeopathy are farcical"?  There needs to be a much more critical presentation of this material, or at least one which doesn't flatly claim that homeopathy is valid as a fact.69.50.69.3 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this article is very biased

message: Should the category for The Organon of the Healing Art be changed? --Filll 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am asking because I am not sure that book should be in Category:Obsolete medical theories, but possibly this article and some others about homeopathic theories should be in Category:Obsolete medical theories. However, I can see this turning into a huge war if I try to add Category:Obsolete medical theories here and remove it from the Organon article. I notice that Category:Obsolete medical theories is pretty slim so far and needs a lot more in it. I like the category, but it seems underused to me. However, I am not that kind of doctor. --Filll 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be funny were it not so sad: "pro-science geeks infest this planet".  Maybe there are more "pro-science geeks" than "anti-science placebo peddlers" because more people than not are not functionally brain dead. •Jim62sch• 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aw gee, you're just too clever for me.  Nice snappy comebacks, clearly proud of your ignorance, no doubt a great thinker in spite of that lobotomy.  Well done.  •Jim62sch• 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete?

message: I am reasonably happy with the first cut of the LEAD, sections 1 and 2. Anyone who knows a lot about homeopathy like Peter should please check what I have written to make sure it is correct. I am less happy with the articles that we link to. Most of them are in rough shape. I have not checked the later sections very much yet. And the daughter articles are still in very rough shape.--Filll 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very encouraging talk page, I've not seen a version so focussed on writing the article and not on personal attacks and argumentation before. Kudos to the editors involved! Tim Vickers 13:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, this is killing me. I am of course pro-science, but I am trying to write this in a balanced way if possible, but with a large measure of disclaimers and statements about the opposition. And on both sides I am accused of favoring the opposing side! Maybe that means I am down the middle on this one? I am not sure. I do really need more advice from other outside, disinterested parties here, rather than the two sides with the strongest feelings about this.--Filll 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Pro-science zealot?  Thank you, I'll take that as a badge of honor!  Homeopathy is about harming patients--please read the fine article from your country about killing malaria patients.  This pseudoscience harms people.  I know that bothers you, but I also think diving rods, astrology, alchemy, creation science, and alien abductions are lumped together with Homeopathy.  All rely upon word of mouth and not facts.  Whatever you say about me, you're looking into a mirror.  Orangemarlin 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One point that seems to have been missed, "right down the middle" does not work for articles about pseudoscientific technques.  And don't try that crap that homeopathy doesn't pretend to be science, it very much does. •Jim62sch• 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Status 

message: I swear, the trouble here at this article is almost as bad as what I saw at black people. Lets compare this article to intelligent design, which has been through a lot more consensus building. In intelligent design, there are 4 sentences describing the belief, with one weasel word, the word "claim". Then the response of the scientific community follows at sentence 5, making it clear that this is not mainstream, etc. In this article, the first 3 sentences (one of which added by me so that I could reference the information later, but this can be rearranged) talk in general terms about the subject, with one weasel word, even stronger than "claim": "controversial" (which some enterprising editor wanted to remove many times, but which I think will not fly). It also includes the words "alternative medicine" which to many people is like a red flag for "unverified and not mainstream", and "not AMA approved". Then at sentence 4 starts the description of the fairly outrageous reasoning behind homeopathy. Sentence 6 to me is pretty much the knock-out punch. Sentence 7 is even more scathing: water memory? Come on!! That is positive? It might need more weasel words, but still. Then in sentence 13 starts a pretty serious disclaimer, which is as heavy a disclaimer as the one at intelligent design but with maybe more substance behind it. Possibly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be switched, as long as the result still makes sense to the reader. I am not sure. To me, this is a minor issue compared to the mess later in the article. Like intelligent design, this sort of argument about the LEAD can take months or years of effort. I do not intend to personally fight that fight, just as I did not fight it at intelligent design. I only offered my opinion at intelligent design on some points, arguing for an understandable LEAD. I did the same at evolution and other places, arguing for an understandable LEAD, first and foremost. But to me, I want to fix the places later in the article which make no sense whatsoever, and are not even close to English sentences, where the references are just a mess and the wikilinks are to stubs or meaningless stream-of-consciousness writing. That is far worse, because a reader will not be able to make heads or tails out of what they are reading and be confused. --Filll 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want more comparisons, look at phlogisten, caloric theory, Aether theories and lumiferous aether. Granted, they are not so controversial and not about health, so the character will not be the same, but they are also about nonmainstream, "obsolete" theories.--Filll 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm I was a afraid of that. So the use of Category:Obsolete medical theories is not appropriate you think because people are still using it? This is the kind of discussion that can take weeks or months I am afraid. --Filll 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I have to go with what the consensus says on this. Otherwise, I will be in a huge fight that lasts for months. And I am willing to go with consensus here, although I obviously have my own personal leanings.--Filll 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus here.  And, I'll remind you again to be cognizant of undue weight. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus yet, for sure. However, when one is forged, then I of course will go with it. I have my own views, but right now I am not in the mood to argue for them. I want to just pare this article down to a place where we can understand what consenuses (consensi?) need to be formed--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparson of this with other controversial articles 

message: The miasm is more of a theory than a fact, it is an imputed entity not something that can be directly observed. Hahnemann claims it was derived from close examination of many family histories so that patterns (each a 'super-illness') emerged as if a stain or shadow had been left in a family of these specific sicknesses and leaving an imprint on all members of that family...patterns as previously stated: syph ...bones, nerves, mind; sycosis...mucus membranes, asthma, etc; psora skin and internal organs. hope this helps. Peter morrell 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be scientific theory, or just an idea? •Jim62sch• 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: These days, they're referred to as genetic predisposition.  I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.  What on earth is being put forward here? This stuff has been obsolete for quite some time.  It's not quite holism; it's definitely not science; whatever it is today, the notion of "miasms" may well be correct as a general observation, but the terminology and operational definitions bear little or no resemblance to accepted terms in today's investigations into the functioning of the human body and its problems, conditions or diseases.  The phrase "imputed entity" is actually a theological term used in reference to the "body of Christ". Here, it is the same as a generalization or grouping into one classification, or one "thing". More specifically it refers to a diagnosis or putting a name on a classification of a disease.  "Sycosis" is nothing more than an obsolete term for the advanced symptoms of gonorrhea, which evidently was widespread in Hahnemann's day; "psora" is an umbrella term for a wide range of conditions, on the basis of which the practitioner proceeds to form an assumption that something's amiss about the internal state of the person that exhibits one or more of them.  Today, to hold out concepts like this to be scientific would be to make it a classic form of pseudoscience; to hold it out as the unfettered discretionary exercise of the practitioner's judgment in prescribing treatment modalities might well be worse, depending on what country or state you happen to be in.  I say this not to debunk principles such as the "law of similars"; after all, that's essentially what typical innoculations and other such approaches do.  Seems there's some empirical evidence in support of its possible efficacy in some circumstances after the disease has developed (don't have the cites at present), assuming of course that the practitioner has properly identified the target substance that's at issue for a particular patient and the level of dilution that's potentially effective. And there's been a fair amount of results showing it's not effective-- I do understand that these kinds of seemingly opposing results often happen in research for a variety of more specific reasons. And there's also been some striking research, such as James Randi's cautious double-blind experiment regarding water memory-- the whole Jacques Benveniste affair involving the journal Science. But, whatever the case,  it's simply not appropriate to be throwing these things around and expecting other WP participants to buy into it and throw their skepticism aside.  Peter Morrell's reference, a couple of sections above, to "pro-science geeks [that] infest this planet" is unfortunate in this regard-- I'm afraid this is basically a backhanded way of asking for leeway to say whatever one wants and do whatever one wants by telling the cautious analysts and double-checkers to go jump in a lake. Problem here is that there are people treating themselves based on some of this "advice", and practitioners treating other people who may not be able to see through some "pseudo-medical" terminology, obsolete or meaningless terminology, and pseudoscientific terminology as they may come up from time to time. Those WP editors, the ones who are able to see these sorts of things better than most people do, quite often are valuable contributors to WP.  On the whole, they do not "infest" the world, but rather, despite the occasional excess of skepticism, do a great deal to improve it.  ... Kenosis 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miasms

message: * factual error...the 6th Organon was never published in his life it was a corrected draft of the 5th organon in his own hand kept after his death written in feb 1842 (he died in July 1843) but never published until 1922 after it was finally retrieved from his estate by Dr Richard Haehl of Stuttgart. This edition has then been translated. What most people think is the organon is the fifth edition which was the only edition available in English until about 1930s. Peter morrell 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I think this is fixed and in a new History section.--Filll 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual error

message: We don't need all that allopathic intro about vaccines. just link them to another article. Anyone can find out what vaccinations are it does not need to be part of this article. will you please remove it? this is exactly the type of thing that is making the article way too long please stop interfering Filll has been doing a good job and now you are screwing it up. Peter morrell 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me?  To whom are you talking? •Jim62sch• 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaccines

message: I have made changes to the critiques section that satisfies my concerns with undue weight.  I'm willing to discuss fine-tuning it, but if the conversation is going to start with a personal attack, don't bother--I'm assuming good faith with all editors.  Other than the NPOV, my other concern is the quality of the article.  I have used WP:CITET standards for writing the references.  Somewhere in the past, someone used ibids and op cits (old fashioned referencing scheme).  The problem is if a section of writing along with the original reference is deleted, it's gone.  This article will never be GA or FA status with old referencing scheme.  If we have battled this hard to get the NPOV right, our next goal should be to get it to GA or FAC.  Filll, I have suggested on many occasions that you need to move over to WP:CITET.  Every reference edit you make takes 5 minutes to clean up.  I know you can do it right. Orangemarlin 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, see WP:OWN.  Filll does not have the sole right or obligation to edit this article.  Do we understand each other? •Jim62sch• 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: :Regarding my reverted edit by Fill- , the material is of questionable notability. It isn't at all clear how common these claims are. For example, one of the sources used is simply a geocities website, not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. In any event, appears to have original research issues, synthesizing primary source documents. JoshuaZ 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what Peter's background is, and it frankly isn't that relevant. What is relevant is whether we have reliable sources that make the conclusions we make. WP:NOR isn't negotiable. The references don't imply it is notable, all we seem to have are a few personable websites and such. JoshuaZ 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a huge amount of it is just blogs etc. Perhaps we can find better references for this. I hope so. Then we can replace a lot of the blogs with better references. However, this all is very tedious and takes a huge amount of effort.--Filll 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something in this article that is OR it goes, period.  Move it to the talk page until someone can source it. •Jim62sch• 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it qualifies as OR. It just appears that we have to do a better job of digging through the academic literature for references.--Filll 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph-my logic 

message: I removed the following from the introduction.
:although he began outlining his theories of 'medical similars' in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.Hahnemann, S. Versuch über ein neues Prinzip zur Auffindung der Heilkräfte der Arzneisubstanzen, nebst einigen Blicken auf die bisherigen. [Hufeland's] J. d. pract. Arzkd. (1796) 2(3):391-439 and 2(4):465-561. This article can be read in English translation on the Minutus website, where it appears as Essay On A New Principle For Ascertaining The Curative Powers Of Drugs - Birth of Homeopat, Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, 1796. Hahnemann's main opus was the book, The Organon of Medicine. Hahnemann published five editions of this work between 1810 and 1842.The six editions were published in Leipzig, 1810 (1st edition); Leipzig, end of the year, 1818 (2nd edition); Kothen, Easter, 1824 (3rd edition); Kothen, January, 1829 (4th edition); and Kothen, March 28th, 1833 (5th edition). A sixth edition was written and finished in Paris around February 1842, but was not published until the 1900s.  These first five editions were published in German, and the 5th Edition was translated by Robert Ellis Dudgeon (1820-1904) in 1893. The 6th Edition was translated by William Boericke and published in 1922. There have subsequently been many other translations, such as a version in 1996 by Steven Decker, and a recent French version by Pierre Schmidt and Jost Kunzli.
This should be added later in the body of the article.  It is far to detailed for the intro and a tangent from homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it might not be important for the LEAD and just clog things up. However, it has to be fairly early so that the discussions of the Organon later will make sense. I will try to tuck it down later for time being until we are sure what to do with it. Perhaps a very short history section before the practice section with a link to the real history article. --Filll 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on homeopathy or Hahnemann?

message: I am always in favor of a shorter LEAD. Can I remove this couple of sentences to lower down in the article?
Homeopathy regards diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,Organon Of Medicine  §11, Samuel Hahnemann, Web Version Copyright © 1997 Homeopathy Home and states that instances of disease in different people differ fundamentally.Homeopathy Views the Uniqueness of Each Patient, Peter Morrell, Articles on Homeopathy by Peter Morrell, July 2003. Homeopathy views a sick person as having a dynamic disturbance in a hypothetical "vital force", a disturbance which, homeopaths claim, underlies standard medical diagnoses of named diseases.Taking Homeopathy into the Shadows: A Sequential Causal Approach to Treating Chronic Disease, Rudolf Verspoor, Homeopathy Online, October-December 1996, Vol. 1, No. 3--Filll 18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any good article needs voodoo in it.  @@ •Jim62sch• 20:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes that is closer to the kind of reference we need, but we need references like that for things like Polaris, or the Berlin wall. Something in a newspaper or a magazine with a volume and date etc. Something with an author. Something we can say is not just a blog or website.--Filll 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need references for the entire mess of crap dumped by Morrell.  And, keep undue weight in mindm, dammit.  I'm getting just a bit tired of witnessing kowtowing to a self-described antiscience fanatic.  •Jim62sch• 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. I have started to throw  tags on it in different places, but it needs more. Just throw them on where you think we are lacking so we have something to aim for.--Filll 12:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the LEAD 

message: Who are these guys?--Filll 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heel and Reckeweg

message: Currently we have: "is a controversial subset of alternative medicine practices that aims to treat "like with like." in the lead. Do we have to have 'controversial' and 'sub-set?' It is not really a sub-set of anything, just a medical system in its own right, surely? controversial kind of sets the abrasive tone for the rest really and it might be better left out. If so, it could then more neutrally read 'is a form of alternative medicine' is that OK or not? thanks Peter morrell 21:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a form of alternative medicine and it is controversial. This seems fine to me. JoshuaZ 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped "subset" for "form". Is this better? comments?--Filll 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And a pig is not a form of a mammal. •Jim62sch• 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Type would be my first choice. •Jim62sch• 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subset

message: There used to be an article with this title, but it was nuked. The text still is available and has a lot of information in it which I might find use for. Nevertheless the section on classical homeopathy seems way too wordy here, and has very little information content for the amount of words, as far as I can tell. Also it has no references. Suggestions?--Filll 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find references first.  Why was it nuked?  •Jim62sch• 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical Homeopathy

message: What does this mean?
Hahnemann classified succeeded vaccination of smallpox due to the interaction of two similar diseases (the law of similars).Organon § 56--Filll 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahneman believed that the success of the smallpox vaccine was proof of his law of similars. ornis 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A nonsense sentence I do not understand

message: Are there more sections that can be farmed out to daughter articles without causing trouble? How about the section on miasm? Does it have to remain in this article or can it be farmed out to a separate short article? The section on relationship between homeopathy and vaccines? It is still just very long. Can the science section be put in a separate article, with just short summaries here and a link? What do you think? --Filll 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest making too many daughter articles might create more problems than it solves. As for the miasma stuff, perhaps "techniques...", could be moved to "principles of.." or "practice of..." and the miasma moved there with a short summary left here. ornis 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forks can always present a problem, I'd try to avoid them as much as is possible. •Jim62sch• 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but how much does miasm have to do with homeopathy? It is more like psora.--Filll 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article diet

message: The typically 1-2 hour-long homeopathic consultation,http://www.naturalhealthanswers.co.uk/about_consultation.php involves "questions regarding your physical, mental and emotional state, your life circumstances and presenting physical/emotional illness."http://www.radicalhealthworks.com/node/12 and then translates a person's entire health status into a complex of mental and physical symptoms, likes and dislikes and innate predispositions. It aims "to build up a well rounded picture of you as an individual,"http://www.homeopathyforhealthyliving.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/1417?opendocument&part=3 which can then be compared with similar established data in the drug provings found in the homeopathic materia medica. "In homeopathy we understand illness as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, brought on by an internal disturbance that manifests in each person in a uniquely characteristic way."http://www.homeopathyforhealthyliving.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/1417?opendocument&part=3 Assisted by further dialogue with the patient, the homeopath then aims to find the one drug most closely matching the 'symptom totality' of the patient. Peter morrell 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced new paragraph (revised)

message: ...here we have this short article: http://www.mounet.com/~jdye/doctrine.html Doctrine of signatures then a definition:
"the idea that God gave everything in nature its unique healing powers and left a clue for us to discover in the appearance of each plant or substance."http://homeoinfo.com/08_non-classical_topics/traditional/doctrine_of_signatures.php Doctrine of Signatures
there is a wiki link too...hopefully these will suffice. Peter morrell 13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll be fine.  It does a nice job of explaining the topic. •Jim62sch• 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be better if there were real links to academic articles. But it is a start.--Filll 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: doctrine of signtatures

message: Have not found much so far but the following looks useful for a start: "Your first consultation with a private homeopath will usually cost between £35 and £90. It may be even more than this, especially if the homeopath is medically trained. Further appointments are usually shorter so cost less –about £20 to £60. Your homeopathic remedy will usually be included in the consultation price, but do check first."http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=251#cost
"The homeopathic remedy costs about $10."http://www.drvaleria.net/hom.htm I think comparative costs in the US are 100-200US$ for first consult...I will try and get figures on this if you guys think this is worth pursuing...?
Here is an article: [] The cost-effectiveness of homeopathy: the perspective of a scientist and mother, but I cannot access it; the author's email is corina.guethlin@uniklinik-freiburg.de Maybe she will send a copy? Another useful site is:http://www.homeopathic.org/cost.htm more on this in due course perhaps. We need to compare the overall costs/profits of the remedy manufacturers and the drug companies in order to sustain an argument that homeopathy is a rip-off and wasted money (which is the idea proposed in the article) as compared to conventional drugging or else the argument just folds. I think this idea will be very hard to sustain even if we get hard comparative data. Peter morrell 13:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More...
1. Disappointment as Boiron Sees Net Profit-Rise by Just 3.8%-in 2005, Mitra Thompson, March 20, 2006.http://www.homeopathic.org/news0306.htm
2. Boiron is a France-based pharmaceutical company specializing in homeopathic medicines. The group also markets medicines based on trace elements, food supplements and health and beauty care products. The group primarily operates in Europe and North America. It is headquartered in Sainte Foy les Lyon, France. The group's recorded revenues of E398.6 million (approximately $526.3 million) during the fiscal year ended December 2006, an increase of 10.2% over 2005. The operating profit of the group's was E26.5 million (approximately $35 million) during fiscal year 2006, a decrease of 18.5% over 2005. The net profit was E10.2 million (approximately $13.5 million) in fiscal year 2006, a decrease of 37.8% over 2005.http://www.computerwire.com/companies/company/?pid=221DB4D3-E78D-495F-8725-748FF9304DE2 Boiron Company Overview
Now we need some comparative data for Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French, Pfeizer and Roche for example. Peter morrell 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boiron numbers fail to mention whether or not Boiron took charges of some type, which seems likely (especially given increased revenue and decreased profits).  Also, the only valid way to compare Boiron to Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French, Pfeizer and Roche would be on a per capita cost.  The E398.6 million earnings were derived by sales to how many people?  Ditto for Glaxo-Smith-Kline-French et al.  •Jim62sch• 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a fine starting place, Peter, maybe Boiron has a website that explains what hey did in 2006 as far as any charges, their customer base, etc.  I'll look on Yahoo! France and see if I can find anything (at least anything free -- sometimes financial info is for stockholders only and comes at a cost, and if Boiron is private, we probably won't find much of anything).  •Jim62sch• 15:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this site for financial info17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: More  -- R&D costs were up so decreased profit is partially related to that. •Jim62sch• 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This acquisition carried a number of charges...see Key events during 2006 from the above. •Jim62sch• 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Costings

message: I have corrected a few problems here and there, but still many remain. I agree we need a scientific evaluation section, but it seems a bit lengthy for the material it has in it. In addition, why is there no mention of Jacques Benveniste there? If we are going to mention all the major evidence against homeopathy, why not even a sentence about this episode? That is one of the problems I have had all along with this article. Very poorly linked, lots of gaps, lousy English, poor organization, too long, etc.--Filll 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put Jacques in there.  So far, I've only made style edits for the most part, but it's time to get down to the rest.  Not that wikilinks aren't mean to be overused -- the entire article does not need to be one big blue link. •Jim62sch• 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can tell, I do have a tendency to over-wikilink. But I am frustrated with uncommon or unusual terms with wiki articles and no links to them.--Filll 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand, but let's try to be judicious with our use of links. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having finally read through this mess 

message: I assume you must be busy but there are still MANY issues and questions, points etc I have raised on the talk page that you have not responded to. I am idly doing nothing now and probably gonna go out so I will check back later...for example, the word practices, the issue about length of the critique and whether it should be mostly farmed out to a new article; the Randi thing which I think is cheap and trivial with no valid place in the article and much of the longwinded stuff in the critique could be trimmed back or summarised or farmed out. We need to do this and then maybe insert small pieces that are actually (ahem!) dare I say, about homeopathy itself!! thanks BTW the refs should go at the bottom which is where I have put them now Peter morrell 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles with material that were also erased include complex homeopathy and clinical homeopathy. Wow, so much effort with so little constructive result!--Filll 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I linked it in. But it needs more work itself. I fixed it a bit, but it needs more. This whole family of articles is sort of in shocking shape.--Filll 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from your talk page Filll

message: I have been thinking about what to do with the history and techniques daughter articles, which are a mess as well. I am still far from happy with the main homeopathy article, but at least it sort of is starting to read like English, for a change. References still are quite lacking of course. I am glad to have your help and have not yet incorporated all of your ideas yet.  I am not happy with how long winded the scientific criticism section is, but I am not sure that the consensus will allow it to be condensed at all or farmed out to another article. I suspect not. I want to describe the D, X, L, M etc system of describing concentrations more clearly, probably in the techniques article. I want to describe potentisizing more clearly, possibly in a short article. I am not sure that miasm belongs in the main article. Psora and some other articles that support this still stink. The Classical homeopathy article that was removed can still be mined for stuff. Many biographies are showing up as redlinks and need to be created. Related topics like those I first raised on the talk page have not yet been folded in and linked in. That Korean study can be mentioned but only if we can find out what the response has been by the community. The Homeopathy around the world daughter article is better, but still needs more work and has lots of gaps. Things are slowly evolving, hopefully in a positive direction. Now editors can actually read what the article is about and hopefully make reasonable suggestions (maybe not totally, but better than  before).--Filll 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles with material that were also erased include complex homeopathy and clinical homeopathy. Wow, so much effort with so little constructive result!--Filll 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I linked it in. But it needs more work itself. I fixed it a bit, but it needs more. This whole family of articles is sort of in shocking shape.--Filll 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response, also copied from my (Filll's) talk page

message: See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight.  There are reasons why the article is critical. •Jim62sch• 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to remember

message: Here is some data about the finances of world homeopathy...of possible use?
The world pharmaceuticals market • At the end of 2003, the world pharmaceuticals market was estimated at 466.3 billion dollars (manufacturer’s price), a 9% rate of growth with respect to 2002*. With 49% of the world market, North America is in the number one position, followed by the European Union (25%) and Japan (11%). • In the 13 largest consumer countries, the world sales of prescription drugs increased by 9.0% in 2002, reaching 275.8 billion dollars. An 11% increase was noted in the United States (147.4 billion dollars) while an increase of about 6.0% (60.0 billion dollars) was noted in the main European markets (Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Spain). • The self-medication market is estimated at 48.2 billion dollars*, that is 13.4% of the world pharmaceuticals market. This market covers a large range of therapeutic classes, in particular treatments applied to disorders of the respiratory apparatus, pain killers, vitamins, minerals and other food supplements. Europe is the leading market in world sales of OTC drugs with 15.3 billion dollars, followed by the North American market with 12.8 billion dollars. In France, the OTC drug market is estimated at over 770.5 billion euros*. Homeopathy: 0.3% of the world drug market With almost 1.5 billion euros (manufacturer’s price), the world sale of homeopathic drugs accounts for 0.3% of the world drug market. The growth potential for homeopathy is therefore considerable. Almost 70% of all homeopathic drugs are sold in Western Europe. France, with over 300 billion euros, is the largest homeopathy market in the world, followed by Germany (200 billion euros). 40% of the French have already been treated with homeopathy*, and 74% of the patients stated that they are “inclined to follow a homeopathic treatment if prescribed by their doctor”. Homeopathy has been making major advances in other regions such as the Mediterranean basin, South America, Eastern Europe or even India.http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm
Peter morrell 19:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming it can be distilled properly, yes.  But, that might lead to WP:OR, which we need to avoid.  But, I'm guessing that someone has already done the math, so we just need to find it. •Jim62sch• 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have emailed some folks hope to report back on this...we need comparative data for Pfeizer or Roche...any ideas? is such data in the public domain? will try to get some next. The OR doesn't matter so much if what we have can be tightly referenced up Peter morrell 20:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh OMG here is Pfizer annual report: 2004http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/annualreport/2004/financial/financial2004.pdf which is a very weighty document 68 pages! will try to find some drug market overviews in more summarized format. Peter morrell 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do Pfizer and Roche make homeopathic products? Otherwise there is great risk of OR and Syn. Be careful, especially since the manufacture of homeopathic products ((no active ingredients in the finished product, no real research, no real biological effects beyond the placebo illusion (and therefore no possibility of side effects)) bears no comparison to real pharmaceuticals ((real active ingredients in the finished product, loads of real well-controlled research, real documented effects beyond placebo (and therefore the possibility of side effects)). Two totally different matters. A synthesis (not allowed here) would not only involve OR, but dishonesty. -- Fyslee/talk 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I study the pharmaceutical industry, I would know this.  Pfizer and Roche have OTC, diagnostic, and ethical pharmaceutical divisions.  I'm pretty sure they roll up all of their sales numbers into one overall number.  But Pfizer and Roche maybe make up 15% of total ethical pharmaceutical sales in the world (if that high).  If you're looking for an overall number I can get one, but I'm confused as to what you're asking or trying to show?  Orangemarlin 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Only if done on a per-capita basis comparing number of users of modern medicine vs homeopathic medicine, number of customers for Pfizer vs. number of customers for Boiron, etc., and that has to have been compiled by an external source or else it's OR.  So far what we have here is a comparison of apples and rocks.  •Jim62sch• 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, Boiron's income in 2006 was $US 547 million, not $100 million.  see here •Jim62sch• 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Man am I in the wrong business! Selling expensive water is pretty profitable. Evian backwards should have been a homeopathic brand! -- Fyslee/talk 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boiron

message: Copying from the article:
Consequently, critics of homeopathy frequently describe it as pseudoscience[9] and quackery.[10]
These two references are very weak to support such a statement. If you read these documents you can see that 1. they do not strongly support the definite characterisation of homeopathy as pseudoscience and quackery and 2. they refer to other biased documents you can’t trust.
Are these our best references for such a strong characterisation? Because if this is the case, then there is a problem with this statement. What about WHO? 91.140.45.151 07:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The refs are to notable critics, so there is no problem there. The wording is now slightly altered to make it more appropriate. Even stronger words are commonly used by critics about homeopathy and its believers, but those two words are sufficient here, unless we want to provide more examples....? What about WHO? Does it also make critical statements? -- Fyslee/talk 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WHO has recognised that it exists.  No more, no less. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weak support 

message: Here is a draft para about potncy...maybe its too long I will reference it...in due course...
Though Hahnemann used small doses of drugs compared to his colleagues, [1] he did not start actually potentising them until the year 1798, [2] eight years after the first drug proving. [3] He recommended 1/500 for Belladonna in the treatment of Scarlet fever in an essay of 1801 [4]. Clearly about this time and for several further years he was experimenting in general with dose reduction. It is claimed this was to remove the potent and troubling side-effects his similar dugs elicited when given for the correctly matching sickness. [5] In due course he developed the centesimal or c scale of one part in 100 either as one grain of solid in 100 grains of milk sugar or as one drop of plant tincture in 100 drops of 30% alcohol. [6] In brief this is how the vast bulk of homeopathic remedies were prepared and most of them still are. Other homeopaths developed the decimal or x scale of 1 in 10. Towards the end of his life Hahnemann then produced the LM or Q scale using 1 drop to 50,000 drops. This he used from the year 1835 to 1843 [7] and has more recently come back into fashion and is reported as the most gentle method extant as it is claimed to elicit the fewest side-effects or aggravations.[8] Peter morrell 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to slip it in the history article. Or at least some of it. That really still has a lot of holes in it and I think, at least to me, is the most interesting of all these articles. This subject is a bit overwhelming, and this writing task is gargantuan because so much of the English in the field is so contorted and laden with ill-defined terms that it is hard to ferret out the essential basic meaning. Of course, that is where Wikipedia can do the world a tremendous service.--Filll 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft para on potencies

message: This section you altered is a quote! It aims "to build up a well rounded picture of the individual,"http://www.homeopathyforhealthyliving.co.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/1417?opendocument&part=3 as you can maybe now see? so it will have to go back to the quoted phrase I think. Peter morrell 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim

message: Talking of 'reflecting reality,' let's get you to start telling the truth, Adam: in truth, you hate homeopathy and have been on a crusade to destroy these artciles, haven't you? you and your pro-science ilk equate homeopathy as a deviant evidence-free belief system akin to creationism, which is really quite laughable. They are very different beasts, laddie. All your previous wiki crimes have been aimed at destroying homeopathy and poking fun at those decent people who use it, study it and endorse it. Why don't you just come clean and admit what your game is? then we can all know forsure out in the open what your unpleasant little mind games with other editors since about february have been all about. Otherwise all your longwinded carping on about spurious definitions and POV are meaningless trash. Homeopathy is a subject with its own right to exist without science freaks like you crawling all over it; get over it and find something else to whinge about. Meantime, what are your personal goals with this article, Filll? reveal all. Peter morrell 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Come on Adam

message: I hate doing these things, but, well, what else can one do? It's at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell Adam Cuerden talk 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of RFC 

message: For those of you who are familiar with the Parapsychology article (now good article, soon to be FA hopefully), I propose that the same thing be done to this article. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. If anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles, they should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles however hopefully we can turn this and related homeopathy articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If anyone here is willing to engage in such a project then please let me know and I will tell you more about how it will work. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, think this a great idea. You're generally a very good editor, and we could use your input. Adam Cuerden talk 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to assist. I have wondered for a while if this is really the only way to go here. Do it in a sandbox, and then when consensus is hammered out, then replace the article in the mainspace with the new version. --Filll 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to help, within the limits of available time and rudimentary knowledge. --Art Carlson 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Count me in. •Jim62sch• 11:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed article rewrite project 

message: Here are a few questions for the major editors of this page. Anyone who has in the past and plans to contribute in the future can answer these questions. The questions will be very simple and the answers should be very simple. Please put a * right below each question if you are the first to answer and right below each answer after that. Here are the questions.
Do you believe Homeopathy as a whole, including it's methods and basis, is controversial both within and outside the scientific community(Controversial doesn't necessarly mean invalid or fraudulently)?
*Definitely.--Filll 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait a few days for a lot of people to respond to these answers before I even start taking time to work on a new version of this page. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for editors 

message: It is interesting for me to read the other answers above. Although someone outside science and academia might not realize the position that homeopathy holds in the scientific world, believe me, it is plenty controversial. Any scientist who tried to make these kinds of claims with the kind of evidence that exists would be ending his career, and would quickly be sidelined as deranged or incompetent or worse. It is NOT just the medical community, believe me. You cannot claim to have something that violates atomic theory that you are championing and have no solid scientific peer-reviewed verified repeatable evidence for it, and expect to keep a scientific career. And aether is plenty controversial, believe me. However, few are practicing aetherologists and charging people money for aether therapy, so it is a mute point. Unfortunately, the NPOV, WEIGHT and UNDUE INFLUENCE guidelines mean that this article must include a large dose, and maybe even a majority of material, from "science zealots". I also suggest that lengthening this article further by including more material will really create a mess and produce an inaccesible product. --Filll 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of "ending careers," Jacques Benveniste and Andrew Wakefield are good examples of such scientific suicides. Not only did they back ideas that were either nonsensical or dangerous, there were also unethical aspects to their cases. Benveniste is no longer with us and Wakefield's case is still unrolling in the media. His fate in history (just like Benveniste's) won't be a good one. -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Questions and Answers

message: I have wondered about the length of this article for a while. Before I started, the article was around 90KB. I then trimmed it down, mostly by farming out material to subsiduary daughter articles (which are still in terrible shape, by the way), to about 62KB. This main article has rapidly ballooned back to 68KB in a few days (however, most of this was new material in the "safety" section, which is probably quite important). 
The scientific criticism section seemed excessively long and excessively wordy to me, so I decided to measure it. I copied and pasted it to Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism where I found it is "only" about 23KB long, which is shorter than I would have thought. The safety section, which might be viewed as a criticism section as well, is about 7KB. The remaining material, which contains a small amount of reference to the controversy, is therefore about 38KB. 
I might note that the "recommended length" of articles is about 32KB, from Wikipedia:Article size. Therefore, even at present, the article is over twice the suggested length. 
As we move forward, I think we should think about how long we want the main article to be, what material is really central to the core description of homeopathy, and what is ancillary material that can be shunted off to some daughter article, or a short article that defines some term or concept. 
I also agree with User: Orangemarlin that these "alternative medicine" main articles do need a good measure of cautionary material and description of their controversial status, for ethical reasons if nothing else. I also believe that the daughter articles should refer to the controversial status of these treatments, even at the cost of some repetition. 
I personally think that this main article is still pretty bulky. A couple of sections I would advocate trimming down and/or farming out.  
Points to ponder:
*Can the scientific criticism section be made tighter, with less wordy descriptions of the procedures in a couple of sections? Some seemed to just drag on and on.
*Can the scientific criticism be summarized, and the longer descriptions placed in another article?
*Can the miasm theory be treated in another article?
*Can the misconceptions about homeopathy be made shorter, and the longer description be put in another article?
I am not sure what the optimal length for this article would be. I personally favor something reasonably concise and easy to read for the main article, which would serve as the introduction to the entire topic for Wikipedia. 
However, this is not some effort to dumb the article down, but to make this topic more readable and accessible. To be honest, the vast majority of the readership will not want to slog through a 100KB+ article. I do not favor reducing the total net amount of material, but in sequestering the more detailed and specific portions into other daughter articles, which can be read if further information is desired. 
The apparent desire on this article to lump ALL the information into one super gargantuan (150 KB? 200 KB ? 300 KB?) monster that still leaves out a huge amount of important detail is really bizarre to me. Why does this desire exist? What purpose would it serve? Granted, one could police the resulting integrated article against vandals easier and more conveniently than watching a handful of articles (which some might dismiss as "forks"). However, it would not serve the readership well. 
I think that probably 90% of the article's readers will only read the first paragraph or two at most. About 95% will only read the article's LEAD. About 99% will only read the main article itself. Only a few will read any significant number of the family of articles on any given topic. Given this sort of pattern, should we not endeavor to structure the articles on this topic accordingly? --Filll 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT would require a majority of the article to be the skeptical coverage. -- Fyslee/talk 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's go through, section by section...
;Lead: Needs a rewrite. But that's true of most articles below FA.
;History: choppy section. says very little for its length, which is already short. Notably, the sentences "The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and appeared in print in 1807.[12] Hahnemann's main opus in homeopathy was the book, The Organon of Medicine. Hahnemann published five editions of this work between 1810 and 1842.[13] This marked the birth of modern homeopathy." seem obsessed with publishing details, as well as repeating themselves repeatedly. Does "This marked the birth of modern homeopathy" actually mean anything? 
;General philosophy: Good, but too short. Should be combined into an integrated discussion.
;Law of similars: about 75% of sentences in this section contain the phrase "The law of similars". I don't think people's memory for the subject under discussion is quite that bad. Again, not enough context, should be combined into a more general discussion. Quote doesn't seem to add much.
;Types of remedies: This article is written by antiquarian book collectors! I swear! I mean, REALLY, what do these sentences add: " Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure"[21]. The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.[22] ...James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are added to contemporary versions."  The "imponderables" section seems like it should be in "Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy" (where I may well move it)
;Choosing remedies: Chatty, and the main references are online advertisements by homeopaths. Should probably be deleted.
;Modern efforts to further develop homeopathy: I'd integrate this with "General philosophy/Law of similars/  Types of remedies (sans the antiquarian bookseller)
;Miasms as cause of disease: Eh, I can live with this. A touch of the antiquarian bookseller, though.
;Classical versus non-classical homeopathy: I'm not really sure this section says anything useful in a basic article.
;Composition of homeopathic remedies: Lose this, we shouldn't speculate on what the readers misconceptions might be. Combine anything useful into the explanation of treatments, but let's not have a section that basically says "I bet you're so stupid you believe...."
;Homeopathy and vaccination: Same critique as above, but I'm not sure whether it's worth fusing this.
And there I'm going to pause. May I cut "Hahnemann recorded his first 'provings' of 27 preparations in his book Fragmenta de viribus in 1805. Later, Hahnemann published Materia Medica Pura, which contained provings of a further 65 preparations. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Hahnemann was involved in another phase of proving in preparation for the publication of his book, "The Chronic Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure"[21]. The Chronic Diseases were published in 1828 and contained provings of 48 further preparations.[22] ...James Kent's Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are added to contemporary versions." and/or move the Misconceptions of homeopathy section to the talk page? Adam Cuerden talk 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure! I'll put everything moved here, in case I mess up. I've done a little rearrangement just now, but I haven't deleted everything. Miasms probably needs a slight re-write to integrate the new paragraph a bit better, but it should fit in there comfortably. Adam Cuerden talk 12:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should've read "anything" but, never mind. I have deleted some bits. They're below. Add back anything you wish, particularly the bit labelled "To be added back in" Adam Cuerden talk 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: I've found this type of format to be very helpful in articles such as Parapsychology in prevent ballooning of the article due to constant criticism vs replies vs criticism continuing to be added on. Basically it works like this, In accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV the article is put into 2 parts. The first part of the article explains and elaborates on what homeopathy is, how it's supposed to work, work done with homeopathy etc. The second part of the article deals exclusively with criticism of homeopathy. The two sections are exclusive and do not blend together or intermingle. There is no criticism in the first part and there is no response to criticism in the second part. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might work, and is essentially what we have now, except the LEAD of course must be a short version of the whole article, with  a section on what it is, and a section that explains that it is controversial.--Filll 20:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead would reflect the article. 2 segments, first describing homeopathy and it's history and work, second criticism. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an excellent format. The description of what it is should be presented neutrally, and the controversy around it should also be presented neutrally. All from V & RS that are definitely not neutral, but are partisan from opposing POV. Wikipedia is neutral on who is right or wrong, and just presents the subject. -- Fyslee/talk 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of article 

message: I'm going to go through the article and tag the segments that need sources the most. I want everyone here to help by providing sources for the material before I start using the articles material for my rewrite. If something I tag doesn't need a source as it's already sourced somewhere else then just let me know, or simply source it with the same sources. Everyone needs to help with this ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help me find sources, I'll tag what needs them

message: This section is just too short. We could add it to the end of the lead or something, but it won't stand on its own.
The attitudes towards homeopathy vary around the world. Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India,Homeopathy, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Suddha and Homeopathy, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.Medicine in Europe: Complementary medicine in Europe, Fisher, P. Ward, A. , BMJ 1994;309:107-111,  although less so in the United States.Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002, Davis, R. B., Phillips, R. S., Eisenberg, D. M., Tindle, H. A, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2005 (Vol. 11) (No. 1) 42-49 Stricter European regulations have also been implemented recently by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare.European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines official  website
You could add stuff from diff't countries that was in the article way back...perhaps salvage stuff from the wiki fossil beds?Peter morrell 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I start rewriting it I will probably add a lot of different stuff including expanding on the history section as well as other sections and cutting the article down to be more sleek. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the old parts are probably in Homeopathy around the world. However, this article suffers badly from over-sectioning, so I'd be inclined to fuse it to another section. Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If correctly written, an article can be probably cut in half as far as size goes and I have found numeorus other related articles that could easily be merged with this one, including articles that seem to contain the same redundant paragraphs over and over which are similar between articles. I've also found one that isn't even in English. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homepathy around the world

message: Should we really talk about individual studies in this much detail? It seems undue weight - Homeopaths put in ones they like to talk about in detail, the scientific side puts in other studies, and noone talks much about the metaanalyses that pull the information together and actually reach conclusions. And they delay more general discussion that is more relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critiques section

message: I believe that from now on we should start using direct linking format for citing sources. This makes it much easier to navigate through the talk page and much easier to start new topics. I have a feeling that new users as well as others are hesitant to post here because of the difficult navigation due to the long list of static references at the bottom. This is how it seems to be done in pretty much all talk pages on Wikipedia and for a good reason. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like nothing is happening, however this is only because I am working on the new version of the article. I've been working yesterday and today and it probably won't be ready for a few more days, at which point I will probably leave a message on everyones talk page so that they can come to the talk page of the draft and they can give me suggestions on improving it. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs at the bottom...

message: I wonder if the two views on the entry of homeopathy to the USA - that conventional medicine was unavailable, or hat it was "extremely excessive" which seems to suggest there was not a shortage of it might be more understandable if there were any actual numbers attached.  How many doctors were there?  Midgley 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  excessive or unavailable: any numbers? 

message: This has hovered in the article for some time, and, frankly, I'm not sure which side put it up any more. So I think it's time we check: Is the article, as it stands, NPOV? If not, what's the problem? 
Tags like that have a habit of setting in the article for months past when there's cause for them being there, and past when anyone remembers why they were there. Adam Cuerden talk 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. I'm rewriting the article and doing a total over-haul on it anyway. We'll all work on it until there is no more disputes and then we'll replace it with this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Never mind, then. Adam Cuerden talk 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag