Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 28

message: I lurk here a lot but lately there's been so much activity that it's hard to keep up with who says what and where most of you stand and what you are disagreeing on.  So I would like to suggest that everyone leave their keyboards alone and go to the top of the talk page and read what other's are saying.  I actually believe that a lot of you are debating things that you are actually agreeing on but you are not hearing what the other editors are saying.  Take a time out to just read the talk page and maybe even reread the article.  If necessary, make notes, not on this talk page but on your own pages, on what you feel you are in disagreement with and what you are all agreeing to.  I really feel that what is going on here is no one seems to be listening anymore, well I should clarify, maybe some of you are listening, and it's hard to tell to be honest.  Then after everyone involved rereads everything then make a new subject title and list your differences and your agreements.  Maybe this way you all can see what everyone is trying to do with this article.  When things get so involved and heated in articles likes this one, it becomes really hard to see what is actually going on with everyone.  Like I said, I am not involved and I don't really care one way or the other about things, I just find that a lot of editors are getting so upset and unhappy that the happy editing has been lost.  I don't know if this will help or not, but seriously, what harm can be caused to try this out?  I hope my coming here with this suggestion doesn't upset anyone because that is not what I am trying to do at all and I apologize if what I say here upsets anyone in advance.  I am just trying to help calm the waters and see if doing something like this would help advance everyone into a calm and reasonable discussion rather than the constant warring and everyone being so upset.  --CrohnieGalTalk 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick scan of the talk page indicates that at least 37 of the current 67 sections are the result of discussions regarding or devoted to either the wording of the article lead, the pseudoscience category, or the pseudoscience/disputed science infobox. Clearly things have become far out of hand, and these three issues are dominating over other potential improvements to the article. LinaMishima (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be a freakish and unsuaul torture to make some reread the entire page all oer again. I was there for most of thewhole discussionand I remember vividly the points tat were made and those are the ones that LinaMishima:User just liste.d We have already resolved the pseudeoscience category debate and the lead-wording issue seems to have been temporarily fumbled by either the allopaths or the homoepaths (its hard to tell now). If we could get the article unprotected by avoiding an edit war and achieving any kind of conesnsus then it will begreat. Earlier I listed several meditation techniques that wec ould use to mediate this debate and I noticed that a lot of users categorically refused to even consider them. Another administartor Ryan Postlethwait mentioned  some of these techniques again and they were again refused. I am not sure how much more of this we can keep up and remain and effective encyclopedia editorial unit. Smith Jones (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already resolved the pseudoscience category debate? What planet are you living on? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The underlying issue is that some people want to write a real article based on real facts, and others are not acting in good faith and not interested in promoting a neutral point of view, by acting as apologists for homeopathy. They will use any tactic they can to keep this article from becoming a reality-based perspective on a pseudoscientific fraud, including endlessly arguing in circles, using the talk page as a place to argue about the article's subject, or just typing in a private language and demanding that others decode them. Until the unreasonable people are removed from the article, neither the discussion nor the article itself has any hope of reaching consensus, let alone a reliable level of quality. These people know that any properly cited, properly factual article about homeopathy will unambiguously state that homeopathy is not science, not true, and promoted exclusively by scam artists, and thus they will do anything to keep the article from being good. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Randy, please remember of course that it is mostly a pseudoscientific fraud, that not all homeopaths are unethical (some recommend regular healthcare as well, and certainly not all advocate homeopathy as the sole treatment for aids), research is being carried out by a few and occasionally it raises points in need of further research. In general terms, however, it is lacking in basis of course and many are unethical, and most the current theory is pseudoscience, and as such that is what the article has to document. but it does not serve anyone's purpose to insist on homeopathy being black or white... it seems to be a very dark grey to me, and we can cover the lighter touches as well as the dark :P Simply calling it all junk and bad is as equally helpful to resolving this as calling it all perfect (although more accurate in the former). LinaMishima (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, what good has come out of homeopathy in the last 50 years? In the beginning of its use, homeopathy was excellent because the allopathic establishment was more likely to kill patients than cure them. Certainly, laying out in a homeopathic hospital being treated with water was better than being subjected to the horrific things that passed as "medicine" in the nineteenth century. Since then, homeopathy has stuck firmly in its roots and not gone anywhere while modern medicine is able to address in a systematic, scientific fashion the causes and remedies for disease. Homeopathy relies on innuendo and vague untested principles to justify itself. That's not science: that's pseudoscience. Sure most homeopathy is not going to do a damn thing except for give a patient a placebo effect. So it's not going to hurt someone to take a homeopathic cure except it gives them false hope, encourages magical thinking, bilks them out of money, and can, at times, mislead people into avoiding tried-and-true medical solutions. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The middle-classes in the developing world who happily use doctors for real medicine seem to get peace of mind from homeopathy :P You know I agree with you, SA, I just also agree with Ben Goldcare when he says that homeopathy wouldn't be a problem if they would stop false claims and start acting ethical (especially with respect to serious things like malaria and aids) . Sugar pills and counselling are awesome as long as they don't pretend that they're somehow based in science. And of course, there has been some slight studies done to show some idea of an effect and it would be inappropriate for any scientifically minded person to dismiss any evidence or claim out of hand (we shall just contrast it with all the other studies and point out any failings in the techniques used, and the complete lack of plausibility). To start dismissing things only helps a fringe group argue that there is a conspiracy or cover-up, instead claims must be dragged to the fore, into the light of truth. LinaMishima (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with having an article on homeopathy that fairly, neutrally, and completely describes all you list above. There are others at this article who have a different agenda, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a totally uninvolved editor may I try to make a suggestion? 

message: Given the editing behavior of some editors here, which prefer edit warring and reverts rather than finding common ground, I propose that all involved editors agree voluntarily to 1RR, that is one revert per day per editor. Please sign your name below if you agree. If there is no such agreement and editwarring continues, the article may go back to protected state, or editors that exhibit disruptive behavior may lose temporarily their editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
;I agree to abide by 1RR in this article:
* --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand what you're proposing (combining a revert with an edit), it would qualify as gaming the system. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the correct term - I m not proposing it though. Do you want me to give you examples ( from editors who signed the 1RR? --Area69 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Assuming you are correct, Jossi is the one to go to. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look and you will decide. --Area69 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MAybe I m wrong though. So if gaming the system will not be allowed. I agree.
LOL. So two of you agree, as long as you don't find a dancing partner! Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Anthon01, a final invitation to join the 1RR pledge. Without such commitment by involved editors there is no chance to make this work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far I see this being applied unevenly, as Fyslee(2) OrangeMarlin(3), TableManners(3) have reverted 2-3 times in a short time span and none of them are getting warning from you on their talk pages. I am hoping to see even-handedness. I also am not sure what 1RR really means since different admins apply this rule differently. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed the 1RR sections here and hadn't been aware of them at all. For the record, my two reverts were to two totally different matters. 1RR is a nice way of dealing with edit wars, but it isn't binding, and Jossi would have no basis (regarding my two separate reverts) in policy or actual fact to warn me of anything. I'll just stick to wikipolicies and stay away from 3RR situations, which is my usual practice. I usually pull out of such situations quickly if I realize where they are headed, which means 1RR or 2RR. If a consensus doesn't back up my revert(s), then why should I insist? That never works. If they were proper, then other editors will back them up and preserve them. Discussion is much better than edit warring. -- Fyslee / talk 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't want that to happen and would fight against that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, by promoting this kind of baloney we can help improve the human gene pool. Think about that. We should also give our support to bretharianism.200.104.203.106 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I cordially invite Orangemarlin, Aburesz, and Anthon01 to join other editors in their 1RR pledge. It will make for an excellent show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthon01, a final invitation to join the 1RR pledge. Without such commitment by involved editors there is no chance to make this work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far I see this being applied unevenly, as Fyslee(2) OrangeMarlin(3), TableManners(3) have reverted 2-3 times in a short time span and none of them are getting warning from you on their talk pages. I am hoping to see even-handedness. I also am not sure what 1RR really means since different admins apply this rule differently. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed the 1RR sections here and hadn't been aware of them at all. For the record, my two reverts were to two totally different matters. 1RR is a nice way of dealing with edit wars, but it isn't binding, and Jossi would have no basis (regarding my two separate reverts) in policy or actual fact to warn me of anything. I'll just stick to wikipolicies and stay away from 3RR situations, which is my usual practice. I usually pull out of such situations quickly if I realize where they are headed, which means 1RR or 2RR. If a consensus doesn't back up my revert(s), then why should I insist? That never works. If they were proper, then other editors will back them up and preserve them. Discussion is much better than edit warring. -- Fyslee / talk 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't want that to happen and would fight against that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, by promoting this kind of baloney we can help improve the human gene pool. Think about that. We should also give our support to bretharianism.200.104.203.106 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to join the 1RR group 

message: I will go even further. I have not reverted here for a long long time. I will let it just go in the mud, since that is what the powers that be favor I suspect. So lets let it collapse and turn into promotional tract for a pseudoscience. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way or is perceived as uncivil.--Filll (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't want that to happen and would fight against that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, by promoting this kind of baloney we can help improve the human gene pool. Think about that. We should also give our support to bretharianism.200.104.203.106 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A step further 

message: Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any connection between your three arguments and the policy cited? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-evident that homeopathy is pseudoscience; according to this policy, the Pseudoscience tag is appropriate.Naturezak (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were self-evident, there wouldn't be so much discussion. I think "self-evident" is meant to be more like Mars is self-evidently a "Planet of the Solar System". --Art Carlson (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be just as surprised to find people dipusing the planetary status of Mars, as I *am* to find people objecting to the labeling of homeopathy as pseudoscience. Homeopaths claim that their method achieves unverified results according to physically incredible means. The retreat from initesimals to "water memory" is ad hoc, but advocates continue to claim this is just science we don't know yet. Nothing I've read -- and I've read volumes on the subject -- and nothing I've seen on this discussion page contradicts this basic characterization. If the term "pseudoscience" is to be reserved for methodlogies which claim to be scientific but which are not, homeopathy must be one of those.Naturezak (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and be surprized, but don't go into denial. The term "pseudoscience" is not "to be reserved for methodlogies which claim to be scientific but which are not". It is reserved for topics that, as established by reliable sources, "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". --Art Carlson (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category - according to Wiki policy 

message: I respectfully suggest that all who want this Homeopathy article to be an "anti-homeopathy article" written to convince the reader that a particular view is the correct one read: Explanation of the neutral point of view. Arion 3x3 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully suggest that you click on the link you gave everyone and scroll down a bit to the section entitled Undue Weight.  That might help you better understand how this article should be constructed.  Baegis (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been debating with myself for a while as to whether people really believe that WEIGHT says such a thing about articles on Fringe subjects, and I'm still not entirly convinced they do.  However, it is an interpretation which is messing up NPOV in articles, and needs to be dealt with, forcefully. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. On such pages, a view may be explicated in great detail, even though it must make sufficient reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not mis-represent the majority viewpoint. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen.  Gnixon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have suggested before that (1) homeopathy proponents should explain to me exactly what they believe NPOV means, in detail so we can discuss it and try to come to some mutual understanding and/or (2) homeopathy proponents should be left to their own devices and all nonproponents should let them edit unfettered and unopposed for a solid period of several weeks or even several months. At the end, their product should be evaluated to see how well it satisfies the needs and requirements and policies of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Anthon01 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fairness of tone does not seem to be a problem.  Other POV aspects, such as emphasing the (few) studies that show (any) effect of the treatment(s) over the many studies that show no effect over placebo, are more of a problem.  And WP:WEIGHT does imply that we should emphasize the majority view (that it's scientifically implausible and unproved by any standard), not the view of the majority of practitioners.  Minority views can receive expanded treatment in alternative articles, but should not be emphazied in the principle article on a fringe subject.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wording used in WP:WEIGHT is not "emphasize the majority view", but "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint", whereas the minority view itself "may be spelled out in great detail". --Art Carlson (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a key difference between Arthur Rubin's interpretation and the policy as quoted by Art. Arthur you mentioned in the previous section that WP:WEIGHT does state that mainstream science should get most of the room in the article, which seems to conflict with the policy. Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree in principle that homeopaths should be forbidden from editing this article.  WP:COI can be extended too far.  This has nothing to do with the question of whether Arion 3x3 should be forbidden from editing this article under WP:COI or just general inability to respect WP:NPOV.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Practising homeopaths should be aware of their POV and careful to edit with NPOV, as should we all. WP:COI is a warning and not a prohibition for anyone. To quote, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." This article needs the knowledge of professional homeopaths. (Just keep an eye on them.) --Art Carlson (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with what Arion says on this talk page. However; I'm offended the COI claim is being brought up to discourage him. That's not what COI is about. His interest is in his own practice, and he's not inserting that anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I can clarify my assertion. I believe Arion should not be editing this page, since he has shown himself willing to misrepresent the body of research on this subject in order to enable the appearance in this article that his profession -- homeopathy -- on less shaky ground than is actually the case. His COI is inducing a NPOV, as well 1) his willingness to elude direct questions that seem to criticize his unsubstantiated interpretations of published research, and 2) his effective method of deflecting critical voices on the discussion page by burying productive and incisice comments in large quantities of precipitate "summarization", prestige- and support- enhancing compliments to other editors; and redundant, evasive discussion. I think these observations are supported by any serious review of this discussion page, as well as by the complaints made by other editors whose objectivitity has been labeled "anti-homeopathy hostility" by Arion. Naturezak (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Arion is highly problematic for the reasons you stated and others. But I think it does not fall under COI. He will do or say anything to subert the policies and procedures of Wikipedia to get his own way; that much is true. But since he is fairly civil, he has not been burned yet. What has shielded him is the simultaneous presence several others on the page with similar  modes of operation and similar views, so no rational discussion can take place and the pages are buried in cruft. The system is just overwhelmed at this point and cannot move forward unless someone wants to devote a huge amount of effort to mounting administrative actions against one or all of them.--Filll (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh. Well. That's something else then. The problem you see is his discussion style. You interpret that to result from a COI. Just criticize his behavior, then. Don't worry about the depths of his psychology, and don't try to chase away all homeopaths just because they are homeopaths. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of the neutral point of view 

message: I disagree with WP:COI being deployed in this situation. Probably our most valuable asset here is User: Peter morrell, who was a practicing homeopath for many years and now writes, does research and lectures about homeopathy. Without him, we would be in much worse shape on many issues. Except the difference is, Peter knows and understands and works within NPOV and other WP restrictions. And that is the difference. We can have homeopaths here, they just have to play by the same rules as everyone else.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that being a homeopath doesn't preclude you working on this talk page or this article, unless the section is about you or you want to add refs to yourself (ie, normal CoI rules should apply). --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with Peter's take on the world of Homeopathy, but he is smart, and understands the history of this field better than anyone on here.  As with most experts, they still need to follow the rules of NPOV, etc., which he does.  Whoever brought this up, it is silly.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy, so we can centralize any discussion there. As it stands, I don't believe there really is a COI issue in this case. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI is irrelevant here, for the most part 

message: In archived talk,
I posted:
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"?
Please feel free to have a look at comments there, and add your views. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you can't say NSF says foo if the NSF says merely that someone else (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) says foo.  You can say who says it, and cite the NSF paper as source.  Why are you asking?  Did someone think that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now that I look more at the previous discussion, however, I must point out that you seem to have slightly misrepresented the question.  The statement in question seems to have been "The NSF classifies homeopathy as pseudoscience," not "The NSF says XXX".  That could be correct, if the document shows that they have adopted someone else's classification.  However, as I read it, there's no explicit support for that, either.  All three of the mentions of "homeopathy" in that report chapter are in attributed quotes or attributed paraphrases of their cited sources; if they've said that the NSF has concluded that homeopathy is pseudoscience, I haven't found that bit yet.  Their broad definition "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" is broad enough to argue for almost any topic to be included, since it's not about the topic but about how unspecified agents present the topic; there's no way to have an NPOV application of that definition, since from some points of view homeopathy is in, and from others it's out. So, it would be much better to be explicit about who classfies homeopathy as pseudoscience; the present statement in the lead is weasel worded, as it doesn't say who, but lists a bunch of refs that are not necessarily the answer to that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Rewind a bit to where this was first raised as an issue: It has to do with the presence or absence of the Pseudoscience category on this article. That's one case where we can't simply note according to whom it's pseudoscience. There was an agreement that if some organization on the scale of the NSF were to declare Homeopathy (or any subject) pseudoscience, then the category would be merited. So the question was, could this instance qualify for that situation? Now, even if not, it's still a matter of debate whether the word of a lesser organization would be sufficient, and what minimum we do set. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very unusual for NSF itself to take a formal position on anything. Even when reporting uncontroversial research that they've sponsored, they couch it in terms like "A recent paper by A.B. Smith and C.D. Jones finds..." A better place to look would be the National Academies of Science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Filll that we should rethink how we categorize things in controvesial categories. The "Pseudoscientist" category placed on Stanisław Burzyński's article points out the inherent problems that could soon spiral out of control everywhere on Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both Filll and Arion 3x3.  What I think we need is to combine the good parts of both categories and lists.  Categories help navigation because they automatically add the topic to a master category page; lists are annotated and thus allow for qualification and NPOV.  We would need to tweak the wiki software to do this.  Either make it possible to annotate entries on the category page, or tweak lists so that adding items to them shows up somehow on the topic's page:  maybe a "lists that link here" under "what links here" in the toolbox at left.  Something like that, along with judicious naming of lists/categories ("alleged crappiness", "disputed wonderfulness" etc.), could work okay. --Jim Butler(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on RSN for NSF source 

message: Um, this has started adding :Category:Homeopathy everywhere it is used. That probably isn't a good thing: It means that sub-categories like :Category:Homeopaths get all their contents duplicated, and  lot of user-space temp pages were getting categorised (I've commented it out of those for now; it can be readded if/when they jump to article space. - I also nominated a couple ancient userspace temp pages for deletion - fair notice.) I'm inclined to delete the category from the template, but am worried this might de-categorise articles we want categorised.
Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree.  Both articles that should be in subcategories, and articles in related categories, such as Alternative Medicine, would be placed in the category by this template.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I've made this change, and then I saw your "this might de-categorise articles we want categorised" comment. I'll leave it up to you what to do, but I think putting it back isn't a good option. Manually cat'ing them seems to be the only option (using what links here, and finding relevant articles?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking "What links here" for the box should get all the ones that should be catted but ain't. Adam Cuerden talk 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Homoeopathy]]