Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 29

message: It would be useful if someone explained carefully here what article probation actually means, if the article is under probation or soon will be.--Filll (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we have anti-science and non-science admins deciding how this works?  Wow.  Excellent.  Wikipedia is going to be a laughingstock, except medical schools are adding Quackademic Medicine to their curriculum.  Everyone head to Sedona to cure your cancer.  Meh.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Involved admins cannot participate.  Anybody who's been editing doesn't get to enforce. Jehochman  Talk 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non sequitur. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pass the poi.  Jehochman  Talk 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, let  me clarificationalize the electrode. OM made a statement about "anti-science and non-science admins" and you responded with a remark about "involved" admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How would he know who is non- or anti- if they are uninvolved?  What am I, for instance?  Everybody is allowed to have a point of view, but those who are engaged in the content disputes will not be enforcing. If enforcement goes against Wikipedia policies, I imagine that those admins will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Science does not own Wikipedia, nor do the  Alt.Med folks. Jehochman  Talk 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And... and... when I start a sentence it ends with the wrong fusebox... serioushly, I think admins with expertise in science should deliberately refrain from editing certain topics, but follow them enough to intervene in an educated way where necessary.  But WP's always gonna be a madhouse until it adopts some sort of non-wikiality "gentle expert oversight", as at Citizendium.  And if not, let it be a resource for popular culture, and leave more academic topics to the grownups at CZ.  Only reason I'm still editing here is that I know people read WP, but in some sense that's just "enabling" a dysfunctional system.  --Jim Butler(talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think different wikis have different organizing principles for good reasons. Wikipedia shouldn't try to be anything but what it has always been, but Citizendium may be a better place for some people and Wikinfo for others. Personally I find the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be a strong point and this is the only encyclopedia project I've found worth my participation. —Whig (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Article probation means that there is a reduced tolerance for violations of Wikipedia's core policies and other policies.  Editors who are disruptive can be banned from editing any articles or group of articles where they may be disruptive, or they can be put on revert limitation (e.g. 1RR instead of 3RR), to reduce edit warring. See Wikipedia:General sanctions. Jehochman  Talk 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Activity seems to have reduced somewhat since the probation started. A good thing? Probably --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly amazing.  De profundis clamavi ad vos scientia prudentiaque! •Jim62sch• 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "From the depths I have called to you, O Science, O Reason!" •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining probation 

message: Very little of this talk page seems to have been devoted to actually trying to reach consensus on the article's content (this is probably partially because some editors don't believe a consensus is possible, and others have explicitly said that they're not really very interested in consensus).  Because I'm foolish and naive, I'd like to try to bring discussion in that direction.  To that end, could editors please elucidate what their problems are with the article as currently written?  Please be as specific as possible.  Also, in the interests of keeping this thread reasonably uncluttered and therefore readable, I'd suggest that people not respond to others' posts in this thread, but rather create additional threads to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick clarification on your last point: that is a problem with the process by which this article is being edited; I'm more wondering about problems with the article as it currently exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempting to distill things 

message: :Just what is wrong with quackwatch.org? For what is it an "advocacy site" besides good science and true, verifiable facts? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch appears to be a website controlled by one person, effectively a blog.  While the information might be accurate, I see no evidence of independent fact checking.  The site is asking for donations.  This is not the type of site that Wikipedia normal uses as a reliable source.  If you would like a community discussion of Quackwatch, please feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. JehochmanTalk 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One person who is a medical doctor and thus a reliable source on the topic of medicine. Is there a rule against "sites controlled by one person" in the reliable source guidelines that you can point me to? All I see is a note about self-publishing which specifically notes "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Quackwatch meets both of those requirements.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Verfiability.  I am fairly sure that Quackwatch is not a suitable reference for this article.  This is a controversial situation and better references are available.  Why can't we find a peer reviewed, academic journal?  Jehochman  Talk 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "no it's not" is not a worthwhile response to my explanation of why it is acceptable. What portion of the verifiability guidelines to you believe it violates?Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - WP:SPS  Quackwatch has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking.  Such sources are not used in controversial situations, especially when better sources can be found. Jehochman  Talk 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! In any case, I do not see anything on either the Reliable Sources page or the Verifiability page that instructs us to take into account whether a source "solicits contributions." Are you making up that rule or am I missing something? The world's pre-eminent source on medical quackery, written by a medical doctor, which has been sourced in numerous peer-reviewed publications, is the BEST source on a topic of medical quackery! How could it not be? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say that Wikipedia "has an obvious agenda, solicits contributions, and does not have any reputation for fact checking"! Yes, and we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source Friarslantern (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Other sites are not bound by Wikipedia's interpretation of what NPOV is. Wikipedia editors are bound to using sites which meet the verifiability and reliable-source criterion, which Quackwatch does in every respect.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On the advocacy and fundraising question: And how is this different than the Homeopathy sources?--Filll (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point!  If you have time, you could make a list of all the suspect references, then editors can review and replace them as appropriate. Jehochman  Talk 04:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jehochman, are you suggesting that only sources that do not have a POV ("advocacy") be quoted, and/or that no non-profit organizations may be quoted, since they all, quite openly and legitimately, request donations. They can't survive if they don't do that. If so, this is a radical reinterpretation of NPOV. This matter has been discussed so many times now that it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Only the enemies of Quackwatch and the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience here have been making these arguments. I am not making an accusation against you, but I'm just stating the history of this issue. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have an uninvolved editor, Jehochman, using WP policies to provide a fresh look of the issue of Quackwatch. Although, I agree that donations doesn't preclude the use of a site, Quackwatch is clearly a partisan site and should be used judiciously. It is obvious that not only the promoters of quackery and pseudoscience make these claims as Jehochman is neither of those. I suggest that a influx of experienced non-involved editors onto this page will help this page move forward. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many edits can someone make to this page before they can no longer claim to be an "uninvolved editor"? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say a little different then the Huffington Post as Quackwatch is mostly one editor vs. a multitude at the Huffington Post. Anthon01 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be pedantic, yes, it's clearly different from HuffPo in several ways. My blindingly obvious point was that though it may be "effectively a blog" it's not a bad source to use. Perhaps it's not the best to use for sourcing certain claims, particularly if there happens to be a peer-reviewed secondary source that says the same thing, but it's in no way inappropriate per WP:RS. There are multitudinous examples of "effectively a blog"-type sites that can be used as reliable sources in many fields on many articles. — Scientizzle 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point was that Quackwatch as a one man show, doesn't have the benefit of contrasting input, from many different sources, and is therefore subject to editorial bias. Many blogs have comments which help to moderate their content. Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same can be said for many Alt-Med journals, even those that claim to be peer-reviewed.  I haven't checked the alt-med references in THIS article, but if QW is inappropriate, than so are the others.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Quackwatch can potentially be used as primary source to support a statement of the form, "Critics of homeopathy, such as Quackwatch, say that homeopathy is quackery because..."  The nature of the source needs to be identified so biases are clearly. I think it would be preferable to use peer reviewed academic journals. I have used blogs as reliable sources in  a featured article, search engine optimization, because this is an unusual topic that is not covered by academic sources.  That article was the subject of edit wars until the sourcing was improved.  Since then, it has been extremely stable. Jehochman  Talk 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Take out the rubbish, and focus on verifiable facts.   Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, with an occasional primary source used to fill in the gaps or provide additional context. Jehochman  Talk 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In principle I agree with Jehochman. I think the rules are too often ignored. Are there many pro-homeopathy sources? Give me an example of what you think would go in such a purge? Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Filll: You misunderstand my intentions. I hope to improve the project. Lets go where the sources take us. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch 

message: The statement Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination as far as I can tell is not supported by the sources. One article has no abstract. The other two don't support the text. Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, they indeed do support the text: "CAM also lends support to the "anti-vaccination movement". In particular, sections of the chiropractors, the (non-medically trained) homoeopaths and naturopaths tend to advise their clients against immunisation" -- . One "with no abstract" is entitled "The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine." -- . The other one is entitled "Homoeopathy and immunization" () and I doubt it says anything different. The two news reports on malaria specifically state that homeopathy is risking lives. How could it be any more quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do you get many from that abstract? I think WP:NOR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See below. MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How exactly does that not support the text?  It's not just "many," it's "most"! MilesAgain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes and 9 out of 10 dentists use crest ... Anthon01 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In peer reviewed medical journal articles? MilesAgain (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, the evidence presented doesn't justify many, because a survey of 23 can't possible speak for the probable tens of thousands of homeopaths practicing in the world. The 9 out of 10 comment is a common advertising trick used in the US, where they interview 10 individuals of whom 9 agree with X, and attempt to give the impression the 90% of all individuals believe X. Anthon01 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Look, there are all sorts of BBC sources about homeopaths disparaging the MMR vaccine, the malaria vaccine, and so on. This, for example. You are being willfully obtuse about this. You are a problem editor on this article, who has obviously abandoned all pretense of good faith or proper procedure, and are just throwing up nonsensical smokescreens to defend a discredited viewpoint. Go away. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You cannot constantly assert that the single poll is the only evidence for the assertion, when there is all sorts of other evidence available through reliable sources such as the BBC just by Googling, and I even presented you above with a direct link to a completely different article about a completely different investigation into the the homeopathic attitude towards vaccination. You are  acting in bad faith here by ignoring all the contrary evidence to your position and wildly misrepresenting your opponents' position.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that it crossed that line long ago, but I'm so confused by people who are arguing for pseudoscience and not for quackery that I don't know if my opinion is relevant. MilesAgain (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All you have to do is apply policy. Perhaps you are too close to this to do that objectively, but I don't know. If I presented a study that said 16 out 23 responded favorable to Homeopathic X, would you agree with my statement that many people respond well to X? I don't think so. So the rules,WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH in this case, apply both ways, for the sake of the project. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaccinations comment unsupported by sources

message: I have asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite to unprotect the page.  If that happens, no edit warring.  Article probation is in effect.  Jehochman  Talk 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure this is a good idea. The whole talk page is in the grip of rather... questionable questioning of sources. Adam Cuerden talk 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it will be an interesting experiment. I will decline to edit because it is just too dangerous.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kinda like being under the hoop in basketball. Watch out for those elbows. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that metaphor sems irrelvent to the current situation. Smith Jones (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. Just trying to inject some humor. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Given the article probation is now live, I've unprotected this article. Users that act disruptively will be added to the list of users placed under the article probation and should further problems occur, they will be blocked. I don't see future protection to this page, as the probation should cover most misconduct. Please edit the page sensibly, and keep a cool hat on when you move the page forward with the art of consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I would like to add the following to the end of the following section: Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness
* Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics." He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."Jerry Adler. "No Way to Treat the Dying" - Newsweek, Feb 4, 2008
BTW, this happens to be yet another of myriad mainstream sources that quote Stephen Barrett as a reliable source of criticism of off beat practices, quackery, and pseudoscience. Fyslee / talk 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of the last sentence? Are you promoting or elevating Quackwatch? Anthon01 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added that as an afterthought because of the ongoing discussion above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Quackwatch It is literally one of hundreds of quotings of Barrett and Quackwatch made by mainstream and press sources in a positive manner, which shows that mainstream sources, governmental and university sources, and the media often quote Barrett since he is the world's leading authority on quackery. -- Fyslee / talk 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to make it clear, Barrett is not being quoted in the suggested addition. -- Fyslee / talk 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What!  And give the pro-alternative-medicine-quackery advocates yet one more chance to speak out on this page -- NO WAY! ;-) Friarslantern (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. I agree. It seems there are editors from both POV that don't understand NPOV & NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree that this would probably be a good addition, but I don't think it meets the criteria for a protected edit. That is, I suspect there's going to be controversy about it. ;) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm...you could be right considering the types of disruptive controversy against policy we have experienced. I have always interpreted the wording "If....a desired change warrants advance discussion" as referring to "legitimate" controversy. Attempting to keep out sources that are in harmony with policy because one "doesn't like it" isn't legitimate controversy, but disruption, and the article probation should hopefully keep that to a minimum, for the first time in ages. Any "advance discussion" (controversy) should legitimately apply policies as a means of showing how the addition would be improper. Lacking such argumentation, disruption is likely a logical interpretation. The author, the source, and the quote are impeccable. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am the proposer. It is a notable quote, from a notable person, published in a very V & RS (Newsweek). It's about as impeccable as they come and I'm proposing that it be placed in an appropriate section of the article. I believe all polices are being followed. It's an encyclopedic addition that enriches the article. You can try it out and see how it looks. It's a bit hard for me to do at the moment....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, Fyslee... quote is more than fine... and in general, I'm amazed at the signal-to-noise ratio on this page.  Whew! --Jim Butler (t) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is not entirely true, and Barrett is not the source. (He just happens to be quoted as a reliable source by mainstream sources, for the umpteenth time.) Read the quote above. -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, at what point do my predictions (above) of ensuing disruption (already fulfilled above) get recognized and a warning handed out? -- Fyslee / talk 07:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do you see a disruption? Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a useful quote. But I don't think it's so urgent as to need an immediate edit. Adam Cuerden talk 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  True enough. I just want to see legitimate editing attempts that should be uncontroversial to reasonable minds continue. A page protection is not intended to prevent that from happening. This happens to be a very significant quote from a very significant source, Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. -- Fyslee / talk 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to be good. V and RS, and adds the views of a high-up homeopath. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  You said, adds the views of a high-up homeopath. How so? Is Killen a homeopath? Anthon01 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fyslee: Your source seems RS and V, although I haven't seen it yet, since the link is not working. I am curious to see it though before making a recommendation. Keep in mind that we already have, on a quick count, 12 citation saying homeopathy is placebo or ineffective so I am not sure if we need to add another. Kinda like beating a dead horse.  Finally, it seems that you are using this to prove a point. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthon01 seems to be not understanding the point here. Take a look at intelligent design. How many references are there that it is not science or junk science or pseudoscience? Intelligent design is an FA. --Filll (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Although I'd expect a quote like this to be included -- the statements of more "authorized" commentators usually being preferable, and therefore replacing those of less-prominent sources -- it should at the least be given as a reference to any statement asserting that the efficacy of homeopathy is undemonstrated. Naturezak (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  The link is in ref format, IOW you need to look in the refs section at the bottom. It is probably collapsed, so just open it and then you'll see it. I am indeed trying to make a point, but I am not making a point that involves disruption. Look at WP:POINT. POINT disruptions are an entirely different matter than attempting to use logic and follow policies. -- Fyslee / talk 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Very good observations, Friarslantern. NCCAM is generally favorable to alternative medicine, but has a mandate to conduct real scientific research (sometimes where none has been attempted by believers before) on various alt med subjects. By "generally favorable" I mean that some of the most active leaders and players are themselves practitioners and advocates, and they hand out funding to other (sometimes unqualified to conduct research) practitioners and advocates, often without demanding accountability. While the research is supposed to be unbiased, it is too much to expect that practitioners who are essentially receiving pay to stay in business for a few more years are going be neutral, and thus the research seems to often have the character of a "we are going to prove it is true" agenda, instead of a "we just want to see what's going on and will accept the results no matter what." Even research results that are rather negative have been published with conclusions that the results were "inconclusive", where a correct conclusion would have told it like it was. Fortunately there are enough real scientists involved and keeping an eye on things that such issues have been criticized and the leaders have been forced to admit that some of their pet ideas have not been confirmed to be true. Criticisms of NCCAM's waste of funds and lack of critical thinking are numerous. In this light, the statement by Killen is remarkably forthright and courageous, considering that it lends fuel to those who have been documenting for years that funds have been wasted on research for subjects of no possible real worth. He is doing what no others have dared to do - cutting off the branch upon which NCCAM (his own agency) is sitting. -- Fyslee / talk 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New quote from authoritative source and V & RS 

message: The following sentence in the article should change. 
Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma.  
This is the text of the  study.
MAIN RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were conflicting results in terms of lung function between the studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a 'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualised homeopathic practice).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. This will help to establish to what extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the homeopathic intervention alone. 
It seems to me that the source does not support the sentence since : There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is not equal to found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma. The sentence currently being used in the article  implies that the data shows negative results for homeopathy which is inaccurate .The study is inconclusive and the sentence must change. I think everybody can see that.   
--Dana4 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Filll.    
- There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma is a negative result? Please everybody feel free to comment. --Dana4 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A direct quotation could be used in order to eliminate controversy. Perhaps a better source can be found. Filll, your solution does not work. We are not here to interpret what things mean. We quote, paraphrase, or summarize.  We do not synthesize. Jehochman  Talk 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. I have found a number of these they we corrected, prior the PP. I suspect there are more. I believe WP:OR applies here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest that the statement "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma." be changed to Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found: "There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also agree that the misrepresentation of homeopathic treatment for dementia needs to be changed. The study that is referenced actually states: "In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia." That is very different than what the homeopathy article currently asserts: "found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial". Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) Well, "no evidence" is also an accurate interpretation of what the article says, as well.  There's an implication that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, but we are not entitled to make that implication, whether or not the source did.    — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy" not equal to find no evidence. --Dana4 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proposed text leaves no room for interpretation. The current version does. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Who is spamming? Anthon01 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dementia" abstract goes on to say "absence of evidence".  As to exactly what there is "absence of evidence" of, that would be unclear, but it would certainly be inappropriate to leave that out of the article content.  The "asthma" abstract states "No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales."  Seems like no evidence to me.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Art that they could to be reworded. The way the text currently reads implies that there was a definitive conclusion that homeopathy was not beneficial. Precision wording can eliminate any problems with violating the neutral tone of the article that Wikipedia rules demand. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is the current wording sounds like a claim that it's been disproven, when in fact no conclusion was made. Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Systematic reviews have determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of waving a chicken over your head in asthma.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.207.53 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The reviews determination of insufficient evidence is noteworthy as it is informative about the status of the project on the issue and has the potential of directing area of further research. Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... problem is, Wikipedia's goal isn't to tell Homeopaths what they should be researching. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it. Then it is informative about the status of the project on Asthma and has the potential of directing the parent of an asthmatic child ... I have no problem with leaving it out. Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something like that.  This info may be useful somewhere as you say, but my point was, not here it would seem.  Since this article is on a short fuse, I would think it be better just to not use the statement at all.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm..... how about: "Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration failed to find evidence that would affirm homeopathy's effectiveness for treating asthma..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using the exact phrase the study used. They concluded that In view of the absence of evidence it was not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating ....and or asthma dementia.Fair?--Dana4 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: or According to the researchers There was not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia" more than fair. --Dana4 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me too. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or as I suggested above, a little more concisely and without a quote, Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration determined that insufficient evidence exist to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma or dementia. Anthon01 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I should point out that this is a long list, of which I presume that the others can be presumed accurately portrayed, or someone would have objected by now. The sensible thing would seem to be a rider, "and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend..."  Or we could leave them out, which may be best. Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody objects to my wording or content, I'll go fix it... — Scientizzle 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Scientizzle's rewording is an improvement. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the possible role of homeopathy in asthma + dementia 

message: I suspect that we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is impossible to ever prove that homeopathy does not work, even if no evidence is ever found. There is no proof in science, and no truth, only in mathematics and logic. In science, all you can have is evidence, or no evidence. Period. --Filll (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the comments to the section above necessarily display a misunderstanding of this principle... explain. Friarslantern (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I consider that fact in all my edits and comments. Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I will note that I have not examined the study in question in detail. It could have been a poorly designed study, and therefore irrelevant.--Filll (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  possibly. we've'll have to look tat it and compare with existing crtieria for a valid, well-designed stud y before we consider referencing it in the encyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental confusion 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=188535780&oldid=188534851
The box and cats have vanished. The box and cats should be restored. Quack Guru 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been extensive discussions surrounding this issue on this talk page.  There is no consensus in favour of adding either, and there is in fact something approximating a consensus to leave both the box off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The box and cats meet NPOV. I want this article to be a good article and not a diluted article. Quack Guru 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this characterization of the consensus. I would say that there is roughly consensus to leave the box off, but the category has been on this page for some time and is generally accepted. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SA (edit conflict).  I see nothing resembling consensus regarding the category.  A rather succinct straw poll was conducted on the infobox a few days ago.  The result was somewhat inconclusive, but seemed to lean towards delete.  Silly rabbit (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I probably did overstate things regarding the category.  I've struck through and edited my original comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i support the psuedoscience category since evne if you dont believe that homeopathic science is psuedoscientific the fact that a lot of scientsits think that it is is grounds for it to be mentioend in the category. Smith Jones (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an act of good faith I would appreciate it if you add back in the cats. There seems to be a consensus for it. Thanks. Quack Guru 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. We should not be bringing science down to the level of Homeopathy by categorizing it as any type of science. The Fringe Science cat needs to go. The scientist in me won't abide by the insult. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#PseudoscienceGenerally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible... Please read the references. Thanks, Quack Guru 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at great length.  See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 28, Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 27, and Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 26, which are occupied largely with this very debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Jim Butler has it right. It may be true that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", but unless we can cite a reliable source for that fact, we are not allowed to characterize homeopathy as pseudoscience. Get it, QuackGuru? On the other hand, if you want to challenge the statement about scientific plausibility on the basis of this policy, you might have a good case. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I support the inclusion of the pseudoscience and fringe science categories, as these widespread opinions of the majority in and out of science can be easily verified. I don't support the pseudoscience info box as it is ugly --DrEightyEight (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a reliable source stating in essence that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", please let us know. Otherwise you can support whatever you want, but I'm afraid the article will have to stick to Wikipedia policy. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of books that describe homeopathy as pseudoscience however very few (if any) describe it as fringe science Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since consensus doesn't exist, lets remove the category. Why rehash the last weekends discussions. There is no RS the properly supports the inclusion of either the box or the category, as per Art and Jim Butler's comments. Those who favor inclusion, can review Archive26 and look for a source that supports the inclusion. Opinions alone don't cut it. According to WP policy and the extensive discussions already had lets take both of them out until we can find an appropriate source and move on. Anthon01 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter how many sarcastic comments you make or how many of your friends' accounts you can get to show up and vote, homeopathy being a pseudoscience is a FACT, and thus belongs on the article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Peter, I suggest that in future you avoid sarcastic comments of this nature. Addhoc (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for the removal of the box. Now I am convinced by the arguments that it is NPOV for the box to be in the article. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Quack Guru 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which item in that section are you referring to?  Certain this one would suggest the opposite conclusion: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: Generally considered pseudoscience:  "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Quack Guru 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good, I figured that must be the one you meant.  So now the issue is clear: is homeopathy "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", or does it "have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience"?  Cite sources. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[5][6] and its "theory is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge."[7] Claims for its efficacy beyond placebo are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies[8][9][10][11] and it is considered to be pseudoscientific.[12][13][14][15] A lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles have caused homeopathy to be regarded, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".[17] Also read the references. Thanks, Quack Guru 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty familiar with that paragraph, but I haven't read all the sources.  Is there one that is a reliable source for "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", or is that an WP:OR synthesis of the various sources?  The latter won't do to settle this kind of debate between the obviously different points of view.  By the way, it's helpful that you make your own POV plain as "QuackGuru" so we don't have to guess where you're coming from; with some people, it's hard to tell. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing box and cats 

message: You cannot change policy through discussion on an article talk page.  If have deleted the RFC notice. It appears to have been a form of creative disruption. Jehochman  Talk 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy RFC deleted 

message: I noticed a bit of recent edit warring over the addition of a pseudoscience menu.  Putting on my web developer hat, is there are reason this article does not have the  menu installed?  That menu includes homeopathy as a major item. Just because the article is in :Category:Pseudoscience does not mean that pseudoscience is the most appropriate navigation menu.  Somebody looking at this article is not necessarily interested in reading about time cubes.  I would think they are more likely to be interested in other alternative medicine topics. Jehochman  Talk 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: looks more appropriate than the pseudoscience box. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree strongly that this is the correct nav box to add as an aide to navigation.  I also think that the sentence about x, y, and z consider h-pathy to be pseudoscience should stay in the article for balance.  Abridged talk 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the alternative medicine navbox is more informative, and so likely more useful, than the pseudoscience navbox.  I vote for including it.  Silly rabbit (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Quack Guru 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  All "alternative medicine" is a subset of pseudoscience anyway. Is there any reason we can't use both boxes? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can use both boxes. It may be more relevant to include the pseudoscience infobox later in the article in the Homeopathy#Medical and scientific analysis section, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that the  box is a good addition, but the pseudoscience box placed lower in the article is not helpful to improving the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can combine both boxes together. I think that may work. Quack Guru 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look me in the eye and tell me if you are trying to improve the article, or if you are trying to gain more prominence for your preferred view?  Can you show me any featured articles that have multiple navigation boxes like that? Jehochman  Talk 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This edit, , does not appear to have consensus support, and seems to continue a long, slow moving edit war.  I strongly suggest you revert it because while there is strong justification in policy to place the pseudoscience category on this article, there is no consensus to add the pseudoscience nav box. Jehochman  Talk 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being an admin does not give you the right to make content choices. There is real world evidence in reliable published sources listed above that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. POV pushers who try to use original research to deny that are causing disruption on this page. Ban them, not people who are improving wikipedia by improving this article. Many good articles have multiple nav boxes. The point of a nav box is to help readers navigate to other articles that may interest them because they are similar in some way. Deleting them to promote a POV is disruption. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I cong see ant reason why the use of the alternative medicines box is not consensual. NO-one here has objected to the use of ane dit box. Smith Jones (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me.  The alternative medicines box has been agreed.  The pseudoscience menu has not.  Quack Guru substituted  and inserted a bunch of pseudoscience links.  That is not what the consensus agreed to. Jehochman  Talk 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "consensus" means that everyone involved agrees enough to not argue anymore. You simply can't get that on this page until you ban the people who are here for non-encyclopedia purposes - ie to promote homeopathy or to promote anti-homeopathy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: okay fine but ti think that in the inetersts of maintaining peace on the Wiki we shoudl overlook that until later. its only a single tag/box and furhter debate can be derailed until later. i would rather suffer with a possibly libelous tag on the homeopathy article temporarily than end up geting this whole article deleted from the Internet because of continued tendintious editing. Smith Jones (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is impossible to "libel" a concept. Please observe the No legal threats policy and cease trying to short-circuit discussion on this page with strategic tactics that are against the rules of Wikipedia. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Homeopathy is pseudoscience, the sources were posted on this, the debate is over. Nitpicking every attempt to reflect that in the article on a separate basis is stonewalling nonsense. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: REGARDLESS of the measons why the stonewalling continues, the fact is that we dont ahve consensus and we dont want to rsik an edit war by adding in such a clearly tenditious edit box. It would be better to put the Category:Psuedoscience in for now and put the Psuedoscience box in later one once the climate of hatred and anger is subsidded. Smith Jones (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we back to this again? You can't just have one group with all the Wikipedia policies, all the facts, all the citations, and all the logic on their side, and the second group putting their fingers in their ears and saying "nuh-uh I don't agree," and then call that a "lack of consensus." This sort of bean-counting in ignorance of who is correct is what is meant by "stonewalling." Randy Blackamoor (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: to be honest, that is cot true. there was vigorious debate on the talk page and in edit summaries during the early battles of the edit wars that the box should or should nto be included, but nowhere i have seen a statement asserting the the box should not be included by every one who edits here. Reember wikipeida is not a democracy and even if some people agree to remove the box doesnt' mean that the issues and opinions of the remainders should be discounted, scorned, disgraced, spat upon, and/or ingnored. WP is built on WP:CONSENSUS, not on w. Smith Jones (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would be appreciated, is that you focus on the article and how to improve it instead to argue about "wikipedianesque majoritarian tendeicies" (sic). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, well, id like to people to stop hurling snide remarks about my typos and acknowledge that i am trying by best to work with other users to make this article better. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you made any contributions to the article? It is great to engage in discussions, but after all what is needed is material and good sources. That is what an article is made of. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: i have a long list of diffs:
1
2
3
4
5
and these are from the month of Jaunauary alone -- i could find more if i had the patience. i have slowed down my editing due to probation to avoid causing any furhter conflict and in an effort to mellow out to atmosphere on this talk page and on the article itself. I also created the articles on Jan Scholten durnng my work for WikipRoject Homeopathy and worked extensively on the articles Jan Scholten and worked on the article for homeopathic repertory (which is now merged with this article]] and homeopathic proving as well as editing anonymously for Materia Medica. Please do not quesiton my dedication to working construcitvely on this and related articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation 

message: I have requested peer review of this article.  See Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. Jehochman  Talk 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is this article stable dnough for an effective peer review? it seems likely that large chunks of this article might be rewritten and it might al be refocused after probation expires. Smith Jones (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Our goal should be to improve the article.  It is currently a good article, so it's not that bad.  Jehochman  Talk 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you have a good point. i was just making sure that oyu were taking into acocunt the unstable nature of a probation article in your decision. i dont have any other objectiosn to a peer review. Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What is the purpose of requesting peer review here -- are you doing it in furtherance of the disputes displayed here?  Also, clarify: I thought the admins involved in overseeing the probation of this article would stay uninvolved (unless of course it involves furthering the goal of resolving the disputes that caused the probation in the first place, or enforcing the probation)?  Please clarify.  Friarslantern (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose is to help improve the quality of the article (something I am not prevented from doing), and to bring in objective, outsider perspectives (which may help improve the editing environment).  Does anybody here not want to improve the article? Jehochman  Talk 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that last comment is in good faith. Friarslantern (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How!? What makes you say that ?!?! Smith Jones (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See rhetorical question.  Jehochman  Talk 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know. my quesitonw as rhetorical too. Smith Jones (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Some homeopaths, who are a minority in the medical field, contend that many studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect other than placebo, and that placebo-controlled, randomized, and blinded clinical trials are not the best research tool to test homeopathic effects. Please bring the appropriate sources. Thanks, Quack Guru 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm is not helpful. Jehochman  Talk 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is seeing sarcasm where there is none. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why the first comment was not sarcasm, please. What are all the  tags for, if not sarcastic effect. Jehochman  Talk 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, it was not sarcastic.  Somebody has added their personal opinions to the article using  tags as a crutch.  If a statement is controversial and not supported by citations, it should be removed, not tagged.  Once sources are found, it can be re-added.  That's the general rule. Jehochman  Talk 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this paragraph is basically fine, and needs citations where the fact tags are placed. —Whig (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that the tags should be placed at the end of the relvent pragraph to avoid the ugly mess that is created when tags are slapped every atwhere at random. Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, inline tags are best to keep from having a string of tags at the end. —Whig (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as well. placing all the tags at the end is not by original opinion. I only said that one tag should be placed at the end since the whole paragraph is unsourced claptrap and a source that addresses one of them shoudl easily address them all. and if it is clear that he sources have not way of being verified in a timely manner, they should be removed until a source can be found. Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: When you post something, could you provide  a bit of context, so people are not completely lost? I did not understand why you posted that.  To me it looked like a sarcastic remark about homeopathic practitioners. Jehochman  Talk 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with user:jehochman about the importance of context in describing an issue. Smith Jones (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion here seems to be in taking what Quack Guru wrote sarcastically. Take it literally, what's wrong with it? It can't be posted to the article space without citations. —Whig (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%.  The lack of references is so obvious, I thought it was sarcastic.  Jehochman  Talk 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be basically correct as a matter of fact, however, so it should be possible to find appropriate RS & V citations. —Whig (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do a lot of reference fixing, and it is astonishing how often a statement needs to be adjusted a little bit (or a lot) to match what the references say.  For maximum accuracy, it would be better to find the references first, and then craft the statement. Jehochman  Talk 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And here is another:  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The phrasing of that statement would not be supported by the sources provided as yet, and the phrasing is simply awful, serving only to give WP:Undue weight to a bold assertion. The NCCAM report on homeopathy gives a summary of metaanalyses up to the date of the report, and the only unambiguously positive one is the Linde 1995 study which the authors later disowned the conclusions of. I have no objections to saying that homeopaths point to the few positive studies, or claim that science is unable evaluate homeopathy - the last could easily be sourced to Lionel Milgrom, who does claim that. However, that sentence, as it stands, is pure POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden talk 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find the references first and then simply tweak the sentence and wording. Or just explain the homeopaths viewpoints or claims. It must be backed up by reliable references and carefully worded. Quack Guru 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not acrtively editing this article, just providing sources that can be used as requested, so fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the homeopath perspective