Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 11

message: I just wanted to say that I find that the Homoeopathy article is pretty good now. It seems to me to take a balanced view, as it should. I bet that was painful for many! :) Philip Howard 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody is entirely happy with it, then it must be correct!--TimVickers 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouragement

message: Tim, this is the quote from the article cited in the introduction.  You think this is not specific enough? David D. (Talk) 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy are growing in popularity and are increasingly being endorsed by doctors."
It is ambiguous, see my talk page, we need a better reference, prefereably with survey data.--TimVickers 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Becoming more popular?

message: Please do not see this last revision as a rejection of the material you have produced, this is well-written and interesting. However, it needs to be integrated into the current version, which is the result of a long and painfully slow process of compramise by multiple different editors with different points of view. Although I personally agree with many of the points you make, they are expressed in a non-encyclopedic style. Wikipedia articles cannot only approach things from one viewpoint. --TimVickers 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this guy has repeatedly attempted in recent months to vandalise this article and replace it with his own useless, highly subjective and pejorative POV version. This has to be resisted by consensus. There is nothing in it of any historical value or that is remotely factually accurate. It is pure anti-homeopathy POV Hysteria. It is NOT well written or remotely interesting; indeed, it is a corrupt and bastardised version of homeopathy that is not, and never will be, remotely acceptable. Peter morrell 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the historical things seemed interesting Peter, such as the flow-dilution machine and the spread of influence through contact. Are these not true? They are not all properly referenced. --TimVickers 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly anything accurate or useful can be salvaged from that material but the broad thrust of it is extremely negative and hysterical and thus unsound. If you can salvage stuff from it that can be referenced then nobody can seriously object to that. Peter morrell 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note for 193.193.199.127

message: :I'm not happy about "preferring instead to view ill-health as when "the flow of energy is impeded"" the Organon says something slightly different and homeopaths don't appear to be united on any one claim in this area.Geni 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recognition of divided opinions is why it says "many homeopathic practitioners" rather than simply "homeopathic practitioners" It is only the practitioners who do not recognise conventional diagnoses who are part of this list of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial. I'm not being very clear here. One of the reasons why homeopathy is controversial is the views of a segment of homeopathic practitioners on conventional diagnoses. It would be fine to change "many" to "some" depending on people's assessment of how common these views are, but it would be wrong to omit these views from the list of reasons why homeopathy is controversial.--TimVickers 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The first mention of proveings follows the classical line to far and should prbably link to Homeopathic proving.Geni 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get real

message: [removed and restored to article]
I was wondering if this section might be better in the article about Samuel Hahnemann, since although it is interesting, it seems only tangentially related to homeopathy. What do people think? --TimVickers 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and have reverted it; it is certainly a crucial aspect of the subject if you wish to seriously understand the subject. You cannot realistically separate the views of Hahnemann from that of homeopathy. The discussion is NOT the place for this info. Peter morrell 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: further: the scetion balances out the criticisms that were mentioned about his miasm theory and show there is more to homeopathy and him than mere miasms. I find it ridiculous that you bang on about the recent critique over malaria and completely ignore the serious diseases that homeopathy has a good track record of curing, even in its early days. Study the literature of the subject before you pontificate from the armchair about its alleged dangers. You have lost your editorial neutrality on this one Tim. Peter morrell 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one.Geni 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: if you read the literature of homeopathy, as opposed to deriding it with extremely limited knowledge but strongly held views, then you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including Yellow fever, mumps, measles, whooping cough, diabetes, cancers, psoriasis, alopecia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, and at least one case of haemophilia. You profess to know about and edit an article about a subject you have not even studied. Tim's deletions and amendments in general have been balanced, neutral and very fair, but his latest deletion about miasms lacks balance because that paragraph about miasms includes criticisms about miasms as if they are the be all and end all of homeopathy, which they are not and it ignores the broad swathe of Hahnemann's advanced views on a range of medical aspects of which he was a pioneer...such as psychiatry and microbiology. Including that revision balances that section up nicely. Peter morrell 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So personal attacks and argument by assertion. You see the problem is I have studied. I know what you mean when you claim homeopathy has cured X (anicdotal reports based on questionable diagnosis and in the more amuseing cases carfuly ignoreing the conventional treatment involved). So no I'm not impressed by your bold claims.Geni 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, let's at least attempt to adopt the veneer of civility. Let us also stop with the anecdotal evidence ("you will see dozens of cases homeopathy has cured including...at least one case of haemophilia...")    Modusoperandi 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved section on Hahnemann

message: Good point above by T.J.C. 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a sunday service right there!:) --Dematt 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else can one expect from a PK (preacher's kid)? ....;-) -- Fyslee 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you listened well! ;)--Dematt 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sCAM is a scam

message: The Cochrane Collaboration commissions and conducts systematic reviews of clinical efficacy in all areas including homeopathy. Bandolier does not, so its role is misrepresented here. The 'Bandolier reviews' are secondhand reports of other researchers' reviews. The Bandolier flu review, which I have removed, was in fact a report of the Cochrane review already cited. Bandolier's distortion of the Cochrane conclusions (flu is of shorter duration with Oscillococcinum 200 than placebo) is connected with Bandolier's long history of antagonism to homeopathy.--Jedermann 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bandolier: evidence-based or evidence-biased?

message: Tim, your previous reply now seems to have vanished but this is my reply...In any case, there are longer articles than this on wikipedia, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. The main point really is about balance and neutrality and presenting correct information, instead of POV drivel, with which this article has been periodically saturated. Thanks, mainly to your editing skills, Tim, that phase now seems to have passed, hopefully on a permanent basis. Peter morrell 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding lost reply from Tim

message: Someone today deleted a factual sentence stating that Hahnemann was the pioneer of microbiology. It is not a claim, it is historically factual. Here is the timeline...
Following his observations of cholera epidemics in 1830 and 1831, "Hahnemann published four articles on cholera from June to October 1831." 
"in 1860. Pasteur's experiments proved conclusively that fermentation is caused by microorganisms." 
1876 Koch published his paper on anthrax
1875 Ferdinand J. Cohn publishes an early classification of bacteria
1884 Koch's publishes his postulates
1885 Pasteur virus expt 'proves' link between a germ [he called it a virus] and a specific sickness
So which way do you want it? 1831 to 1885 is 54 years - does that make Hahnemann a pioneer of bacteriology or not? I think the answer is yes. Peter morrell 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cholera, Germ Theory, etc

message: ::Hahnemann's acceptance of this emerging idea of infectious disease before its final proof by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur clearly indicate how his pioneering medical views may be regarded as advanced for his times. 
::This statement should be removed, for two reasons. First, it is easily disputable, and thus subject to POV. More importantly, it is unreferenced, indicating that it is a Wikipedia editor is drawing conclusions from the facts provided. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If a reference is found and this assertion is attributed to an anthropologist or medical historian, it would become appropriate to include it. Otherwise, it's just ramblings (and poorly written - never, ever use the word 'clearly' to make a point - similar to "obviously" or "undoubtedly" it just conceals a lack of sound argument.) T.J.C. 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you happy with the new version? --TimVickers 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's perfectly fine now. Cheers! T.J.C. 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Peter morrell is a medical historian!Peter morrell 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And you are a very valuable resource for this page Peter. How is your book of Hahnemann essays progressing? --TimVickers 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute: Miasms

message: In which section is the disputed material? T.J.C. 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:homy/homeopathy   --Homy 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm removing the tag. T.J.C. 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify - your own article is irrelevant. I have no idea why you decided to rewrite to a significantly more controversial and poorly researched article, but if there's nothing wrong with the main one, don't add tags to it that don't apply. T.J.C. 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OR tag

message: The direct links to web pages in the middle of the text jar (i.e. see This Website), and don't fit with the citation format on the rest of the page. Should they be moved to cite-web references instead? --82.33.54.90 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and web links

message: The section "Advocacy" (or whatever it's precursor was) from the external links sections seems to have gotten lost, so I restored it. I don't think this will be controversial, but a few advocacy sites may now be in the neutral sections, and visa-versa, so watch out for that. Jefffire 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost divisor 

message: Given the wide spread nature of homepathy on the internet it is important that those that do get cited are reliable sources.  There was an RfC that is relevant to this issue: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto.  This is the major problem with the quantum physics.  It is well cited but how many of those cites are reliable.  We need to be hypercritical when dealing with dubious web sources. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note I've removed []. It's almost laughable how badly it fails RS. Jefffire 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS]]

message: I just removed a tag from the main article placed by a former contributor to this page. For part 1, see the following section in the archive: Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy_tag. I don't see how this tag improves the article and we have a more suitable tag at the top of this talk page.  There is a lot of activity on this article bring it closer to consensus.  Tags don't help us achive consensus. David D. (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why does the article need a tag? it is surely approahcing neutrality now as it is becoming a blend of many views...it is now a more or less complete and accurate view of the subject...is it not? Peter morrell 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is moving in the right direction towards neutrality. There is no need for a tag. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A good definition of neutrality is when everybody thinks something favors the other side! TimVickers 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy_tag (part2)

message: Is the classical homeopathy page simply a POV fork? TimVickers 21:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to concur with you on this Tim because it looks rather thin in citations and supportive references and does seem pretty POV. Were you going to suggest folks wade in and kill it! ;-) or maybe clean it up? you are the guy to do that I feel. Peter morrell 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Giving the article Homeopathy relativity which by now earned some interesting comments on its AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeopathy relativity (The only good news is that this verges so far into the patent nonsense realm that I doubt people could base healthcare decisions upon it (but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me) and I think this article should be used as an example to let Wikipedians (and especially newbies) know just how dangerous WP can get are my favorites), all contributions of  should be taken with more than one grain of salt and thoroughly reviewed. --Pjacobi 07:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork?

message: If the huge success of homeopathy in the US in the 19th century is doubted by the ignorant and ill-informed, and its subsequent decline, then I can add a short fully referenced piece on this to substantiate my statement, now removed, that Kent's efforts [amongst those of others] was an effort to purify bad practice among a rampant and loosely licensed profession. Anyone who contests this is clearly ignorant of the facts about its history in the USA and is not therefore equipped to criticise the NPOV point previously made...not for the first time. Peter morrell 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, calm down, then read over what you've just writen and consider how that might not be constructive to a collaborative project. We must bear in mind that homeopathy isn't some megalithic institution, it's very disperse. Many of those practicing what Kemt regarded as bastardised rubbish believe that they are right. So under NPOV we can't write what you proposed. Jefffire 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am perfectly calm; you should get informed before you edit neutral statements. What I said was correct, homeopathy in US did indeed become a victim of its own success, so successful that it lapsed into very sloppy practice, as a result of which the purists like Kent wished to see it cleaned up. That is a perfectly NPOV statement. Non-informed persons like you should not be bad-editing articles on subjects they manifestly know very little about. Peter morrell 10:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly likely to be viewed as neutral by those who are being criticised as "sloppy". That's Kent's own view. It's perfectly alright to describe it as his view, but to write it as being the absolute truth isn't NPOV. I've no problem with the rest of your edits, let's not start a war over this. Jefffire 10:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  a short summary of its success and decline in the US might not go amiss, I will try to do that at some point. Peter morrell 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely fine. Kent's opinions are important, but they must be carefully presented. Jefffire 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I will try, but please bear in mind there are several weighty textbooks on the history of homoepathy in the USA, summarising which is no mean task and there is little meaningful online to back it up citation wise. I will get to the task at some point as time permits. It's OK no probs. Peter morrell 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it has also to do with the short collective memory of people in the USA concerning homeopathy, since my memory is, I believe with some research I can back it up, that just opposition of medical organizations were the main reason of its downfall. I can not find it yet at wiki   --Homy 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now have all the main points to hand concerning the rise and fall of US homeopathy and will compile a short paragraph on this to insert in the next few days...fully referenced. It will be a useful addition. Peter morrell 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Success of homeopathy in USA

message: "Its main differnce to conventional medicine is that Homeopathy helps the body to heal itself through the careful selection of appropriate remedies."
:I was wondering if this is a real difference between the two medical systems. For example, if you have a bacterial infection the conventional medical approach is to give you antibiotics (the appropriate remedies) that will help the body in its attempts to heal itself. It seems to me that this "difference" applies equally to allopathic and homeopathic medicine. TimVickers 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a standard claim by homeopaths. It doesn't really hold up to questioning (if you consider all the attempts by conventional medicine to get people to smoke less eat better and take more exersise).Geni 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose vaccinations are anther example of allopathic medicine helping the body cure itself, as are antibody-based antitoxins or even simple things like oral rehydration therapy. TimVickers 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a lot of homeopaths are close to the antivac lot they would be unlikely to accept that.Geni 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its main differnce to conventional medicine

message: Jefffire, it would be better and more democratic not to just delete stuff you happen to disagree with, but to put all that stuff back and place a bracket saying 'citation needed' in the places where you want a citation to support the contention being made...e.g. that stuff on royals...i can supply that, but it would be far nicer for you to adopt this approach than simply wading in and deleting stuff. agreed? thanks Peter morrell 08:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Wikipedia guidelines unverified material should be removed. I give the benifit of the doubt in most cases, but I found it unlikely that every member of the royal family used homeopathy, given the large number of member with disparite opinions. Many or most would have been acceptable however. Now if you do find a reliable verification that I was incorrect, please reinsert it. There is absolutely no need to go creating section on the talk page or accusing people of being "undemocratic". In any case, it explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a democracy in the guidelines. Jefffire 09:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what you say, the fact is that you and a few others are always acting arrogantly as self-appointed judge and jury for the minutest wordings in an article even though repeatedly it is evident that you know very little about the subject, and which you detest on scientific grounds, while hiding behind the 'wiki regulations' for your acts of vandalism. Well, at least we know what you are up to even if those of us who do know a bit about homeopathy don't like it. Peter morrell 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change to the wording is perfectly acceptable. However, if you continue to act in this incivil and confrontational manner I will regretfully have to report you. Jefffire 11:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: report me for what? what on earth are you talking about? you nit pick over minutiae and then accuse me of being uncivil; quite the reverse, it is you and your actions based on very limited knowledge of homeopathy who act in an uncivil manner...repeatedly and consistently hostile to any even slightly pro-homeopathy person who visits this article or attempts a rational discourse about the subject. Look at your posts. Peter morrell 11:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making allegation such as "arrogant" and accuse others of "vadalism", and that is just three paragraphs above. Editors are expected to be civil. Jefffire 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: correction: the things I said about you were not claims or allegations; they were observations made over a period of the bad way you present yourself in talk and in editing. It is you who are consistently uncivil and who do indeed intimidate other contributors by editing their work without consultation. And your knowledge of homeopathy is extremely limited. Peter morrell 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning has been issued to user. Jefffire 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the article is the main cncern of mine not all this petty personal nitpicking; and the article is now much improved thanks to the many editors who have contributed towards its great improvement in recent months; let us celebrate that first and above all. Peter morrell 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undemocratic Editing

message: The article is much better now, but the subject is so wide and well-developed that there are several specialist areas (e.g. history, basic research and mechanisms, clinical efficacy) that would benefit from their own in-depth articles. The astrology article is a good model, with short sections describing history and horoscopes linked to separate articles. It is also a model of how to write about a controversial topic. Jedermann 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More a warning than an example. Validity of astrology became a battleground, before being deleted, erasing many months of work. Any sub-article ideas should be discussed on talk before creation as anything controversial will inevitably become POV-forks and get deleted. Jefffire 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefffire, i think you should calm down. This is a good suggestion as the article is a bit long now and we can create subarticles for details.nids(♂) 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said otherwise. I think you are reading something different into my good faith caution. Jefffire 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for the missunderstanding. I thought that in your previous post you said that sub-articles shouldnt be created (as they are POV). never mind, if you agree for the creation of new articles, then there is no problem.nids(♂) 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for subarticles?

message: New sentence
Homeopathy regards named diseases as morbid derangements of the organism,[5] preferring instead to treat each case of sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon. 
Old sentence
Homeopathy regards named diseases as misleading human constructs, preferring instead to treat each case of sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon.
New homeopathy? The organon is the beginning of homeopathy. (1810) The book refered to is (1807) and the reference proves just the point that the word "homoeopathy" is used for the first time. I repeat what I said in 'history' only homeopaths who believed in divine predestination could have said: "misleading human constructs" and Hahnemann was Lutheran so this phrase is not his. There is no way the sentence "Homeopathy regards named diseases as misleading human constructs" is a fair expression in any context. The burden of evidence is reverse: Prove the sentence is true and I accept it. Until than I take my sentence back. WP:VERIFY
::The words new and old refer to versions of the article. TimVickers 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a morbid derangements of organism. I reverted it as gibberish. Jefffire 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not gibberish, conventional medicine regards diseases as "morbid derangements of the organism" as well. It is a bit of a clumsy way of expressing the idea of pathology, but the real problem is that the suggested change loses the sense of the original. TimVickers 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now. The plain English version is infinitely then. I think Homy got confused about the meaning of the sentence. Jefffire 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is poor editing practice to delete a large section of an article without consulting the other contributors. If you do not think this topic is relevant to Homeopathy, then why do you think Peter Morell spent about a week working on this section when he first created it? TimVickers 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sadly I can't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that Peter would agree with you that his work in this section is unrelated to Homeopathy? TimVickers 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the confusion here is that to say 'disease' is an abstract human construct imposed upon nature, which it is, is NOT the same meaning as saying a disease is a derangement of the organism. so what? of course disease is a derangement of the organism bigdeal that is pretty obvious stuff, and is saying a totally different thing from saying that to see a disease as an alleged entity that affects everyone the same is absolutely unhomeopathic...so until the meaning of the orignal sentence is preserved you can't substitute Homy's new point from the Organon for the very different point about human constructs...is that clearer? maybe both points can be made? I don't know. but the point about sickness as a strictly individual phenomenon, as viewed by homeopaths, is a very crucial conceptual distinction from the allopathic mode of thinking that derives originally from Thomas Sydenham in the 1600s when he classed sickness into alleged entities such as measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, etc. Peter morrell 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously not.  Before reverting make your case here.  David D. (Talk) 20:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So your argument is ditto? Who is the someone, homy? What about the comments from Peter and Tim? David D. (Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diseases as human constructs

message: It looks like someone started a Wikibook on homeopathy this spring, but it hasn't been worked on since then. I'm just adding a note here in case anyone is interested in contributing to a wikibook on the subject. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibook on Homeopathy 

message: Homy you have ignored all the above points and just gone ahead, once again, insisting you are right when everyone else disagrees with you. That's OK I guess, in a wild & anarchistic kind of way, and right on for you, but I have added the 'human constructs' phrase back into what you changed. Discussion does mean trying to reach consensus not just doing what you want on an impulse regardless. The Organon is NOT as absolute as some people think; afterall, Hahnemann changed it 6 times in 23 years...by now he would be on edition 35 or something so it is NOT the Ten Commandments of homeopathy as some people like to think...and almost every 'law' he states in it he broke himself at some point. what does that tell you? he was just like you! Peter morrell 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: will deal with this in the morning good night! Peter morrell 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Homy, let me know if you still want me to clarify the 'misleading human cinstructs' theme. thanks Peter morrell 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why ignore discussion?