Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 19

message: As it was proposed, I removed the legal ruling and the criticisms of fraud it was related to, away from the introduction and into a new section of its own ☤'ProfBrumby 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's... way against consensus, not to mention WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr Cuerden, you surely know who I refer to when I say that I have seen that editor war editing and reverting based on his own POV in many articles, all related with an obvious agenda, and also acting when one of his tag-warriors have exhausted his reverts for the day, so which should be the purpose to discuss? I hope that the editor I am talking about do as he always do, to use his admin privileges to sustain his agenda and make commas and small changes after a revert for difficulting other reverts, that is what I have seen him doing all around, so by all means, please let him do, the eyes of others more experient than me are on him already, so please let him enjoy as long as he can, all the best ☤'ProfBrumby 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Adam is sufficiently experienced that he can do without the lecture. Raymond Arritt 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy votes otherwise. Raymond Arritt 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the blogs again. They fail WP:SPS/WP:EL. JoshuaZ 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs do not belong in this article. Tim Vickers 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism own section 

message: As it is obvious, this article is:
* Unbalanced
* Many citations are at incorrect places providing erroneous meaning
* The article is not NPOV
etc  Please collaborate in addressing each of the issues ℒibrarian2 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with these tags and this recommendation. Whig 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's deal with the simple one first. Please list below the citations that you believe do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Tim Vickers 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the "NPOV" tag and the "Unbalanced" tags are redundant. There is actually no consensus at all for either one of them as has been discussed on this talk page. If you BELIEVE that there is a need for the tags then please clarify exactly why you believe they need to be there, in details. I echo Tim's comments, Let's start with the RS tag. What specific sources do you believe are not reliable? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A simple one would be to correct the last sentence of the LEAD where you use a citation to back a claim regarding what conventional medicine believes, where that citation is not authoritative as to what conventional medicine believes, as discussed above. Whig 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The article in the Archives of Surgery is an reliable source. It makes this statement. I have cited it as a source and paraphrased the statement it made. What exactly is your objection? Tim Vickers 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrasing. As I have said above, the reader cannot be expected to click the reference to find out who is making the statement. You need to state the person or organization making the statement, and in no case is the person or organization synonymous with what conventional medicine believes, as those are vague and undefined and probably violate WP:WEASEL. Whig 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be acceptable if it quoted the source directly and used it as the sole reference for the section? Than readers could be in no doubt as to where the quote came from. Tim Vickers 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fine to quote the source directly, mainly you must attribute the source and not conventional medicine claims about the beliefs of which are unsupported by the citation. Whig 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK - This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst." Acceptable? Tim Vickers 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better. Whig 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Any other sources you are unhappy with? Tim Vickers 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll let others bring up their objections for awhile, I didn't introduce these tags this time. Whig 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't you? ;) Tim Vickers 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I'm just participating in Talk. I'm not editing the article itself at all. Whig 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is false. I am not blocked whatsoever. Please stop. Whig 17:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page." Wikidudeman (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Whig understands the terms.  Regards, Mercury 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this does not prove to be a mistake. The talk page had turned into a complete circus and became an extremely difficult space in which to work previously, which is why I joined the RfC.--Filll 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: While waiting for consensus about the final sentences of the third parapgraph, I have provisionally rearranged these sentences, as their order seeemed a bit random and self-interrupting. For instance, "this lack of evidence" was widely separated from the claim that evidence was lacking. Of course I understand that the rearrangement may be shortlived, if the sentences themselves get rephrased. Note also a few changes of tense that I've made. They're small changes meant to improve the style, but they do also carry (slightly) different implications, so please take a look. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thank you. Tim Vickers 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranging the third paragraph

message: Due to the edits of Librarian2, we now have an uncited sentence in the lead.
:"Homeopaths regard such remedies as suitable for treating all conceivable types of human sickness.[citation needed]"
Peter added this wording during one of the recent re-writing. Is there a reliable source available that makes this claim? I think the original source was the Materia Medica, which would require a reader to do quite a lot of research to see if it backs the statement. Can we find a better source? Tim Vickers 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't oppose deleting it. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: If anyone has access to the full text of this study, Please E-mail it to me ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Skinwalker 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail me this study please 

message: I'm not keen on the parenthetical phrasing (what he often called friction). I think the friction discussion might contrast with the following part of the sentence that claims a violation of three two branches of science. This should probably be broken into two sentences and reworked a bit, and I don't know if Texeira is a reliable source in both of those branches of science either. Whig 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A major problem with this addition is that friction has a precise and defined modern meaning, I think mentioning an archaic usage in passing is guaranteed to confuse a reader. Tim Vickers 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a bit better, however another problem is that these medicinal properties are not thought to be a physical property as defined by modern science, this point is made far more clearly by the previous quotation from the more important edition of the Organon.  Tim Vickers 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do homeopaths use magnets and electricity as part of their treatments? The article does not cover this if it is true. Tim Vickers 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To be perfectly frank, Hahnemann's writing never fails to confuse me! So since homeopaths do not use magnets or electricity, what relevance do magnets and electricity have to our discussion about if the "medicinal powers" homeopaths believe are transmitted during dilution and shaking are physical properties or not? You have me completely confused Peter. Tim Vickers 19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit, also if you look at the footnote of the sixth edition it says: "In the same way will triturating a medicinal substance and shaking of its solution (dynamization, potentation) develop the medicinal powers hidden within and manifest them more and more or if one may say so, spiritualizes the material substance itself." and also in the next section "By means of this mechanical procedure, provided it is carried out regularly according to the above teaching, a change is effected in the given drug, which in its crude state shows itself only as material, at times as unmedicinal material but by means of such higher and higher dynamization, it is changed and subtlized at last into spirit-like medicinal power, which, indeed, in itself does not fall within our senses but for which the medicinally prepared globule, dry, but more so when dissolved in water, becomes the carrier, and in this condition, manifests the healing power of this invisible force in the sick body." So he still thinks this is a non-physical process involving some spirit-like property or process. The earlier quote seems to fit this idea of an invisible and undefined non-material property better than the current one. Tim Vickers 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here is a clear statement - Footnote 7 "It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence." So Hahnemann was not talking about material, physical properties but a spirit-like essence. The reason why I think it is best to make  it clear that this is not a physical property is that otherwise the difference between this and the scientific viewpoint is unclear. Tim Vickers 19:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Although that is partly true yet he certainly regarded there to be a connection between some physical processes and the induction of spirit like powers in medicines or healing. So you cannot divorce his ideas completely from physical actions. He is never absolute or unequivocal in his belief of spirit. As in so many ways he lived exactly at the interface between the old sciences of magic and superstition on the one side and the new science of empiricism and experimentation on the other, and he straddles both worlds beautifully, as does homeopathy in a sense. How does this affect the wording of the article, Tim? over to you! Peter morrell 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A difficult question for you Peter, should it be "a spirit-like medicinal power" or "spirit-like medicinal powers", ie are these separate properties for each substance or did he believe that these were all different forms of the one power, akin to the "vital force"? Tim Vickers 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify, I don't object to the spirit-like language being used in context. Whig 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll stay out of this for now then. Whig 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I replaced the "spirit" quote but removed the "claimed", which always sounds like Jeremy Paxman interrogating a politician! (did you threaten to overrule her?) :) Tim Vickers 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, we should always use simple words - I changed it to "held within", better? Tim Vickers 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's take part of each, it is verging on having too many adjectives, but looks pretty good to me. Tim Vickers 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Friction, etc

message: The Wikipedia article vitalism mentions that the new fields of emergence, complexity and dissipative structure are considered by some to be a modern, scientifically respectable form of vitalism.  Living systems operate withiin the law of chemistry but also within another level of laws. The book "Into the Cool" explores some of these ideas and comes to the conclusion that living systems are highly efficient at energy gradient reduction.
For the record I don't intend to go to bat for homeopathy that I find preposterous.  But for the sake of accuracy perhaps we should add a caveat to the disproof of vitalism. Cayte 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I agree with that. Since the two definitions of vitalism quoted in the lead of that article don't apply to thermodynamics, which are part of the laws of physics, I don't think the observation that living organisms obey the laws of thermodynamics can be described in any way as "vitalism". Tim Vickers 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say that for my oral exams I read widely in the history of German Romantic Biology, French Philosophical vitalist theory and evolutionary theory Lamarck/Darwinism to present. At some point I did come across a few things that said that the current life sciences were beginning to entertain certain discounted vitalist theories. So something is stirring out there. Everything I read was academic and peer-reviewed, although in the history of science and/or primary sources and not in medicine. I don't for the life of me remember anything more than this. I don't believe in Homeopathy. Good luck. Saudade7 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitalism is dead. Long live vitalism?

message: This article is much improved. I just thought I'd mention it, because I've been very critical for a few weeks, but I think the changes that have been made have at least resolved my principal NPOV objections for now. Whig 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: I'm surprised to see the nomination listed under "Philosophers and philosophy" in the nominations list.   Wanderer57 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well homeopathy isn't a natural science, so either it is classified as a system of thought, or it goes under "Misc." Tim Vickers 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tim:  There is a "health and medicine" category.  It seems to me homeopathy is about health much more than it is about philosophy, regardless of any dispute about whether it has positive or negative effects on health. Also, a significant part of the article is about "conventional" science in opposition to homeopathy.  Wanderer57 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Homeopathy is a system of medicine, not an abstract philosophy. Whig 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That category is a sub-section of "Natural science", so classifying homeopathy there is problematic, since we all agree it is not a science, instead a system of thought and practice. Another non-contentious alternative would be to place it under "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures". On a more specific note, reference 69 isn't a reliable source. Perhaps one of Peter's historical essays would be a better citation for this non-controversial statement. Tim Vickers 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be incorrect, but I do think it's scientific. Whig 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If Peter's essays are appropriate for cited inclusion, would it be also appropriate to find other essays by other writers? What are the qualifications we require for such essays? Whig 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: here is  a possible such article... cheers Peter morrell  —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to re-categorize it. It's not that big of a deal as it is only a temporary category used for the nomination listings and will be gone once it's reviewed and listed. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you think about "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures" as a non-contentious classification? At a basic level, homeopathy is a cultural phenomenon, if nothing else. Tim Vickers 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As a practical matter, won't putting the GA nomination in the health category make it more likely to be noticed and responded to by people with interests in health matters?  Also, can a nomination be listed under more than one heading?  Thanks, Wanderer57 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It might not a good idea to list it more than once, since that could lead to multiple people reviewing at one, with attendant confusion! I'll put a note on the Good Article Nominations talk page, most reviewers have that on their watchlists. Tim Vickers 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not list it more than once. Also, note that the top level of the category stays with the article in the form of the topic parameter, so it is important to decide whether the article is best placed under "Philosophy and religion", "Social sciences and society" or "Natural sciences". Then pick the best subheading of your choice. Geometry guy 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without getting into the semantics of "science" it seems most logical to list this under health and medicine.    I'm sure the topic has been debated ad infinitum here, but I'm sure most "outsiders" would consider the GA nomination proper in that category. --Bloodzombie 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that this is where it belongs. Whig 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inarguably a medicinal practice?  WTF?  VanTucky, you are flatly wrong.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination 

message: I think that this article is to the point that it doesn't need any massive changes done to it and I also believe that we should start to focus our attention to related articles. If this article is to truly be great then the topics of homeopathy must also be improved. The articles that I have in mind are:
Homeopathic repertory
Homeopathic Materia Medica
The Organon of the Healing Art
Please add some input concerning this ASAP as well as ideas on how to go about improving these three articles. It should not be too difficult or take too long, however it must be done. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the third one is pretty awful, and the first two appalling. What more can be said? Adam Cuerden talk 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Homeopathic repertory and Homeopathic Materia Medica are short and likely to remain so, and they are closely related and partly redundant. Would it be better to combine them into a single article? That way the difference between the two can be clearly presented and contrasted, which is hard to do with separate articles. Either way, I think our Homeopathy#Repertory section is clearer than either of these articles as they stand. --Art Carlson 07:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding the most relevant info from Homeopathic repertory to Homeopathy#Repertory and merging it? Wikidudeman (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving related articles 

message: I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good articel. I'll promote it to GA status--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Great news! Thanks to all the editors who have contributed to the article. Tim Vickers 19:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Above, Peter morrell wrote:
* "It is a fringe subject and should be mostly about the subject matter of its title, rather than endless critique, ...."
I want to make sure I understand Peter's meaning and would like to hear his explanation. I get the feeling (which could be mistaken) after reading the above, that he thinks this article should just be about explaining homeopathy.
If I understand the purpose of Wikipedia, articles are supposed to cover the subject in all its facets, not only explanations of the subject, but everything about the subject, including all notable POV on the subject. Not only that, it requires articles to give the proper weight to certain aspects and POV when covering such subjects, which means that the scientific position gets the most weight, which is certainly not the case in this article.
What does Peter think about this? I feel he is objecting to having an article that includes any criticism beyond a short aside that mentions that criticism exists, and that he would rather have an article that just tells about homeopathy, just like so many thousands of pro-homeopathy websites do. I don't want to misunderstand him and since he is a significant editor on this article I feel he deserves the chance to explain his position on the matter.
I would also like to know if he thinks his POV is NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated several times I think the article should of course contain criticism and the due weight of crit against homeopathy. The issue seems to be a disagreement between different editors on how to balance this polarity of views within the article and within the sources. I am certainly not saying that all crit should be excluded or downsized. That would be an extremist position. Crit has a very important role to play in any disputed subject and MUST be included to achieve a fair balance. On the other hand, it should not be so prevalent as to dominate and smother the subject itself. IMO the crit in this article does tend to shadow every sentence and counters every statement the article tries to make. This gives the impression that the crit is overwhelmingly more important than the actual content about the subject of the title: homeopathy itself. I hope this clarifies my position. Peter morrell 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure others may wish to get a deeper understanding of your position. -- Fyslee / talk 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The malaria debacle is already covered in the article, I don't think this source is better than the ones we are already using. Tim Vickers 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Morrell's understanding of appropriate topic matter