Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 20

message: Is there a rationale for why the linkfarm tag was placed on this article? The number of links seems reasonable, at least vis-a-vis other articles on Wikipedia. Antelan talk 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the tag has been updated and slightly modified, but no rationale has been given here. I'll give it a week, but without any explanation when asked for one, I think that tag is fair game to remove for the reason I've stated above. Antelan talk 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Tim Vickers 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: This is from the body of the article.
""Nineteenth century American physician and author Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. was also a vocal critic of homeopathy and published an essay in 1842 entitled Homœopathy, and its Kindred Delusions. "
The first link leads to a site "WorldCat", where one needs to sign in to get more than just the title.  It doesn't seem a very useful link.  I think the second link has the full text.   Am I missing something re WorldCat?   Thanks. Wanderer57
:It's a book source, not a link.  WorldCat can pull up books by ISBN and is the largest inter-library loan system, I believe. I think the two citations should be put into one, however. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the entire "Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions" is repeated as a source in External Links section. Shouldn't we remove it since we are already using it in the article as a source? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this, but I wanted to understand the in-article links first.  Referring to homeoint.com for one copy of the Holmes article and quackwatch for another copy of the same thing made no sense to me. I'm removing the external link.  Wanderer57 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wendell Holmes Link 

message: Adam Cuerden talk 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it could be promising for inclusion into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it proves anything. It's promising for inclusion because it seems somewhat notable. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's covered by a major news organization. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is one case, but the general concern is notable, and quite real. Here's some more description. You can find as many as you look for, which is not something that I find really interesting except to say that there is much more than just one isolated case. And I certainly don't think name-calling is necessary here. Antelan talk 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone here speak Hebrew and/or obtain access to Israeli medical journals? Skinwalker 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Antelan - Does your comment about name-calling refer to "anti-homeopath"?  In this discussion, several editors have made it clear they are anti-homeopathy, as is their right.  I don't think it counts as name-calling, especially compared to some other stuff I read in Wikipedia. Do you have a general idea of the kind of thing I mean, or would you like links to examples?  Wanderer57 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about a degree of name-calling. I am talking about name-calling categorically. It is not helpful. Antelan talk 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take it easy. Being called an "anti-homeopath" is a badge of honor. Wear it with pride! -- Fyslee / talk 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Hi, i just wanted to inform myself a little bit more about Homeopathy and must say the intropart of the article is well strange to read. First of: I dont believe in Homeopathy but i think you overdo it a bit. The first sentence is fine, because it states that H. is a controversal form of ... medicine. But then it comes: claiming, claimed, contend, believed, claim - in 5 Sentences. When this isnt POV i dont know what POV is. (just a Userpov)91.96.36.230 16:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not about preventing the expression of POV, because that is what we do here. Articles are supposed to document existing POV from all notable sides of the subject, if they can be documented using verifiable and reliable sources. NPOV is about preventing editorial POV and OR (original research) from creeping into the articles. All significant POV expressed in the article are supposed to be mentioned shortly in the WP:LEAD, which, although there are similarities, is not the same as a summary in other types of articles. The lead is an NPOV expression of the obvious facts and POV documented in the article - among them that believers in homeopathy make claims, and that those claims are not considered to be legitimate or proven by scientific sources, hence the modifying words to prevent readers from being deceived. That's the scientific, majority, non-fringe POV, and it is documented in the article and must be included in the lead. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor permits OR, but is dependent on already established (IOW historical) V & RS, we are forced to use them and can't use fringe sources which hope that they will become verified in the future and mainstream in the future. Believers in homeopathy may hope that, but here our hands are tied by the sources and the evidence (or lack of evidence). We cannot state suppositions and unproven beliefs in the article or lead as if they were established fact. That would be misleading to readers. We can only state what they are and that they are in fact suppositions and unproven beliefs. If the evidence changes, then the article will be brought up to date and reflect that fact. -- Fyslee / talk 06:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have it a bit wrong, Fyslee. when you get this type of statement: The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and are directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and scientific theories.[6] Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] 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."[11]  you are getting POV, not NPOV. This article should be about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. A NPOV statement on the above for the article Homeopathy would read as follows: Homeopathy as a science has not yet been proven with current scientific methods. While there are some reliable studies showing efficacy ofr the treatment, the majority of studies have shown either equivocal results, or results equivalent to a placebo effect. The majority of the medical profession regards homeopathy as no better than placebo therapy, and at worst as a form of quackery. That would be IMHO NPOV, as against the (rightly) assessed view that this article is POV. docboat 07:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Has not yet been proven" makes it sound like one is expecting proof of homeopathy's effectiveness any day now, and errs on the side of advocacy. The idea of a water memory lasting longer than picoseconds is considered to be in contradiction to physical and chemical science. Antelan talk 07:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't write what might be in the future, but what is current POV and fact, based on acceptable sources. Our hands are tied, and the lead must reflect the article. -- Fyslee / talk 07:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of NPOV do you not understand? I rewrote the statement to say the same things - check it and see - but with a NPOV style. What you are doing is maintaining a POV style appropriate to an article entitled anti-homeopathy - and that is fine, if you are writing an article on anti-homeopathy. But the OP is quite right - this article is POV, and I think you should recognise that. What is the difficulty in seeing that? This is 101 writers class - basic style, simple stuff. docboat 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not a sympathetic POV. The goal is not to make homeopathy seem plausible and then offer rebuttals. The goal is to present homeopathy in the most neutral light, and on Wikipedia the mainstream stance is the stance that is supposed to get broadest coverage as far as neutrality goes. Antelan talk 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you attempting to lecture me? WP:LEAD requires that significant article content (IOW POVs) are represented in the lead. No walled gardens excluding certain POV from the lead or article are allowed here. The purpose here is not to tell only what homeopathy is, but to tell about it from all POV, pro- and anti-. This is not a private website that writes from only one POV. You still don't get it. Read more about NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, yes. <lecture>The article lead should be about homeopathy. Full stop. A description of homeopathy, as a homeopath would describe it. The article is about homeopathy, and the lead is about anti-homeopathy.</lecture> Now then, when we get past the lead, we can discuss style again, but so far, I feel you needed that lecture. docboat 08:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A description of homeopathy. Period. Not a description of homeopathy as homeopaths would describe it. This is where you need to read the NPOV policy more closely. Antelan talk 08:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brian, your basic problem is a flawed understanding of the very purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide articles that tell everything about a subject, including the controversies, IOW all significant sides of the issues, not the story from just one side. If you maintain that this article should be written from the POV of homeopaths, then you are proposinging a POV slanted article advocating (selling) the subject (any website can do that, but not here), and not including the scientific (skeptical) POV and giving the majority weight it deserves. In that case you should stop immediately before you get in trouble. -- Fyslee / talk 08:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something that this article currently asserts that is unverifiable and not backed by a reliable source? If so we need to change it, but specifics are more helpful than broad statements. Antelan talk 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Widely used in the medical pharmacological arena" is a very vague and likely misleading statement. People could get the idea that "widely" means "majority". If you're talking about India, then it is indeed used more "widely" than anywhere else, but even there probably not "majority". If you eliminate the last part and just say "widely used in society among people who don't know better" it would be true. The introduction of your wording is not necessary at all and you wouldn't introduce it if you weren't attempting to affect the meaning in some manner. With your bias and meanings that might not be a good idea. -- Fyslee / talk 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but let me ask for your input on a specific sentence. For example, one sentence reads, "Homeopathy is a vitalist therapy, claiming to act by treating imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations." What is the alternative to "claiming"? Certainly we can't say that it "does" act by treating imbalances, because the evidence and mainstream findings do not support that. Would you prefer that we leave this information out of the lead, or do you have a more elegant solution in mind? Thanks, Antelan talk 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. We need to work on specific sentences, as proposed by Antelan. As long as the lead summarizes the main points of the article, there is nothing to prevent slight rewordings of the lead. -- Fyslee / talk 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Look from the outside 

message: This article devotes undue weight to the magical gibberish explaining how homeopathy is alleged to "work" and throughout takes the tone that homeopathy is just "controversial" or "non-mainstream." In fact, homeopathy does not work, and the only open question is whether its practitioners are delusional or are in fact con artists fully aware of what they are doing. The medical tone used throughout is inappropriate, as homeopathy has nothing to do with medicine. The article should instead be devoted to sociological and legal explanations of why homeopathy, as the voodoo/fraud phenomenon, and its proponents continue to exist.
Remember, by attempting to "tell both sides of the story" or treat something "neutrally" when all the real evidence is in fact on one side, you introduce horrible bias. Pretending that there is an equal body of evidence for the "homeopathy works" side gives vastly more credit to that position than it deserves. "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true."
Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic bias

message: This has crept up quite a bit since this version, and the chief culprit appears to be the quite unnecessary elaboration on the potentisation process which don't really belong in the intro. That, and a considerably harsher and more sceptical tone (reinforced, as always in cases like this, with reference-spamming). I don't see that these changes have improved the article. Chris Cunningham 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you provide a handful of specific examples of sentences or paragraphs, and highlight ways in which the wording or content ought to be improved? Antelan talk 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've provided a link to an old version which I believe contained all the good bits and less of the bad bits. It's not a case of improving the language, it's a case of omitting those parts which have been added which are best left to the article body. Chris Cunningham 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article can never reach FA status unless the lead accurately summarizes the entire article. This article is fairly large and thus the lead will in turn be fairly large. This is not a problem or concern. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This casual dismissal of my concerns isn't particularly constructive. The standard inclusionist no-fact-is-too-trivial approach to writing introductions is not conductive to creating FA articles either. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually, looking at it, this edit is a good example of the problem. That's just a dumping of three random facts in the lead. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Although at many of the higher dilutions have no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain, homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some memory of the diluted substance to remain, and that this imprint has therapeutic effects on the body. "
It seem to be too specific for the intro.  Maky be these references can be placed in the body of the article?  David D. (Talk) 07:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In many articles, such a statement might be seen as overly specific. In this article, however, I don't agree. Something to that extent should be in the intro because that is, in a very distilled form, the essence of the controversy. It is a crucial contention over which homeopathy and the mainstream disagree. Antelan talk 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is this article about the controversy or about homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed a crucial aspect of homeopathy: the potentisation process through which remedies are prepared. Is it duplicated elsewhere in the article or does it have to be in the lead? thanks Peter morrell 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentiation is still in the lead. I just removed the argument about whether there are any molecules left or not and whether water can memorize the molecules.  Does this not seem a little too specific for an intro.  It should definitely be in the article though. David D. (Talk) 07:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if you shorten the lead, as long as it contains all of the relevant info that the article does and properly summarizes it. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead length 

message: You should all be aware that a notice has been placed here: page
diff ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvassing