Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 27

message: "The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."
http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Area69 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rot --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I know this is a direct quote, but taken out of context it distorts Vithoulkas' position. In the last paragraph of his article he also says, "There is a need for at least one standardized protocol for clinical trials that will respect both: the double blind parameters but also some of the homeopathic principles." Obviously he thinks that double blind studies per se can be used to establish the efficacy of homeopathy, they just need to be carried out differently than most such studies have been done with conventional medicines. Also remember the discussion we had here on RCTs of individualized homeopathy. Unfortunately, the proposal to add a section on this topic, including reference to a meta-analysis, got shoved to the archives before any action was taken. I wish we would have less general discussion (noise) here and more consideration of concrete proposals. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont really mind I just used Vythoulkas because they asked for a specific source. You could change it to be more accurate.  The important thing here is to accept that citing homepaths views on metanalyses in  a article (and in the lead)  about them it is basic task of this article. It is natural and within the wikirules to include the views of a minority in an article about this minority. --Area69 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed here it is. One source  is already cited in the article 

message: fyslee : Why you revert without discussion?  Please justify. And please stop calling other editors disruptive because you dont like their edits. This is a personal attack.--Area69 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are starting to get tendentious.  Your edit is not supported by anyone but yourself.  And it is kind of disruptive too, not as a personal attack, but just as a description of what it appears you are doing.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleae justify what do you mean. It is supported by the above sources.--Area69 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war again? 

message: I removed the reference to http://www.vithoulkas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=9 because it was poorly formatted, it is self published, George Vithoulkas is probably not a WP:RS.  Please correct me here if I am wrong, and I can format the source.  TableMannersC·U·T 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. How can you add a liknk if it is a person website? I dont know. I assumed that since vythoulkas  is included in the article as a reliable source  its website could be used. Any other way?--Area69 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, read WP:SPS, and then, based on that and what you know about the wikipedia article and the article you want to cite, let me know if you still think the source should go in.  Then you could see Wikipedia:Citation templates for intstructions on formating the source.  TableMannersC·U·T 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will do. thanks. I think though that the inclusion of his views about the issue is justified since it exists in the article. But I will look again.thanks --Area69 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Vithoulkas 

message: I dont that the 1rr works if there is no sincere effort or even discussion to agree to obvious things : for instance that the views of the minority being examined (homepaths)  do qualify for inclusion in the lead  using already cited sources. Therefore unless someone does revert the last edit I will not comply with the 1RR anymore. Thanks --76.226.106.40 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign in (IOW change your sig above). What "last edit" are you referring to? Please supply the diff. -- Fyslee / talk 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another revert without discussion 

message: You know, I and probably a few others are not really committed to putting a pseudoscience label on homeopathy or putting quackery in the first few sentences. However, you know that when you fight us at every turn, and you challenge everything we say, and you edit tendentitiously and disruptively, you know what that does? It makes us more likely to take a hard line, including:
*Pushing for pseudoscience labelling
*using techniques like immediate deletion of any of your comments from the talk page, on sight, no exceptions. 
*pushing to get as many homeopathy supporters are possible blocked by any means necessary
So cooperate and do not fight. You will get further.--Filll (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in violation of at least a couple of policies here. Perhaps you might want to refactor some of your comments, and maybe take a break. Anthon01 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll has just made the false accusation that I "edit tendentitiously and disruptively". Amazingly, right after that he himself threatens to "edit tendentitiously and disruptively"!. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blowback 

message: *Medscape article on pseudoscience including homeopathy  Of course, we know I can generate hundreds of these. --Filll (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you could. Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD is a partisan. So are many of the skeptic group who have no interest in NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what is a "partisan"? If having a POV is being partisan, then you and I are also "partisans". Let's not be careless with the use of that word. Partisan sources are allowed here if they are notable and published in V & RS. They just need proper attribution. Our sources, including from skeptical groups and pro-homeopathy groups, are expected to have a POV that is not NPOV. That's fine. Our job as editors of all persuasions is to include those varying and conflicting POV in an NPOV manner here. That's called collaboration. more, and more. -- Fyslee / talk 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reference for Homeopathy = Pseudoscience 

message: I want one homeopathy supporter, to tell me what NPOV is. Come on. Tell me what it means.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is WP:Pointy. If I'm right you and most of us are losing our edge. I think we all need to take a break. We can come back to this tomorrow and take time to outline our differences, and figure out where we could meet. May be this issue should be dropped for now. There is more work this article needs besides this. Anthon01 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not a WP:Point case.  Filll is expressing a concern that the good lot of you pro-homeopath people do not understand what NPOV actually means.  It would probably help the article as a whole and help to clean up the talk page if you can answer him.  Baegis (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again : There are sources which state that and sources already cited in the article which do not. 
An editor gave a good example before.
--Area69 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you decide to read them they state homeopathy = positive and promising results(even inconclusive), calling for more research  - they state no where  pseudoscience that it is pseudoscience. These are citations in the article. --Area69 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy promoter challenge 

message: Peter Morrell is a homeopathy supporter. He is a world expert in homeopathy and has written widely on the subject and has a position at a University doing research and lecturing and writing about homeopathy. 
And yet, he is productive here. He works with us. He is cooperative. He understands NPOV. I want to work with him. Many of us do. I have defended him before on a number of occasions even though he can be a bit uncivil sometimes. That is irrelevant since he is productive. I want to write more articles about homeopathy with him. We have one in the sandbox we are working on. 
See the difference? He understands the goals and function of Wikipedia and its operating principles and cooperates. And we are much more productive that way. See? So if you want to emulate someone, watch Peter Morrell and how he behaves.--Filll (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) You can also help by not adding oil to the fire, by not polarizing debates, and by showing respect for fellow editors even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me be even more clear. I am a supporter of homeopathy (not a "homeopathy promoter") and a supporter of Wikipedia NPOV policy. You were the first one to engage in a personal attack against me when I came to this article on 9 December 2007. It appears that you have not stopped. Your threats against me and other editors are not appropriate and do not lead to reasonable consensus building. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see things, circumstances are just frustrating Filll to the point of dropping civility here. To be honest, having seen everything that's going on here, I don't blame him. And whether they're stately rudely or not, I think he does raise some good points, which, rather than being addressed, have been parried with the sword of civility (no, there's no coincidence that in my metaphor, civility is a sword). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I understand that things can be frustrating, and the frustration, from what I see in this page and the article's page, manifests on both sides of the dispute. The article was protected for 30 days, and what happened during that time? not much. That time should have been used to look for common ground so that editors can move forward. In any case, the article is now unprotected and most involved editors have pledged 1RR. That is a good start, and rather than discuss each other, editors should discuss the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Infophile is right. I've just arrived at this page, and I can already see why Filll would be extremely frustrated: many editors seem to be disregarding or misunderstanding WP:WEIGHT, and there's a lot of misrepresentation of sources going on. None of this justifies being uncivil, I suppose, but I think that factual accuracy should be valued more highly than civility. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me be more clear 

message: Could you protect the article after you revert the last edit without discussion? An anonymus user just revert someones edit.--Area69 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit is by a editor that has been warned in the past few days for disruptive behavior. I have reverted what I see it is a disruptive edit, deleting material without any comments. Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I'm new to this page, having just noticed it after Jossi blocked the guy who had been causing trouble on another page I was on.  It's sad to see the degree to which a controversial topic gets wikipedia editors all in a tizzie.  I just corrected a so-called quote attributed to two sources, after I saw from the history that that the quote had been mangled and attributed to the wrong source, due to careless edit warring.  But what really seems peculiar is that the lead has a substantial paragraph to push the POV of the medical and scientific establishment on homeopathy, even supporting broad conclusions by lists of refs.  Clearly, it's a field that's not going to look good in medical and scientific methods, and their evaluation of it deserves a place in the article; but in the lead?  This is the place to say what the topic is, not to say who criticizes it.  Other articles on topics of great controversy, such as George W. Bush, tend to keep to a more neutral lead (that one mentions that he has some of the highest and lowest approval ratings, but doesn't go into a litany of who disapproves for what).  I'd suggest the paragraph full of citations be replaced by a brief sourced statement that homeopathy is very controverial especially in the medical and scientific communities, and demote the rest to a section on evaluations and criticisms.  I'll make such an edit if I get some support for the idea here.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD suggests including "notable controversies" in the lead.  The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus strikes me as being a pretty notable controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The fact that virtually the entire scientific community considers homeopathy to be hocus-pocus" -- wow.  See WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus.  Source? --Jim Butler(talk) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course it's notable.  But note that WP:LEAD also says "briefly", which is my point; this is not the place to amass the evidence on one side or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think two sentences is fairly brief.  Ideally, it would be a little less cluttered by footnotes, but that's really not an option given the level of dispute on this page.  What would you rather replace it with? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, since you're new to the page, you might want to read this section, which contains some context as to how the lead came to be the way it is. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One is writing an encyclopaedia, not a commercial or political publication. An encyclopaedia's neutrality is not equal weight, but the weight of the evidence. If this upsets readers, so be it. Take a look at the Muhammad talk page for how we invite problems from the middle east, for example. The fact we are even having this discussion frankly beggars belief. The above quote acknowledges a truth in the research and in our current understanding of science. LinaMishima (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IMO, that's too fundamentalist a POV. What's the point of having an encyclopedia if no one will read it? I didn't say remove the text from the article but reduce the emphasis in the lead by making it more concise, and putting it in the body. This lead with its Psci box is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Anthon01 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire lead is twice as long as it should be, anyhow. If the entire lead is trimmed, then so can this statement. And I personally do not approve of the psci box anyhow, since it does not seem to be used widely elsewhere. LinaMishima (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That can be easily arranged. Please stay tuned. Anthon01 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are working on a rewrite, might I suggest that you post it in talk before taking it into the article? LinaMishima (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? That is generally the way I work on this page. Anthon01 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to this page, no disrespect was intended, only a desire to avoid upset over revert warring LinaMishima (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Actually I think I know what you mean. "Please stay tune" is in response to "does not seem to be used widely elsewhere." It will be. Anthon01 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is making the infobox widely used a good idea? I am personally against it, the contents can easily be said in the lead of an article. LinaMishima (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the lead 

message: I've posted at the Noticeboard for Reliable Sources, here, requesting clarification on the reliability of the NSF paper for the assertion that NSF regards homeopathy as pseudoscience.  Summary: When X source quotes Y as saying "foobar", can we cite it as "X says foobar"?  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSF source posted at [[WP:RSN]] 

message: I do not mean to offend or be uncivil. I do not see how calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" instead of a "Homeopathy supporter" can be viewed as an uncivil attack, but apparently it was and is supported by admins. I cannot see how warning people that we have to cooperate or we will have trouble is an uncivil attack, but apparently it is viewed as such. 
I see now that trying to get people to abide by NPOV is viewed as an uncivil hostile act. I therefore suggest that all who want to write an article with a substantial input from science or allopathy leave the article to the homeopathy "supporters" (sorry if that offends; maybe you can suggest a better word?) and let us observe the results as you work to "improve" the article (sorry if the word "improve" offends; can you suggest a better word?)--Filll (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "homeopathy promoter" is not uncivil.  I don't know who said it was but I wonder if they had no counter to your argument and decided to complain about civility instead. That said, please don't confuse people with WP:POINTless questions. MilesAgain (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why don't you name the person who told you that "homeopathy promoters" is uncivil? MilesAgain (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not mean to offend or be uncivil 

message: Barrett, S. and Tyler, V.E. (1995) "Why Pharmacists Should Not Sell Homeopathic Products" American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 52(9) pp. 1004-6. peer-reviewed
:"Unlike most prescription and nonprescription drugs, homeopathic remedies have not been proven effective against disease by double-blind clinical testing.... Homeopathic treatments prevent nothing, and many homeopathic leaders preach against immunization.... If FDA required homeopathic remedies to be proven effective in order to remain marketable -- the standard it applies to other categories of drugs -- homeopathy would face extinction in the United States.... FDA should not permit worthless drug products to be marketed with claims that they are effective. In August 1994, we and 40 other prominent critics of quackery and pseudoscience asked the agency to curb the sale of homeopathic products.... we urge pharmacists not to stock homeopathic remedies and to inform customers that such products simply don't work"
Beyerstein, B.L. (1996) Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (Victoria, B.C.: Center for Curriculum and Professional Development.) from an academic press
:"If there truly is nothing more scientific medicine can do for a patient, the comfort pseudoscientific practitioners can provide is not necessarily a bad thing (unless of course the widows and orphans are left destitute by the unconscionably high price of the treatment). But when quacks divert patients from genuinely curative treatments, the results can be tragic.... A few quacks manage to come up with novel nonsense, but most merely present recycled versions of old, long since discredited nostrums. For instance, homeopathy was a serious contender among the competing philosophies of disease and treatment during the pre-scientific era of medicine. Although its remedies were pushed aside when scientific research showed its theory of pathology to be untenable, homeopathy has remained alive despite the inanity of its underlying rationale."
Smolle, J.; Prause, G.; Kerl, H. (1998) "A Double-blind, Controlled Clinical Trial of Homeopathy and an Analysis of Lunar Phases and Postoperative Outcome" Archives of Dermatology 134(11) pp. 1368-70. peer-reviewed
:"Statements and methods of alternative medicine—as far as they concern observable clinical phenomena—can be tested by scientific methods. When such tests yield negative results, as in the studies presented herein, the particular method or statement should be abandoned. Otherwise one would run the risk of supporting superstition and quackery."
Federspil G. and Vettor, R. (1999) "[The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine]" (article in Italian) Annali Italiani di Medicina Interna 14(3) pp. 172-84. peer-reviewed
:"Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline." (from translation of abstract in PubMed)
Almeida, R.M. (2003) "A Critical Review of the Possible Benefits Associated With Homeopathic Medicine" Revista do Hospital das Clínicas (São Paulo) 58(6) pp. 324-331. peer-reviewed
:"CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the recent scientific research on homeopathy, it can be concluded that ample evidence exists to show that the homeopathic therapy is not scientifically justifiable.... The statement that homeopathy is 'discriminated by an 'official science' cannot be supported by the results of the present review. The quantity and quality of the current research in this area indicates that, actually, the rejection of homeopathy as a valid scientific endeavor comes from the fact that the more recent research has thoroughly disconfirmed the main homeopathic hypotheses. Another conclusion concerns the relationship between the quality of a homeopathic study and its positive results. This is a clearly recognized phenomenon, which, for instance, admittedly 'contaminated' the meta-analyses conducted in the 1990s that detected a (weak) favorable effect for homeopathic preparations. In summary, the present review indicates that the weight of the modern evidence clearly disconfirms the hypothesis that ultra-diluted substances could have a noticeable clinical or pharmacological effect in living organisms."
(Emphasis added.) And again I point out, there have been no peer-reviewed statements brought forth saying homeopathy is not quackery. MilesAgain (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong. Take a look.  --76.226.130.40 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those discredited sources barely show any effect beyond that of a placebo, and do not address the wider question of quackery, including the fact that people die having been kept from effective treatments by homeopaths. My sources above in this section do address that concern. MilesAgain (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Literally hundreds of these can be exhibited (I was going to say "we can find literally hundreds of these" but I remembered that the word "we" in this context is viewed as vile invective and offensive and I do not mean to be uncivil or offensive in any way).--Filll (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sadly there is no such thing as an unbiased source on homeopathy and pseudoscience. Any source found will quickly be declared 'biased' for some reason (writing about science, being a scientist, being related to one, having done a proper degree course, etc). The very nature of the term prevents such a thing, for it requires a judgement of the scientific methodology in use. As I stated previously, to prevent the assertion that it is widely believed to be a pseudoscience by a prominent group (the assertion needed for category inclusion), you need to argue that either it is a science (hence disproving the assertion, but this cannot be done), or that it does not claim to be a science (which it clearly does). This is simple logic, really. LinaMishima (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not consider peer-reviewed medical journal sources biased. MilesAgain (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it shouldn't, but those who like homeopathy claim conspiracy from the medical establishment and whatnot... LinaMishima (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we give them any more weight than the 9/11 or Illuminati conspiracy theorists? MilesAgain (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reliable sources calling homeopathy quackery and pseudoscience 

message: This diff by QuackGuru undid my fix to the quote and source about "diametrically opposed".  Is it really true that this quote is attributable to both sources? Google Scholar search suggests not, but if someone has a copy of the other ref, and tell us what it says, let us know.  In the mean time, may I again request that editors be careful about attribution. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I too have found a bit of editorializing in the lead unsupported by the citations presented. Sometimes text is edited without a careful read of the citations or replacement with new citations. I suspect there may be more. Anthon01 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported or not, the lead is probably not the best place for it.  But here I'm speaking of a much narrower issue, which is whether the cited sources actually are correct for what is stated; based on the history, I'd say probably not.  Arthur Rubin, usually a very good editor, has just undone my fix again, without commenting on whether he has actually checked the sources to see if they say that.  I don't know why.  If anyone has these papers handy, can you check, or produce a copy for us to see?  If not, I'm going to take it back to what it originally said when the sources were first cited, since that was presumbably by someone who had looked at the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The quote is from the first source, but the second makes the same general point, so it was added since a few people were uncomfortable at only citing one source for the statement. However, I don't see this as a particularly controversial point, since whatever the view you have on if homeopathy works, we all agree that it is diametrically/directly opposed to conventional pharmacology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientifically implausible" is not editorializing, even if it's not the exact words of either reference.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I liked the other way better; nonetheless, the issue of greater concern is quoted phrase "diametrically opposed", originally inserted in this diff where it was attributed to a whole list of sources, but not quoted.  I was able to find it in one of the two recently cited sources, so I reduced the citation list to just the one with the quote, and extended the quote to be more clear about what the source said.  I don't have the other, but I doubt that it uses the same words.  Thanks for fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of implausibility 

message: The problem with this category is that it is usually reserved for ideas that are not outright rejected by the scientific mainstream, but which have a minority status within the field. Homeopathy is not fringe science. It is pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterizing something as pseudoscience is asserting the POV that the something is pseudoscience. But the issue is that this is disputed, and NPOV forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize it as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement that would be true had we not had all of the refs labeling homeopathy as pseudoscience. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reliable source that disputes that homeopathy is pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're serious, it must just be that you classify any source calling it a science to be not a reliable source.  There certainly are books that treat it more as science than as pseudoscience, even if they don't use the term pseudoscience in the book.  For example, Homeopathy: Science Or Myth? by Bill Gray M. D.  Here are some more.  I'm not taking a position on classifying homeopathy one way or the other, but the close-mindedness of editors making statements like yours is what will keep this article from ever achieving NPOV or any kind of consensus, it seems to me.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those sources are not worth the paper they're printed on. Reliable sourcing doesn't mean just doing a google search. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are books with real authors, editors, and publishers behind them.  Nobody is saying that makes their content true or correct, but as sources they are reliable, per WP:RS.  If you're not going to treat them as such, then it's of course just a tautogy to say "I see no reliable source that disputes that homeopathy is pseudoscience."  You've made your POV very clear, so why waste our time repeating it thusly? Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but that's just ridiculous. Just because a book has "real author, editor, and publisher" does not make it a reliable source. I could write an entire encyclopedia based on hollow earth theory if that were the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agreed that close-mindedness will keep this article for ever acheiving NPOV or any kind of consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be nice if people who believed in homeopathy would open their minds to understanding physics, chemistry, and modern medicine, maybe take some college courses, maybe read some good introductory science texts. But that's not for us to legislate. Scientific illiteracy may plague the people who support homeopathy, but we cannot force people to learn. Open-mindedness can only be properly achieved through education and that is beyond the scope of these conversations. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what is being referred to here is open-mindedness in regards to respecting the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, being open-minded to the fact that the pseudoscience classification of Homeopathy seems much too disputed even outside the profession to be identified as a "obvious" or "a general considered" pseudoscience. Therefore, Wikipedia describing it as such would violate WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. We all have the right to be open-minded or close-minded about our own personal feeling about Homeopathy, but in terms of Wikipedia, we need to respect NPOV and labeling Homeopathy as pseudoscience clearly violates NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience at this point (as we still have no definitive verification that the scientific community in general considers it so but rather we have varying opinions from lots of source; hence, it is a dispute scientific theory.) -- Levine2112 discuss 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so happy to be open-minded with respect to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia which are, after all, just representations of community consensus on how to write an encyclopedia. Since we have plenty of reliable sources which indicate that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience we have plenty of justification for categorizing the article as such. Those who object to this categorization are doing so not on the basis of reliable sourcing (which is the only way to determine what is generally considered pseudoscience) and instead are falling back on their illiteracy and true-belief. Or, sometimes, some of the editors arguing this way are simply falling back on their personal vendettas against the attempts that many have had in keeping Wikipedia NPOV with respect to pseudoscience/alternative medicine/etc. Frankly, most of what you are claiming about a lack of "definitive verification" from the "scientific community" is not only specious: it's patently absurd. Read scientific consensus for more. There is no imprimatur required to decide what is and isn't pseudoscience. Science is not a community of high priests. It is a set of methods. When various ideas (like homeopathy) violate these ideas in very particular ways, those ideas are generally pseudoscientific. Astrology, homeopathy, creation science, ancient astronaut theories, perpetual motion machines, etc. etc. etc. If you are confused by this, I made a convenient list where you can see what qualifies! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe science category 

message: During the numerous recent edits, it appears that citation number 97 (Ernst2005) has been deleted, but a secondary link to it has been retained. I think this citation has been a point of contention, so I'll leave it to you all to determine how to handle the stray reference - whether to restore the original citation or delete the stray. It occurs right after the text "without losing the original substance altogether". Thanks for looking at this.Mindmatrix 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was done in Arthur Rubin's two latest edits.  I had fixed it previously, but he reverted me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needs source or removal 

message: Once again, some of the people who believe in faith healing and sacrificing sheep to Marduk are placing warnings and block threats on the talk pages of people trying to edit this article properly. Once again, they are pretending to be administrators. Once again, we see that there is no rational argument in favor of homeopathy, and no rational argument in favor of this article being pro-homeopathy, so the homeopathy proponents resort to threats, lies, and intimidation. Just another fine day in the reality v. magical thinking conflict. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Wiki-bullying and underhanded tactics 

message: I believe that the peer-reviewed reliable sources I have provided above unequivocally state that homeopathy is the kind of quackery which costs the lives of untold multitudes who fail to seek -- or are dissuaded from -- legitimate medical care. The entire article does a terrible job of presenting that fact.
Most of the others here seem to be squabbling over whether it's merely pseudoscience or fringe science.  Accordingly, I have placed a  neutrality dispute tag on this article. MilesAgain (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your PubMed quote doesn't say what you are saying. "which costs the lives of untold multitudes who fail to see?" Prove it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is direct evidence that homeopaths tell people to avoid vaccinations.  Tell me that doesn't cost lives. MilesAgain (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but prove that it cost lives. Otherwise its OR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pfft!  All I have to say is WP:SPADE, or wait, maybe I mean WP:DUCK.  MilesAgain (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Whether his argument is good or not, he does right to ignore them --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Of whom there is nothing but sparse anecdotal evidence and homeopaths saying that controlled trials are for some reason not a legitimate means of testing efficacy. MilesAgain (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What untold multitudes? How were they helped? What evidence do you have other than anonymous anecdotes? Natalie (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I self-reverted.  I'm on board with Miles now!  Yeah, what untold multitudes Anthon01?  Oh you mean the untold multitudes who are screwed out of their money to buy a couple of liters of distilled water?  And that money would have only been spent on sex, drugs and rock and roll, therefore saving them from the misery of their existence.  Sarcasm intended.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's leave it to the untold multitudes who believe in alien abduction, horroscopes, the Loch Ness monster, magic crystals, mood rings, Yeti and Scientology. •Jim62sch• 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Odd, I've always found congruency to be of value. •Jim62sch• 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: agreed. we should at least weight until the curent bitchfest is over before ywe start adding more tags. right now any of us could put every single tag on wikipedia on this page and be juustified in doing so. Smith Jones (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: Please don't add these to the article.  The dispute on the article is perpetual.  The templates serve no purpose. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
:agreed. we should at least weight until the curent bitchfest is over before ywe start adding more tags. right now any of us could put every single tag on wikipedia on this page and be juustified in doing so. Smith Jones (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/Disputed/whatever Templates 

message: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Offsite canvassing?. Please don't comment here. Centralize there to avoid WP:MULTI. Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting AN thread 

message: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden talk 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Arbcom case (maybe)