Template talk:Homeopathy

message: (moved from my talkpage to here)
Sorry, I've been the only one working on it for a while, so I didn't actually realise there was anyone else to talk to about it.
Basically, the changes I made were:
Swapped Materia Medica for more relevant Homeopathic Materia Medica. Materia Medica is only secondarily homeopathy-related. 
Per a merge and cleanup, removed Materia Medica Pura 
Removed Herbalism as not strongly related to homeopathy. 
A little category name tweaking for appearance reasons. 
Vanished user talk 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes  

message: Anthroposophy and Traditional medicine - first only distantly related, second doesn't even mention homeopathy. I wonder if we should add allopathy, as the term was coined by Hahnemann, even if it's now more of a generalised alternative medicine slur against conventional. Vanished user talk 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe under "philosophy"?  Abridged 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Seems more of a "related" to me, given that it's expanded a lot in usage since Hahnemann's time, and thus isn't as near to Homeopathy as it once was. That said, Bach flower remedies and Isopathy are really homeopathy branches - maybe we should put allopathy in "Related" and move the current two into "branches"? Or are one or both different enough not to count as a branch? Vanished user talk 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few changes - rearranged the Homeopath list to put the founder second after the list of homeopaths, combined branches and the old related (sooner or later a proper version of Classical homeopathy and Clincal homeopathy will be made), and added allopathy and alternative medicine as related. See what you think, revert anything you don't like. I defer to you in this. Vanished user talk 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, no isopathy and bach are not actually homeopathy.  They are related to homeopathy, but not homeopathy.  I was thinking "philosophy" for allopathy because -- and this is abstract -- it was a fundamental aspect of Samuel Hahnemann's thinking on medicine in general when he developed homeopathy.  It is not really a related therapy, or any therapy at all.  If the list contains stuff like isopathy and bach remedies, then "allopathy" doesn't belong on the list.  Abridged 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh. Aye, I see. I have to admit I also dislike it, but it's a name made up by the founder of homeopathy, so it's relevant. Anyway, better to link to a (more or less) neutral view of the matter (though I rather question the assertion in that article that some people use the term neutrally - that may be true for my personal bugbear, Darwinism (relevant in historical discussions to distinguish it from other evolutionary theories of the Victorian period), but allopathy... no. Never seen it neutrally used. However, I digress) Better to link to a more-or-less neutral view than to actually use it. It was being used perjoratively in homeopathy until one of my clean-ups. Vanished user talk 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I totally agree it is relevant and belongs on the template.  It is in an ok place now---no problem with it since the last cat is a sort of a "misc" one.    Abridged 11:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing 

message: Should we add Robin Murphy and Anthony Campbell? Vanished user talk 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  Murphy has the repertory and Cambell was editor of british homeopathic journal, but I'm not sure either of them make the "short list".  There are probably more important homeopaths that don't have bios yet that will be at least as prom as those two and the template will be really crowded if we add everyone.  They should probably be in the "list" article of homeopaths, but I think we should save the template for homeopaths with more stature.  Abridged 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible addition?

message: Made a few minor appearance changes, fixed some bugs. Vanished user talk 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor appearance changes 

message: Luc De Schepper added.  He is one of the most prominent modern homeopaths, has written the now standard beginning text and an advanced text.  Abridged talk 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Rajesh Shah really belongs in major listing.  He doesn't have the stature of the others up there.  Abridged talk 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's lose Shah, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanished user (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Morrison and Jan Scholten.  They are both very influenial authors in modern homeopathy who have written core texts.  Abridged talk 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: someone put shah back.  i'm not sure he is as hugely influential as others on the list, but i'm noit hugely opposed.  the list can get longer and the template can get biggger.  we could lose some of the "related" links like the flower remedies, etc,  Abridged talk 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be petty here, but after further thought and investigation I removed Shah.  I don't think he is as notable as others on the template who have made a really salient contribution.  I was not even able to find his books for sale with the major US homeopathic booksellers.  If I am in error, please see the talk page of his wikipedia bio and improve his article.  I don't want to insult anyone.  Abridged talk 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of homeopath 

message: Could the editor who keeps adding him to the template please describe why he is notable enough to be one of a handful of homeopaths mentioned?  He doesn't have any major publications and doesn't seem to have made a salient contribution.  I might not know his work well enough to know his contribution, but I'll keep reverting until someone edits his biopage to show more notability.  Abridged talk 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shah