Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18

message: I've seen some pretty weird stuff on this talkpage, but I'd like to point out the following:
There is no quantum mechanical basis for homeopathy, nor have their been any reliable papers written that support homeopathy through quantum mechanics. We can therefore abandon that rhetoric right now.
ScienceApologist 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google Search brings up several hits including papers. They may not be reliable and worth including in the article, but they belie the argument that all homeopaths believe in some spirit-like property. Whig 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to realise that the first hit in this search is a spoof paper Towards a Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Homeopathy from the Annals of Improbable Research. I think that says everything that needs to be said about your argument. Tim Vickers 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't review that or any other paper, I just performed the search, and that was not the only result. Just because someone spoofs an idea doesn't mean nobody holds it. Whig 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is not upon me, but upon those who claim that all homeopaths believe in some spirit-like property. That is a hard burden, because only one exception disproves it. Whig 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've shown no exception. Perhaps User:Whig should take a gander at what a reliable source is. I might also note that WP:FRINGE comes into play. By invoking quantum mechanics you are placing the bar very high. Quantum mechanics is a subdiscipline of physics and as such, the only reliable sources that are permissible are those which are published in peer reviewed physics journals. I see nothing like that in your Google search. Try again. ScienceApologist 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my burden. Read again. I'm not doing original research here. Whig 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By asserting that someone uses quantum mechanics to support homeopathy, you are asserting a claim that has absolutely no backing. It undercuts all of your arguments. ScienceApologist 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such assertion. Whig 23:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Then we're done with this section and we don't need to hear about quantum mechanics anymore. ScienceApologist 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeopathy and quantum mechanics

message: It is clear to me with the neutrality under attack for this article and being currently in protection, it is not fair to call this article "good". I have delisted it. ScienceApologist 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point of agreement. Cheers! Whig 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SA.  Not a good move.  You've fed the POV-warriors.  It had it's problems, and I consider it had an NPOV issue, but for the opposite reasons as Whig.  However, I had compromised because a bunch of much better editors such as Adam and Tim Vickers had rewrote the article essentially.  I completely disagree with your move.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can certainly relist it if you want. I just am sorry to see the page protection of a version I think has major problems in being too lenient toward homeopathic true believers. ScienceApologist 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SA, don't worry, I wouldn't get into this hornet's nest.  I'd rather keep this quackery-POV article well-hidden.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While I'm here, added Medicine.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources in particular has a lot to say to keep us on the right track here. --Art Carlson 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is general agreement with this delistment, the reassessment should be archived. Otherwise, the article should be relisted until an outcome at GAR is reached. Please add any comments here, otherwise I will use my own judgement. Thank you! Geometry guy 23:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unless SA is a major contributor, (He just got back from a long wikibreak, so I don't know) i'm not sure if he's really done anything wrong here. Of course, the GA/R could change the article's status back again.... Homestarmy 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking a delistment during a GAR is not appropriate, but I see no disagreement here, and the GAR is not going to resolve the issue, so it seems to me best to accept it for now. Geometry guy 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: It seems to me that the intro is far too long - tempers are running rather hot, and everyone seems determined to get in every single point they can, as early as they can. The proposed revision below cuts the lead back to the minimum - the material that's removed doesn't have to be removed from the article itself, it can still remain in the appropriate paras of the main article, but the lead needs to be concise and to distill the essence, not to touch on every detail. Anyway, the following is for your consideration, whicb I know you will give in a gracious and considerate manner. PiCo 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second paragraph is not fairly stated. There are clinical studies that support homeopathic effectiveness. They may be a minority of the studies and they may have had design defects. Second, I have already touched on the modern scientific knowledge claim, 6C or lower potencies have no physical existence concern. Whig 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it then that you would feel ok about the first paragraph. As for the second, your point could be met by adding the qualifier "most",i.e. "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by most clinical studies..." I don't understand the last clause of your last sentence: "...6C or lower potencies have no physical existence concern": what do you mean by "no physical existence concern"?PiCo 05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any potency below 11c is below the Avogadro limit and thus theoretically has molecules of the original substance in it. Thus it is chemically detectable and has 'no physical existence concerns.' Is that clearer? Peter morrell 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Adam Cuerden, anything above about 4.5C is undetectable with scientific instruments. That does not prove it is biologically undetectable. Whig 05:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's clearer, but I don't think it's connected to the point being made in that para about the scientific basis of homeopathy: primarily, the concepts of molecular "memory", and of "vital force". PiCo 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you need to rely on the spooky language as the essence of homeopathy. Most books from that era used similar terminology. Allopathic medicine was in worse shape. The article makes that much clear. Whig 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most analytical techniques can detect substances down to one part per million which is 3c or 6x but for many substances with biological activity such as hormones and insect pheromones, for example, one can get down to one part per billion which is 6c. We need an analytical chemist to speak on this matter. Peter morrell 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The detectability of substances in dilution is not material to the question of the scientific basis of homeopathy. The sentence that I'm summarising says: "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers". What's at issue is not whether substances can be detected at extreme dilutions, but whether there exist chemical mechanisms which could enhance the effectiveness of drugs through dilution. The theoretical basis of homeopathy, according to the first parqa, are the ability of water to take an "imprint" from other substances, and the existence of "elan vital" (and also the existence of "miasms"). Detectability is not an issue in this context.PiCo 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that does not seem to be the fundamental basis of homeopathy. The idea of dilution is to reduce toxicity of the remedy. Whig 06:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hahnemann believed that reducing the toxicity of the remedy would cause it to be more effective because the body would have less to overcome, if I translate him into modern language. Whig 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course I may be totally off, and Peter can probably correct me if I'm misunderstanding and I'm only a little bit into the book, but it is at least a foundation that makes reasonable sense. Whig 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case there are potencies which will always be undetectable yet physically present according to modern day science. Whig 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revision to introduction

message: Here  is an article detailing detection of Nitrogen dioxide at parts per hundred billion, which is clearly a feasible task in modern chemistry, therefore yes indeed 6c or 8c potencies do indeed contain detectable molecules. thank you Peter morrell 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts per hundred billion

message: 1.
There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.
2.cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12535487
MAIN RESULTS: There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.
3.
Insufficient information was available on the method of randomisation and the study lacked clinically meaningful outcomes.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction. It is likely that the demand for complementary medicine will continue and women will continue to consult a homoeopath during their pregnancy. Although caulophyllum is a commonly used homoeopathic therapy to induce labour, the treatment strategy used in the one trial in which it was evaluated may not reflect routine homoeopathy practice. Rigorous evaluations of individualised homeopathic therapies for induction of labour are needed..--Sm565 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link today does not reach an article.  Wanderer57 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the abstract is here ... Kenosis 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 50 patients is at best a pilot study. Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't that one come up before and turn out to be another pilot study when you looked at the full text? Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole quote is "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". That isn't positive, that's at best neutral. Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the outstanding quote mining!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's totally correct Filll. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? I haven't seen any WP:OR here. Whig 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconclusive  studies 

message: 1.  methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies .... found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.--Sm565 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link today does not reach an article.  Wanderer57 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the abstract is here ... Kenosis 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies showing negative

message: 1.  although favouring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.--Sm565 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 patients is at best a pilot study. Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't that one come up before and turn out to be another pilot study when you looked at the full text? Adam Cuerden talk 11:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies showing positive

message: CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.--Sm565 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: metananalyses inconclusive

message: ==== metananalyses inconclusive -  positive trend====
1. it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.".--Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: metananalyses positive

message: 1. it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.".--Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  metananalyses inconclusive -  positive trend

message: 1.This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.--Sm565 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: metananalyses negative

message: 1. []
"Having read this ( LAncet) report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." --Sm565 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: metananalyses -critisism

message: :The whole quote is "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". That isn't positive, that's at best neutral. Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the outstanding quote mining!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's totally correct Filll. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? I haven't seen any WP:OR here. Whig 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments below this line please

message: Organon of Medicine
I'm only part-way through, and spending so much time here on Talk:Homeopathy has left me little to get further. I think responsible editors will read this book in order to be properly informed of what homeopathy is, or at least how it was originally defined and practiced. Whig 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please RTFO

message: How do guys type fast enough to produce so much verbiage in a few short hours? And does anybody think we have made any progress? I'm sorry (or maybe I'm not) that I don't have enough time now to mediate and/or join the fray, but let me suggest a way forward. The discussion now focuses on the summary of the scientific opinion in the introduction. This is understandable, but the main reason we cannot agree on the wording of the summary is that we do not agree on the content of the section "Medical and scientific analysis". We should work on that first, but ... To do justice to all sides would require going into great detail, including what is good and bad about individual studies, and what is good and bad about clinical tests of homeopathy in general. That level of detail is not appropriate in an overview article on homeopathy. The way out, as I see it, is to work on a supplemental article on "Medical and scientific analysis of homeopathy", or maybe just "Clinical trials of homeopathy". With more space available, we can be more comprehensive and work more closely with the reliable sources. My great hope (I have always been known for my unbounded naivety.) is that, once we have all the cards on the table, we can find a summary that all sides can live with, especially since potential misunderstandings can be mitigated by refering to the detailed article. I have a foggy outline in my head of what the new article should look like, but that will have to wait till later. Also, it might be easier to keep tempers under control if we first write the article off-line, like we did recently for the main article. I thought Wikidudeman did a good job there and would welcome it if he took over the process. --Art Carlson 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think splitting the article into parts is not a bad idea. I'm still fairly new to the Homeopathy discussion but I think Wikidudeman has some POV issues himself. Perhaps that is difficult to avoid in a controversial issue like this, but I wouldn't put one person in charge of the editing job especially with existing WP:OWN issues. Whig 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a terrible idea. Splitting the article up. This is how it used to be and it was a mess of articles mostly with redundant information. Concerning your accusations of me having POV issues or "OWN" issues, This is a dead horse issue. I do have personal beliefs regarding homeopathy but I'm willing to bet that you likely wouldn't even be able to identify them based solely on my contributions here. As far as "ownership" goes, If you can provide a single example of how any of my actions exhibited coincide with "ownership" of the article then please do. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No desire for an argument, but you have had past accusations of WP:OWNership by others, and I have seen you respond very defensively to any request for change or acknowledgment of present NPOV violation. Whig 16:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Accusations are pretty much meaningless if they don't include details or examples. I'm all for attempting to fix any problems that I might have in editing style, however baseless accusations aren't productive in any way. You can't conclude that I have "OWN issues" based solely on those accusations. If you want to see what editors uninvolved in these discussions think of my editing habits then please see :Wikipedia:Editor review/Wikidudeman. As far as being defensive in requests to change the article. I don't know how you get the impression that I am defensive in that regard but take it from me that it isn't true. I simply try to stick to the facts. If I see a NPOV problem then I'll be the first to say it. However if I don't see one then saying that I don't see one doesn't make me "defensive". It's just my opinions. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making accusations. I'm stating my concerns with your being in charge. Whig 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplementary article on clinical trials

message: *Example of explanation of problems
*Example of explanation of problems
*Example of explanation of problems
Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example name

message: I m surprised that the sign under dispute is removed. That means some editors dont want to accept that there is well documented opinion on the talk page  different that theirs.
I think that this is not respectful for the other editors and it is not in the spirit of the rules of wikipedia.
The under dispute sign should be there as long as there is a dispute going on.If someone objects to this idea please explain.--Sm565 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for restoring the POV flag. It should remain until all NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Under dispute POV

message: Sorry, I don't have as much time to spend here as I did over the weekend. Instead of rehashing again and again the issues that I and others have with this article in its present form, I will try to make some careful edits to the article and if they are removed we can come back and discuss them here. I may be more infrequent for the next few days, but at least now with the article unlocked we can make some forward progress together instead of arguing. I want to say that I do not recognize a current group of editors to be seeking an NPOV article, but I hope we can resolve this dispute in some mutually agreeable fashion, whether that entails splitting the article into two or more, or some other solution. Whig 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. What then do you think is that group of editors seeking? Peter morrell 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Mainstream-Scientific POV, exclusively. Whig 05:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what are they belly-aching about? That has already been achieved. The article is 50% critique and dismissal. This was supposed to be placed in one section but it shadows everything the article tries to say. It is a goddam mess again. You can't please everyone. So what do you suggest? Peter morrell 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, indeed, my point. Whig 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I suggest is what I said, I'll make some careful edits when I feel comfortable with what I want to do, and if anyone objects we'll come back here. You can do the same or continue talking here. If everyone makes defensible edits, we can have a very good conversation. Whig 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should not put words in their mouths. Whig 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you like to edit that text with a proper citation? Whig 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the POV tag again. OrangeMarlin removed it. Please stop removing the tag, it is required until NPOV disputes have been resolved. Whig 10:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't keep edit warring to get a POV tag up without being crystal clear and summarizing what POV you see with the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no edit war. Stop trying to control this discussion. Whig 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one person adds a tag, another removes it and yet another adds it back then that is automatically an edit war. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. Please stop being contentious, the POV tag is required to remain in place until NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute - ongoing.

message: I'd be a lot happier if your first reference wasn't shitty random spammy crap off the intarwebz, not to mention the fact that this is probably giving undue weight to your point of view where it is not needed: specific examples are given elsewhere. Moreschi  Talk 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your POV; where are these alleged 'specific examples elsewhere?' The only point being made is that medicine of that time employed complex mixtures. That is not part of my POV, it is simply how things were as shown by the examples given. Peter morrell 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal. It shouldn't be hard to find a better source for that and I hardly see how giving examples of the substances used has any POV at all. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's alright, but I wish you'd ask about these things first on the talk page, because it was really confusing: It took me four readings to realise Theriac wasn't a homeopathic remedy, but Galenic medicine. And I almost deleted it again when I realised that the remaining source didn't actually cover the correct time period, and the source I had was for ingredients (luckily, I then found that interesting article I used). I am, despite my somewhat ogrish image of late, quite willing to help with finding sources and improvements to the article (it's the circular discussions that annoy me), but a little context helps in sorting things. Adam Cuerden talk 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My god, people used to take opium mixed with... viper meat?  I suppose Galenic medicine has many more entertaining examples of horrid "cures" like this - I just haven't looked at it in detail.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy does that. Uses preparations of Bushmaster viper, Opium, etc. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Plant extracts, such as used in the initial stages of some homeopathic remedies, contain many thousands of different types of molecules. These are by definition complex mixtures. However, once diluted to 30C they only contain one type of molecule - water. I know you doubt that molecules really exist, Peter, but you can't talk about components in drugs without considering molecules. Tim Vickers 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter morrell's edits

message: This is the area where ANYONE who thinks that this article has POV can summarize their reasons why. Everyone who thinks that this article is POV, please just summarize your reasons why you think that so that we can start fixing the article appropriately. POV tags aren't meant to stay forever and unless reasons are given and summarized clearly here by those who believe it is POV then the tag must go. I've read the discussions above and I can not determine exactly what changes to make to satisfy those who think that the article is POV so I request that they summarize their reasons  here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections on the development of Hahnemann's thought has a habit of implying that the evidence he saw was best explained by his conclusions, with a bit of peacock terminology. A more neutral, though not hostile, portrayal would probably solve most of the scientific editors' objections to the article. Adam Cuerden talk 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a problem of semantics or perception. I don't really see it that way however feel free to tweak it to make it more POV NPOV so it doesn't imply that he was correct. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to flag this comment right here, Wikidudeman is advocating POV. Whig 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a mistake on my part. I meant to say make it more "NPOV". Sorry. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were correct the first time. You are trying to make it come out to imply a certain thing that is not supported by citation. Whig 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also seeing some POV issues in the lead. The lead has a tendency to overplay the lack of scientific support for homeopathy, often at the cost of actually explaining what homeopathy is. This is a major problem. The last sentence in the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second one are pretty much redundant and could easily be merged or put into the same paragraph. Another problem is that it says that "the scientific community" asserts that there is no evidence water or alcohol retains a memory. This give the impression that there's such a thing as an entire body called the "scientific community" who walk lock step. A better rephrasing would simply be "There is no scientific evidence water retains memory". Wikidudeman (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, Tell me what you think of this edit. Is there still the tone that Hahnemann was right in his conclusions? Please let me know. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: Do you realize that removing the under dispute flag without trying to reach a consensus using rational arguments and reliable references but using banners,  you totally discredit your selves ?
Serious readers who will try to investigate the subject they will not take you seriously if they decide to just take a look at the talk page and see the way you argue.
Unless you think that wikipedia is for middle school students who want to copy quickly some info for their homework.
Please stop doing it and accept that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why.Try to do the same. It is more healthy I assure you. Best wishes.--Sm565 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is for middle school students. It's also for anyone else who wants it. Seriously, this argumentation you are trying to make is pointless. There needs to be an actionable dispute ongoing for a tag to be in place on the main page. Certainly there is a lot of complaining here, but no one has offered a specific dispute of wording or facts, so I think you are the one who needs to do some accepting "that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why". ScienceApologist 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you dont read the talk page.Here is why.
--Sm565 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good try, but no cigar.
User:ScienceApologist continues to remove the POV tag. I do not want to revert repeatedly. Please someone else restore the tag, so that we can continue this civil discussion. Whig 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Whig, Please don't encourage other editors to participate in an edit war. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On removing the under dispute flag without giving reasons

message: I will do; but I have to wait for  user Orangemarlin; maybe since he removed the under dispute flag wants to participate in the discussion.--Sm565 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, many many WP participants have been involved in bringing the article to its current state. Myself, I've gotten shit from both sides of the "equation" here. But the "equation" is not merely pro and con. It involves many aspects of people who depend on the handle "homeopathy" to make a living, a few who actually make a living being skeptics, researchers who may or may not actually be paid money for doing "objective" research, researchers who are definitely paid but who may or may not be "objective", and a whole host of other POV slants on the topic of homeopathy. Inserting a POV tag at this stage of the article's development would generally require a stronger warrant than mere disagreement about how the presently irreconcilable POVs are distritbuted in the article. That, at least in my view, is what the talk page is for. ... Kenosis 05:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isnt  removing the '''under dispute flag''' against the rules if consensus has not been reached?

message: Note - The rfc template below has been nowikied as RFC should not be open on an archived and hence closed discussion page. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific issue on which you would like comment? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the editor who filed this has just been banned for 12 hours for edit warring. Though it might be another editor who filed this. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on Homeopathy

message: Please do not edit war.  Try to discuss changes, I'll be blocking those who are disruptive on this article.  Thanks, Mercury 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're uninvolved. Please don't hesitate to block edit warriors, even if they don't violate 3rr because a lot of them seem to measure their reverts so that they don't, essentially attempting to game the system. Editors may STILL be blocked if they continue to edit war even if they do not violate 3rr. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not secret that I have blocked in the past for 2RR, disruption includes edit warring among other things.  I'll be monitoring this article as uninvolved.  I encourage healthy discussion, but I'll try not to protect an article that folks are attempting to improve for GA/FA.  I'll do my best to stop disruption other ways. Mercury 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I blocked the only technical violation of three revert rule that I saw.  However, no one is entitled to exactly three reverts.  Consider its me, turning on the electric fence.  Mercury 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He will. However Whig violated 3rr.
*18:05, 9 October 2007
*18:37, 9 October 2007
*19:23, 9 October 2007
*21:30, 9 October 2007
*last edit
Wikidudeman (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No one has been edit warring since he has been blocked. So It seems to have solved the problem. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When they're causing the problem, it does. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 1023 particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion. please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to make sure not to confuse the common reader. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I know what he's trying to say, but bringing in moles and Avogadro's number, while more rigorous, isn't going to help the average reader. Also aren't we talking about 15 sequential 100-fold dilutions in 15C, rather than a 15-fold dilution? Tim Vickers 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now!  I agree the sentence could be improved, but "meaningless twaddle" is a bit harsh.  Wanderer57 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure about the mole/Avogadro sentence either.  A non-specialist isn't going to understand that a protein, for example, is going to have a higher molecular weight than a simple salt, even after reading the mole and Avogadro's number articles.  Cheers, Skinwalker 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If I could just put 1:1e10 that would be simple, it's working it out into numbers I have problems with! Are we all happy with this bit? Tim Vickers 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I get tired of basically swimming in molasses and getting caught in an unproductive morass. --Filll 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A foot note with the mathematics would be a good solution. Allowing readers who want to see where the conclusion comes from read it while not scaring away the rest. Tim Vickers 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article need to cover all the different notations for dilution?  There seem to be a lot of them.  Wanderer57 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I know WDM will disagree, but I think this is another prime candidate for a supplementary article. Always with the understanding that the main article refers to the supplementary article and only summarizes its content, so that redundancy is minimized. I think explaining the nomenclatur and giving details on various dilution and succussion procedures is definitely too much detail for an overview article. On the other hand there is plenty of material available and sufficient interest to justify a separate article (perhaps a short one, but more than a stub). --Art Carlson 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly believe that it would be enough info to be it's own article. I think that this could all be explained in a single paragraph if done properly. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh dear

message: Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it reduces the toxicity of the remedy. Beyond the Avogadro limit, effectiveness may be an extraordinary claim, but otherwise, not so much. Whig 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But wouldn't not taking the remedy at all be the logical conclusion of that argumentation? ScienceApologist 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps at high enough >11C dilutions, yes. At lower dilutions, what's the physical problem? Whig 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a logical problem. If your goal is to reduce the toxicity of a remedy to its lowest level, then you wouldn't give the remedy at all. Otherwise, there must be another goal in mind. What is it? ScienceApologist 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just sophistry. The goal is to provoke an allergic response, but without overtaxing the body's ability to cure itself of the toxin. Whig 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an optimization problem that needs a boundary condition or external parameter to solve which you have glibly summarized as "without overtaxing". The problem is what determines the amount of allergic response that is too "overtaxing"? Does the homeopath endeavor to measure allergic responses or does the homeopath use another method of optimization? Obviously it's not the optimization considered in most of medicine otherwise this would be the article on effective dose. ScienceApologist 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of this argument, I neither know nor care. I am not making any claims about effectiveness or optimization theory. Whig 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At any rate, you've conceded it is no longer a physical problem or a logical problem, only an optimization problem. Whig 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't conceded anything. What we have is a dead end in your argumentation. Basically, according to you, homeopaths are trying to optimize the benefits of an allergic reaction without measuring the response or relating the amount of the toxin to any sort of response. Instead, the bald assertion is made that their method works through the mechanism you propose without any evidence or argumentation to back up the claim. Therefore, it is clear that your attempts to argue this point are nothing more than a smokescreen for ignorance. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this is not OR. This is just simple math. Whig 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no math mentioned in this section. You are beginning to sound like a one note samba. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And as far as finding out what homeopaths themselves say, you won't allow us to quote them because you don't consider them a reliable source. Catch 22. Whig 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopaths are reliable sources as to what they believe, but they are not reliable sources in describing reality. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: He was apparently unaware of the value and purpose of blinding....;-) A real experiment would have (and practically always have) proved differently. -- Fyslee / talk 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do dilutions make things work better?

message: Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC/User in regards to participant in this Talk

message: Very interesting reading:
* Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, by Oliver Wendell Holmes
also
* Hahnemann's Homeopathy, by Dr. William E. Thomas, MD
-- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these considered primary or reliable sources? Whig 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article by Holmes definitely is. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly notable. Whig 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. -- Fyslee / talk 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver Wendell Holmes on homeopathy

message: I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles :  
It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on  the article. I will mark  the article  *  and I will ask  Mercury to  protect the flag  since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it.
Best wishes.
*The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article
--Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV under dispute

message: I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples  explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says.
Please make sure you read the example. --Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have NO support.  Please note the following WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.  You especially have not developed a full understanding of NPOV.  Any further tendentious editing, slow edit warring, making a point or violating NPOV will only serve to lessen your impact on this article.  I would suggest you get a consensus to place a tag.  One editor placing a tag (along with another one that quit doing so immediately after being subject to a block).  So take a deep breath, and stop.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Orangemarlin just made two reverts of the POV tag. Whig 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not so much agree as didn't think it worth fighting over. Adam Cuerden talk 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if you check the history log, Orangemarlin has made additional reversions in the past 24 hours. Whig 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note explaining why I will restore the POV under dispute flag

message: This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else find it odd that a brand new user, Naftilos (talk|contribs), immediately after registering, made four edits: 2 to Talk:Homeopathy and 2 on Homeopathy regarding the subject of a current dispute? Those four edits occurred over a span of twelve minutes and no edits have been made since. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and we'll be seeing a lot more from Naftilos. — DIEGO talk 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to assume good faith, Diego. —Diego's sockpuppet 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, you were on your last warning the pair of you, you're blocked for that. - User:Diego's admin sockpuppet 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is one of you guys a ventriloquist?  Wanderer57 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether you "remember" me or not, or whether I have made comments on this talk page is irrelevant. I am obviously not a new user. I didn't create myself 30 minutes ago just to immediately make an edit to an article that is in the midst of an edit dispute. By the way, User:QuackGuru has made 3688 edits in the last 10 months (but only 1 on Homeopathy), so he hardly compares to User:Naftilos, who made 4 edits in 12 minutes (all on Homeopathy or Talk:Homeopathy). User:QuackGuru had a long edit history before and after his random edit on Homeopathy. In your experience, is it usual for new editors to go straight to the talk page of an article, make a comment (using terms like "POV"), then immediately insert POV tags in an article, then stop for the day? — DIEGO talk 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't just "appear", and I did give a reason. User:Naftilos literally just appeared. This user did not exist 2 hours ago. Homeopathy is on my watchlist and I noticed User:Naftilos's suspicious edit, which I immediately reverted. Why was his edit suspicious? Because it was out of character for a new user (I checked his contribs before reverting). The editing behavior was odd (i.e., registration followed by an immediate cluster of edits that display rather advanced knowledge of Wikipedia (POV tagging, etc.) and a clear opinion  on the article (which just happens to be the subject of an edit war over POV tags), followed by silence from the editor. If you don't think that is odd, fine. But please don't imply that I have no business pointing out questionable edits on a talk page (in the interest of maintaining neutrality and the integrity of the consensus process) just because I haven't previously been involved in any discussions on this article. I think people deserve to know if something potentially fishy is going on. I simply don't have time to get involved with any homeopathy discussions. I'm too busy rubbing HeadOn® directly on my forehead. — DIEGO talk 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right Art. There could very well be an innocent explanation for this. I hate to jump to conclusions, but my BS alarm is going off, so I have requested a checkuser to clear things up.  Feel free to add any additional insights you might have. Thanks. — DIEGO talk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV: 1

message: I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the  under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another  administrator must intervene.
--Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with the confidence interval set to 95%, one would expect about 5% of studies to show such a result by chance. Cherry picking a positive result is flawed science. And even in this cherry-picked study, you've failed to quote the remainder of the conclusion: "The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." And you've failed to note that there was no effect when the data was restricted to the methodologically best trials. Results that fail to convince researchers from the "Center for Compementary Medicine Research" publishing in the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" are not going to convince anyone else. - Nunh-huh 09:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unethical, is selectively quoting an unfavourable study in order to misrepresent its conclusions... just as you're doing here. Unethical, would also be trying to present a skewed scientific consensus in favour of homeopathy, by loading that article down, with studies of dubious rigour, when properly conducted tests show at best minor positive results well within the bounds of what could be expected on purely statistical grounds... just as you're doing here. I find, that you're in a rather poor position to pontificate to others about "ethics".  – ornis⚙ 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We cannot present all studies, so we must present only those that are most significant. Editorial choice is not "hiding" anything and is not unethical.  As per your question, I don't live in the Dark Ages - mostly because of the rather thorough job that empiricism has done on the superstitions propounded then, and the significant progress made since vitalism hampered scientific understanding - and real hiding was going on.  As to whether you live there - you'll have to decide that yourself. - Nunh-huh 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, what seems to be "cherry-picking" to one person is "presenting only those that are most significant" to another.  How can we decide on the most significant?  We don't want to do "original research".  Wanderer57 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just wrong. Looking for only positive results-Sm565's procedure-is cherry-picking by anyone's definition, just as looking only for negative results would be. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies that are published in the most reputable publications, have the most citations are generally more notable. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the use of the particular journal's impact factor be an acceptable way to objectively guage which studies to include (i.e., which ones are most notable), while avoiding any perception of cherry picking? Just a suggestion. — DIEGO talk 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing to note: negative results are much more difficult to get published than positive results. One should always expect publication analysis to be skewed towards positive results in the literature. We need to be able to characterize what a secondary analysis for a topic that had absolutely no legitimacy would look like (it would not have zero evidence in favor of it as pointed out). Thus, we should have a control standard for a similarly poorly-considered medical claim (e.g. faith healing). ScienceApologist 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The article on publication bias presents this nicely. I believe there have also been a few studies of publication bias specifically concerning homeopathy, and I expect any decent review or meta-analysis to confront this problem, so we shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources. I have zero problem with stating that x% of double-blind studies have shown a statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy over placebo and citing whatever information we have on publication bias. I am not afraid of letting the reader draw his own conclusions (even if half the time the git will get it wrong). I also hope this would be the kind of presentation that we could get consensus on. --Art Carlson 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: under dispute POV: 1

message: I deleted this box:
because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, but it's also the nearest box I could find to the problems in that section. Adam Cuerden talk 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some edits to that section that I think solves the problem anyway. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it helps the problem, but I'm not sure it's completely solved. Adam Cuerden talk 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What specific problems do you see with it? I read it and don't see any POV or suggestion that he was right in his assumptions or conclusions. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: about boxes

message: I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I see Peter has written an article on this link. Tim Vickers 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We could add them as a sub-section in the types of remedy, with a note that their classification is controversial. The article should cover this, if only that the two are commonly sold in the same places and people may be confused as to the difference. Can you hunt up any good sources of homeopaths arguing that these remedies are not homeopathic? Tim Vickers 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you could find them just as easily as I can. Besides I am busy right now. I don't think many homeopaths actually have a very strong view about this. In fact they are probably assumed to act by initiating the same self-healing mechanisms that homeopathic remedies and acupuncture do. cheers Peter morrell 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go. Tim Vickers 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Tim Vickers 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bach flower remedies]]

message: The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The miasm is an inferred or imputed entity and is usually described as 'a defect in the vital force.' Do you want refs for that? thanks Peter morrell 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, can you rewrite it a bit.  I just read the section and it's a bit confusing.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to explain it as clearly as I could, but I guess I failed. Perhaps Peter could clarify it a bit. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miasms

message: This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnificent editing

message: There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]
How possible is this? Placebo by proxy?  I guess telepathy could play a role....
I read the sources.
My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to  write nothing  or state there are no studies available .Right? --Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to read about tendentious editing.  It's getting close to requesting you be blocked from this article.  If you want to participate, you cannot repeat  yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.  You have not brought one valid point to this article.  Please STOP.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Owners imagine that the homeopathic remedy is working because they interpret imagined changes in the animals behavior or disposition as being related to the remedy that the animal was given. For instance if I believe in homeopathy and give my dog a homeopathic remedy, I might imagine changes in the dogs behavior and thus interpret these imagined changes as being the effect of the medicine. This is actually a HUGE reason for the success of homeopathic medicine in other animals aside from humans and I think that this info should be in the article in one way or another. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? Wikidudeman (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Placebo effect and annimals

message: These sentences below  are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article.
I would like your opinion on this:
1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.".
2.Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.''
1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions?
2.How these suggestions  about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching.  ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on introduction sentence

message: Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship.  Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.
Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful.  The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. --Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dose-response relationship

message: Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is an MD, but who cooperates with, consults, and quotes physicists as necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we cannot take him as a primary source on physics, at any rate. Whig 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can use the reference which quotes an outstanding physicist. -- Fyslee / talk 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By citing to that physicist, as quoted by Barrett, certainly, as long as he is a trustworthy source. Whig 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: An interesting note about Barrett while we are on the subject, when he was payinh himself to act as his organization's own expert witness while suing a Homeopathic remedy manufacturer, the judge, in conclusion, had the following to say of Barrett's alledged expertise with Homeopathy: Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs ... As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area ... Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.  The proceed was from Section IV, Subsection B of this document. For more enlightenment on the credibility of Barrett in the world of Homeopathy, see Section IV, Subsection C where the judge states that Barrett's testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should cite peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals to support all the factual statements made in this article. Opinions can be cited to individuals only if these individuals are notable. We can cite Barratt for opinions, but not facts. Tim Vickers 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Barrett, M.D.

message: This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm British. Adam Cuerden talk 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful comparison might be found with the article Intelligent design. Jefffire 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Brian, some good articles to have a look over to get an idea of how Wikipedia treats these controversial subjects would be Intelligent design, Holocaust denial and Animal testing, these articles follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, with the section of this policy on undue weight being particularly important. All the best Tim Vickers 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tim - I think you misunderstood the main thrust of my comment. The approach used by Filll and his ilk is from a basis of antagonism to the article. That cannot ever make for a good encyclopaedia, no matter how much they may fulfil the "requirements" of Wikipeadia guidelines. Biased observers can certainly ride the guidelines well enough, but still the resulting article is POV and hence inaccurate. The article should be about homeopathy, NOT about anti-homeopathy. But yes, your points in general are valid. docboat 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK for comparison, why has the article on medicine got no endless pages of critique of its methods and concepts? it should have; let's be fair. Peter morrell 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the WP:UNDUE deals with. If most of the reliable sources about subject X are not critical then most of the article should not be critical. However, if most of the reliable sources on X are critical, them most of the article should be critical. Tim Vickers 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess crit

message: This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a second admin looking over the page, there appears to be a single editor who is using the NPOV tag as a bludgeon to have his views adopted against consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (To the group) Can anyone link a discussion where consensus has been achieved? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (Whig) Why are you adding weasel words, and particular reason you going against the manual of style? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accidentally clicked the wrong button and never meant to revert Whig's addition of the NPOV tag as vandalism. The real discussion is over the wording of the one sentence in the lead, which has been explained as containing weasel words, which I reverted once and which Whig continued to add. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Further comment. This is an NPOV dispute. Every edit that I make must be taken in the context that I am trying to point out the inherent POV of this article in order to replace it with something conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where weasel words are used, I will make them more obvious. This is homeopathic editing, perhaps, but if it causes the sentence to be properly analyzed and discussed and fixed, then it is effective. Whig 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you try to word that with active voice and make is less opinionated?  I think that may solve one issue.  Mercury 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making them (read: the weasel words) more obvious, instead of fixing them, is not good, fix them, but don't make them worse, more obvious.  To do so, is disruptive. Mercury 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is not disruptive. It is correct editing practice in my opinion. Whig 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I am understanding you correctly, to deliberately go against a content guideline is correct editing practice? Mercury 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content guideline is already being violated. I did not violate it. Whig 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as you state, you are making the weasel words more obvious.  The equates with aggravating the already existing problem.  And aggravating existing problems is disruptive.  Mercury 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, I disagree. Whig 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I disagree" is not a helpful or constructive response. Raymond Arritt 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am trying to help you understand that I will block you if you are disruptive, and I see your making the weasel words more obvious as disruption. Mercury 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. What will be my recourse? Whig 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see current RfC. I would be interested in your comments. Whig 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only comment would be, please take in what everyone has to say, right, wrong, indifferent.  If it applies, it is useful insight to your editing behaviour.  The RFC is designed to give you some outside views, so that if you need to change, you will.  I won't comment directly to the RFC. Mercury 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it passive voice? Mercury 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Here is the full sentence:  Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source.  You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view.  I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion. Mercury 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive". Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see this thread being particularly constructive.  I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate.  The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page.  But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect. Mercury 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "is sometimes"  Try "such and such describes"  active voice. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery." Wikidudeman (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral.  So long as all sources are reliable.  Mercury 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I might can do that.  There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here.  Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue.  I may extend protection for that as well. Mercury 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style.  Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..."  It might be best to balance that point of view however.  Just a style suggestion. Mercury 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc.  Weasel words are bad, mmkay.  Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we determined that was inconclusive, and I would review it on my Talk page. Whig 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconclusive, to put it mildly, I agree.  As several other editors have explained, it is a uncontrolled, non-randomized, and non-double blind study published in an obscure journal.  Not a reliable source.  Skinwalker 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is NOT a metanalysis.  It is ONE study, not a study of other studies.  Do you really understand what you're writing here?  Skinwalker 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right "Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment" . But it is still significant and should be included. --Sm565 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT significant, and it will NOT be included.  I am the third or fourth editor to tell you this.  Why do you persist in presenting the same argument over and over again, after you've been refuted?  What you tell me three times is not automatically true.  Skinwalker 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being randomized is pretty much a fatal flaw in studies of this sort.  It is not significant.  Wanderer57 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop. We've already put this study in my Talk. It shouldn't be discussed here further for now. Whig 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Live NPOV dispute

message: Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment. This is an NPOV dispute. Every edit that I make must be taken in the context that I am trying to point out the inherent POV of this article in order to replace it with something conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where weasel words are used, I will make them more obvious. This is homeopathic editing, perhaps, but if it causes the sentence to be properly analyzed and discussed and fixed, then it is effective. Whig 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you try to word that with active voice and make is less opinionated?  I think that may solve one issue.  Mercury 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making them (read: the weasel words) more obvious, instead of fixing them, is not good, fix them, but don't make them worse, more obvious.  To do so, is disruptive. Mercury 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is not disruptive. It is correct editing practice in my opinion. Whig 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I am understanding you correctly, to deliberately go against a content guideline is correct editing practice? Mercury 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content guideline is already being violated. I did not violate it. Whig 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as you state, you are making the weasel words more obvious.  The equates with aggravating the already existing problem.  And aggravating existing problems is disruptive.  Mercury 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, I disagree. Whig 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I disagree" is not a helpful or constructive response. Raymond Arritt 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am trying to help you understand that I will block you if you are disruptive, and I see your making the weasel words more obvious as disruption. Mercury 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. What will be my recourse? Whig 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see current RfC. I would be interested in your comments. Whig 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only comment would be, please take in what everyone has to say, right, wrong, indifferent.  If it applies, it is useful insight to your editing behaviour.  The RFC is designed to give you some outside views, so that if you need to change, you will.  I won't comment directly to the RFC. Mercury 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it passive voice? Mercury 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Here is the full sentence:  Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source.  You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view.  I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion. Mercury 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive". Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see this thread being particularly constructive.  I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate.  The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page.  But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect. Mercury 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "is sometimes"  Try "such and such describes"  active voice. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery." Wikidudeman (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral.  So long as all sources are reliable.  Mercury 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I might can do that.  There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here.  Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue.  I may extend protection for that as well. Mercury 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style.  Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..."  It might be best to balance that point of view however.  Just a style suggestion. Mercury 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc.  Weasel words are bad, mmkay.  Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we determined that was inconclusive, and I would review it on my Talk page. Whig 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconclusive, to put it mildly, I agree.  As several other editors have explained, it is a uncontrolled, non-randomized, and non-double blind study published in an obscure journal.  Not a reliable source.  Skinwalker 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is NOT a metanalysis.  It is ONE study, not a study of other studies.  Do you really understand what you're writing here?  Skinwalker 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right "Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment" . But it is still significant and should be included. --Sm565 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT significant, and it will NOT be included.  I am the third or fourth editor to tell you this.  Why do you persist in presenting the same argument over and over again, after you've been refuted?  What you tell me three times is not automatically true.  Skinwalker 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being randomized is pretty much a fatal flaw in studies of this sort.  It is not significant.  Wanderer57 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop. We've already put this study in my Talk. It shouldn't be discussed here further for now. Whig 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "is often described" vs "many scientists describe"

message: Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it passive voice? Mercury 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Here is the full sentence:  Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source.  You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view.  I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion. Mercury 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive". Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see this thread being particularly constructive.  I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate.  The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page.  But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect. Mercury 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "is sometimes"  Try "such and such describes"  active voice. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery." Wikidudeman (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral.  So long as all sources are reliable.  Mercury 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I might can do that.  There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here.  Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue.  I may extend protection for that as well. Mercury 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style.  Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..."  It might be best to balance that point of view however.  Just a style suggestion. Mercury 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc.  Weasel words are bad, mmkay.  Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we determined that was inconclusive, and I would review it on my Talk page. Whig 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconclusive, to put it mildly, I agree.  As several other editors have explained, it is a uncontrolled, non-randomized, and non-double blind study published in an obscure journal.  Not a reliable source.  Skinwalker 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is NOT a metanalysis.  It is ONE study, not a study of other studies.  Do you really understand what you're writing here?  Skinwalker 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right "Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment" . But it is still significant and should be included. --Sm565 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT significant, and it will NOT be included.  I am the third or fourth editor to tell you this.  Why do you persist in presenting the same argument over and over again, after you've been refuted?  What you tell me three times is not automatically true.  Skinwalker 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being randomized is pretty much a fatal flaw in studies of this sort.  It is not significant.  Wanderer57 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop. We've already put this study in my Talk. It shouldn't be discussed here further for now. Whig 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "is often described"

message: I'm going to try and keep this one simple as well, so I don't get confused. Why is the POV tag on the article?  Mercury 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is written from a "mainstream scientific" POV without allowing the subject even to be fairly described. It is a condemnation of Homeopathy from beginning to end. Whig 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: I agree with the first sentence of Sm565's statement above. Whig 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with whigs statement.--Sm565 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for the POV tag. The article is supposed to be written from a mainstream scientific tone as that coincides with WP:WEIGHT. The areas aside from the scientific analysis of homeopathy do a fairly well job of describing it and if it doesn't, then that has nothing to do with "Scientific tone" getting in the way but rather poor wording, etc. This isn't a POV issue but a style or wording issue. I have no objection to including studies showing that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect, as long as they are mentioned in the context of the fact that the vast majority of studies show now medical effect aside from placebo. The interpretation of the sources is not a POV issue either. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT? BBC reports this controversy differently if the editors want to consider it as  a reliable source. ( They already use it to condemn homeopathy.) I had suggested  for reaching a concencus -no comments just report the findings as stated from all meta analyses and /or studies upon agreement and this will be NPOV. And its critisisms.
Really simple. --Sm565 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you are linking to the BBC where they are writing about James Randi. Whig 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read at the end of page about WHO.--Sm565 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can take one paragraph out of context like that. Whig 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: WEIGHT requires we give prominence to the mainstream view, not that we omit the minority view. Whig 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying the current sources are mischaracterized? Whig 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, well we can do that in time. My concerns are not the same as yours, apparently, though we both agree there is an NPOV problem. Whig 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are stating is part of my objection and -of course I agree.--Sm565 21:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your objections hold no water. WP:UNDUE is simple in this regard, and the mainstream viewpoint is clear and well sourced. Furthermore, one can easily supply additional sources if one bothered to backing up the mainstream view. JoshuaZ 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You've said that, but if we can correct the LEAD then we can work on the rest of the article. Whig 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV / POV TAG

message: I think if we can get that last sentence of the LEAD straightened out, there may not be a POV tag needed for the whole article. We can identify sections that need work as appropriate. I think this article is a lot better than it was a week ago. Whig 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've said that, but if we can correct the LEAD then we can work on the rest of the article. Whig 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag resolution

message: I think the strategy here is obvious. Two or more POV warriors want to change the definition of NPOV and WP policies for this article and remove every negative statement about homeopathy. They want to remove all criticism of homeopathy from the article and violate all WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guidelines. They want to stretch the definition of WP:RS and WP:V sources.
To exhaust the regular WP editors here, they have engaged in a massive campaign of talk page commentary. This is transparent. It is pointless. You know who you are. We know who you are. You are single topic accounts meant to cause chaos and disruption. And you will not succeed. Please reform your ways and do not force the hand of the community.--Filll 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have almost completely destroyed your credibility with that statement. 50%? Do you realize we actually have ways to measure this? I suggest you retract this statement before I measure the actual figure. And use intelligent design as a guide. It is probably more than 50% negative, as scientific consensus and the mainstream view demands according to NPOV and FRINGE and UNDUE. --Filll 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With views like these, you should not be editing this article, which falls under the purview of science and medicine. You have to learn the WP policies that are operating here or else you are wasting your time. Intelligent design is indeed a good example of what WP strives to be in controversial areas. It has achieved FA status, a status this article is far far away from because of its blatant biases and other problems. So use intelligent design or evolution or other FA articles as models and guides.--Filll 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategy

message: I have taken the liberty of removing all "anti-Homeopathy" material from the article and making a "pro-Homeopathy" article at which is now 59,911 bytes, compared to the original size of 93,074 bytes, so the current version of the article is at least 64.4% "pro-Homeopathy". This is well above 50%.
I will note that this is a bit misleading since most of the high dilution material is not really anti-homeopathy at all, but I called it that anyway. Not all of the scientific testing is anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. The historical discussion of controversy is not really all anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. So at a minimum, the article is 2/3 pro-homeopathy, and the true figure is likely far higher. --Filll 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean 64% "pro-homeopathy"? Tim Vickers 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes obviously that was a screw up. Thanks.--Filll 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke or what. We aren't supposed to make a pro- or anti- article here. Just the facts. Whig 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously are not paying attention. Please read the material above. And no, this is not an article that I would put on WP. It is a test case and a strawman to see what the exact balance is. And try to understand where it should be. It is for discussion. We have to measure the alleged problem to know if it really exists. --Filll 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Which facts get summarized and described in the article is the issue. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. ScienceApologist 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Aw, jeez, we could make it much more pro than that -- all one needs to do is ignore the facts, or make them fit the desired outcome. ;)  •Jim62sch• 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the lead and history section here:  ... •Jim62sch• 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've moved jim's proposal to talk:Homeopathy/pro2.  – ornis⚙ 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A few points. Firstly, This article contains no "pro-homeopathy". Zero. The article contains "explanations" of homeopathy, but that doesn't count as "pro homeopathy". Secondly, If you look at the article as it was when it first came out of the rewrite, you will find that the proportions between criticism and explanation are pretty much the same. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How biased is the article?