Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 16

message: I went ahead and archived this talk page. Most of the bulk of the discussions have gone dead for a while and those who were leaving messages were doing it at the top of the page because of the "reference" list at the bottom. The reference list is very inconvenient for talk pages for several reasons. It's very difficult to keep at the bottom when people leave messages in the normal way by hitting the "+" sign which automatically puts the messages at the bottom. Ideally we should be citing sources this way [] or this way source. Either work much better than the inlined references on talk pages and I'm not aware of any wikipedia talk pages that use that sort of thing. I don't know if there is any policy saying how talk pages should or shouldn't be formated however for the sake of convenience I believe we need to stick with the classical way of citing sources on talk pages, the way I noted above. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning references on this talkpage

message: I plan to implement the rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace this article with it. Those of you who see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Remember, Silence equals consensus. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation of [[User:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft|Rewrite]] 

message: Currently I am unable to format the reflist to 2 columns. If anyone is able to do this then please feel free to do it. Also, Please if anyone is able, format the Navbox to allow it to "hide" and "show" it's contents. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was a stray </td>. Reinistalk 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks. I couldn't figure out what the problem was. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formating

message: (The first several lines of this discussion were copied from User_talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft/archive#What else is left? because the issue was raised but not entirely settled.)
* I would like to see more discussion of the various schools of homeopathy (classical, complex, OTC, whatever).--Art Carlson 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the earlier version you linked, As far as I can see, it has no references or sources in it that would direct me to a reputable website explaining it. I have a feeling that the reason it was removed was because it was probably original research. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. That version lacked the necessary references. I don't have many resources, but I'll check what I have. Maybe Peter can do a better job of providing a verifiable description of the homeopathic landscape? --Art Carlson 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean? be specific and I will find what I can, thanks Peter morrell 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need sources on the variations of homeopathic philosophy. Different schools within homeopathy. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the Diversity section in the earlier version. I think it is important to discuss the differences between the way Richard Hughes thought about homeopathy and the way James Tyler Kent did, and the wars waged between those advocating "classical" homeopathy and those following different tenets (such as "complex" homeopathy). Surely you [Peter] are familiar with these concepts? Please enlighten me if I have misunderstood them. --Art Carlson 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I'm not familiar. From all of the various sources i've read, I've never seen mentions of such a schism or dispute within homeopathy. I would like to  add such a section, but I don't want to add anything unless it's sourced.  Wikidudeman (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I can't copy anything from the old copy as none of it is sourced. If I had a few sources for it then I could add it in about 30 minutes. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Homeopathy: How it really works (Jay W. Shelton, Prometheus Books, 2004), Chapter 2 is devoted to "Types of Homeopathy: Commonalities and Contradictions". It lists the major types as being classical, clinical, combination (or complex), and isopathy. It covers a lot, but not all of the info in the old section. --Art Carlson 21:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well if you've read it, you can type something up and I'll add it through the article, though I don't believe we need to dedicate an entire section to the types of homeopathy. I don't have time to find and read that book anytime soon so I'll let someone else take care of that whenever. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a small paragraph at the end [of the section Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion] explaining the schism. Please tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the content. Tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The diversity of homeopathy 

message: I'm not sure that we need to add then "questioned" as the headline. The headline "Safety of homeopathic treatments" doesn't necessarily advocate Homeopathic treatments as safe but is defining the topic, I.E. the discussion of the safety (or lack thereof) of homeopathic treatments. I'm not so sure that the "questioned" at the end is really required. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, given it's discussing the criticism, that it's best to be descriptive. Adam Cuerden talk 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Safety of homeopathic treatments" vs "Safety of homeopathic treatments questioned" 

message: In the section on remedies, near the end, we describe the thunderstorm remedy. I think it's better to use "diluting", as "potentizing" is jargon, and probably, for most laymen, going to be first met while reading this article. However, like everything in this article, it caused an edit war. I don't think that "made by collecting and diluting the rain" is dismissive - if we said "thunderstorm remedy (diluted rainwater)" that would be. Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they were the same thing, so long that succussion is presumed to be included (which it always is)? Adam Cuerden talk 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Potentization" is the process of dilutions PLUS succissions. Homeopaths want to release the "latent power" of the substances by both diluting it and shaking it all up. Potentization is the name of that process so "Potentization" isn't synonmous with dilution, however does involved dilution. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Still, it's just a parenthetical aside, and I'd like to keep it simple. How about just "prepared from collected rain"? Adam Cuerden talk 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diluting vs. potentizing  (description of thunderstorm remedy) 

message: There were some excessive statistics on popularity in the lead, and all appeared elsewhere. I've cut it down to the more general statements. Adam Cuerden talk 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something needs to be realized. If something is important enough to have it's own section or subsection in the article, then it needs to be mentioned in the lead. The lead isn't actually a "lead" to the article, it's actually a summary of the article and thus should contain all of the most relevant info that the article contains. We shouldn't remove something from the lead simply because it's already mentioned in the article, that wouldn't make sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but I was trying to remove things that were mentioned elsewhere and were relatively unimportant - trivia (what year was the word homeopathy first mentioned?), excessive detail (The first history section had almost all its content repeated in the lead - I cut it down to a short summary of the most important points, since they'll be reading the full account in another paragraph anyway), and, oddest yet, spelling out the details from a table of popularity by country in sentences (cut in favour of the more general statements about worldwide popularity). In other words, I tried to cut the lead down to the "key points", leaving the details for the article itself.  Adam Cuerden talk 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem, by the way, is that if you use the same phrasing in the lead as in the article, if someone doesn't understand it the first time, the second time won't be any help. It can also make reading the article repetitive. Adam Cuerden talk 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to phrase it in a better way if you can. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  statistics cut from lead 

message: Here is a simple rule for everyone editing here to follow. If someone reverts your edit just once, then move the discussion to the talk page, not the edit summaries. Stop editing and discuss it on the talk page if just one edit is reverted. If the person doesn't respond to the talk page discussions then you can re-add what you edited and if they revert it then precede to leave a message on their talk page. If they continue to revert without discussing it then simply notify an administrator or take the problem to The admin notice board. If you believe that an edit you plan to make MIGHT be reverted then first propose it on the talk page. Don't make controversial edits that you believe will likely be reverted until a consensus is reached first on the talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit waring. Simple rules to follow. 

message: These are kind of oddly spaced out - they cluster around the treatments, remedies, and history sections, then you get very little elsewhere. What do you think of moving one or two of the vials elsewhere? They might not be all that relevant to the text where they ended up, though.... Adam Cuerden talk 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do it. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "During the 19th century, homeopathy had a substantial impact upon medicine"
This is essentially a meaningless statement, as the rest of the sentence -- in both sections - does not discuss medicine in general, but the growth homeopathic colleges and practices. Would something like "Homeopathy grew in popularity throughout the 19th century" be an acceptable change? If not, what is this supposed to describe? Adam Cuerden talk 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to emphasize that Homeopathy had a strong impact on the testing of medicines in modern medicine including the procedure of experiments and trials, which homeopathy emphasized as early as the late 18th century. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but that's not coming across...  I'll tweak. Adam Cuerden talk 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd lead/history section sentence 

message: Ye gods, that section was a nightmare.  I've rewritten it to the best of my ability, to try and give the information needed to understand the section in the first paragraph, not the second, and other such things. I've also added in an article by Anthony Campbell that I came across when working on another article several months ago. It's somewhat critical, but, well, it's one of the most controversial proposals - that conventional medicine actively harms patients - and needs the other side for NPOV. 
I suspect you'll want to tweak it, but please... keep it readable?. Adam Cuerden talk 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm reading that paragraph about Campbell and I'm not really able to understand what it's saying exactly. Perhaps you could make it a bit clearer. What does it mean by saying that "syphilis, when treated with antibiotics, would have the early stages suppressed, but would go on to the secondary and tertiary stages"? I don't know quite what this sentence even means. What early stages? What are the tertiary stages? How is this Irresponsible to say? It doesn't explain any of that. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, it's saying that the symptoms of syphilis will be suppressed, but the syphilitic madness will still occur. I'll poke at it. Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The symptoms will be suppressed but the madness will still occur? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that if one takes homeopathic treatments for Syphilis then the conventional symptoms will occur but the actual symptoms won't? Or something? I have no idea what it's saying. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the paragraph for clarity and I also moved it to the relevant section in the criticism area. The section I moved it to is called "Safety of homeopathy" and is a much better location for the paragraph criticizing the safety of belief in miasms. I think that having it plopped in the middle of the miasms section only sets precedent for future additions of criticism into the explanation of homeopathy and will lead to edit wars. I want to keep it as it is now where we say "Here is what homeopathy is and how homeopathys say it works" and "here is what the critics say and what the scientific evidence says" keeping the two separate. I don't want to have a paragraph of criticism in a section simply explaining homeopathy as that will surely lead to someone coming along and adding a counterpoint to the criticism of miasms, which will lead to edit waring.  Wikidudeman (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't make one of the most comntroversial claims of homeopathy, the one that bashes all conventional medicine, and not provide the opposing view. No preemptory strikes. Adam Cuerden talk 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not making any claims about medicine. We're simply saying what Homeopaths believe. We're not saying that it's true. We're not saying that taking conventional drugs drives diseases deeper into the body, we're simply saying that "homeopaths believe taking conventional drugs drives diseases deeper into the body". We are providing what the critics say about it, simply not in that same section, but in another section of it's own about the dangers of homeopathy. I think that having it plopped in the middle of the miasms section only sets precedent for future additions of criticism into the explanation of homeopathy and will lead to edit wars. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S., I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this. I've seen it happen before in various articles including the Parapsychology article which is currently very stable. If we have explanations of homeopathy mixed together with criticism then that will surely lead to edit waring over point/counterpoint additions. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, it's not just criticism: It also shows that the claim remains current, and is thus important. Let's see if problems develop. Adam Cuerden talk 23:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miasms section rewritten. 

message: The biggest problem with this article, IMO, is writing style.  The  heavy use of dependent clauses results in onvoluted sentences.  The text flits from idea to idea without adequate development. For example if I didn't already know about the infinite dilutions, the following text would be confusing. "Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some imprint (or memory) of the diluted substance, despite the fact that at many common homeopathic dilutions, no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain". Style is important because if it deters readership POV is moot and readers will skip to External links Cayte 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should already know about the dilutions if you had read the sentence right before that one, which explain about the dilutions. The sentence right before the one you quoted says "Substances that cause symptoms similar to the disease in large quantities are heavily diluted, with shaking at each stage of the dilution." which should explain about the dilutions, so you should already know about them by the time you reach the sentence you quoted. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S., Not that I see anything wrong with that sentence or the lead for that matter, But Adam wrote it, not me. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing style

message: Under the prevalent use title, there are 100,000 homeopathic practitioners around the world.  Article also states that there are 300,000 practitioners in India alone.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamevay (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. My first reaction is to trust DW, but the Indian report seems to be more detailed and closer to its sources. I tried to find some more definitive numbers, but didn't have much luck. This site says "India has ... 100,000 homeopathic physicians and practitioners". This one (possible quoting from here) talks about "over 1/2 million homeopathic physicians worldwide". This site from the WHO says "About 40 000 homeopathic physicians are registered with the National Council for Homeopathy" in Pakistan and gives a reference for the figure. Another WHO report  says there are 64405 "physicians and surgeons (homeopathic)" in India. It looks like 100,000 for the world could be too low and 300,000 for India too high. On the basis of the (presumably most reliable) WHO sites, it seems safe to say "over 100,000 worldwide", but the number for India might be anywhere between 65,000 and 300,000, so maybe we shouldn't mention any number at all. --Art Carlson 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say "Estimates of the number of homeopaths vary from X to Y, with some sources stating that there are up to 300,000 practitioners in India alone." Tim Vickers 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me what you all think of the new edits. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Adam just removed the source. How will I say that India has X to Y numbers of Homeopathic practitioners when the source for Y is gone? Without that area of error the two numbers between the amount in India and the amount in the world contradict each other.  Wikidudeman (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contradiction Error

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 meters, use 000 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 meters.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**allege
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wikidudeman (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these might be helpful for improving this page. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Peer review 

message: :Image:Rep1.JPG - This is probably a bit paranoid, but that almost surely isn't an original edition - from the type face, etc, I'd put it around 1950s, give or take a couple decades. Now, I don't think that such simplistic cover design can be copyrighted, but someone just confirm that? Adam Cuerden talk 05:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a big deal, but if the cover can be copyrighted, we probably have to delete the image (and replace it with one not in copyright if possible), because I'm pretty sure we couldn't make a very good fair use rationale for why we had to use a 1990s version of an 19th century book. Have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Obviously, that's an awfully simple cover design, so it may not be eligable for copyright, but if it is... 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick copyright status check 

message: The data in the Deutsche Welle article is not verifiable. DW doesn't give its source, and it's unknown what the methodology was in collecting it, or even who wrote the article. It's also not a scientific publication, but a TV station, and in the article, it is trying to defend the validity of homeopathy with a blatantly fallacious argument. Therefore, it's not a reliable source, and we should not publish unverified numbers from it. Reinistalk 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem here isn't any "innate bias", but the unverifiability of the numbers. They might as well be invented, and there's no way of knowing, because the article doesn't cite its sources. I mentioned the poor logic only in passing, and I never meant that all of DW is biased, only the article. Sorry to confuse you. Reinistalk 11:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK no problem; I was widening out the comments by Adam and Sn565 as well as those of yourself to a more general point. If we are going to get very picky over the  reliability of sources (rightly so, probably), then we must be seen to be even-handed in all respects. This was my main point. thanks Peter morrell 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Response to Reinis, edit conflict with Peter) The claim of 500 million users of homeopathy shows up on a lot of web sites, but I haven't found a single one that quotes a source. I don't have any reason to doubt this number, but I agree that we must be very careful with repeating claims that cannot be traced to a reliable source. As much as I think that the number of users is an interesting and important piece of information, it might be better in this case to say nothing at all. Alternatively, we could use a wimpy formulation like "Although the number of users of homeopathy has not been reliable determined, an often-quoted claim is 500 million." --Art Carlson 11:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have a source for that, it would be original research. Reinistalk 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutsche Welle 

message: "Homeopathy is particularly popular in Europe and India"
...This is essentially meaningless, as "particularly popular" is an undefined term, and the sources are an Indian and a European source that talk about their own regions. There's a point to be made here, but I'd like a little hard data comparing Africa, Asia, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South America, and all the other continents and countries we're ignoring. I'm not sure if this is possible, but if it isn't, could we make a direct comparison, e.g. "Homeopathy is widely used in India (I think the sources will back this up to a reasonable extent), somewhat less common in Europe, but only Z% of United States citizens have used it."  
I'm sure you'll hate that phrasing, but you take the point: Let's compare what we actually have good data for, and not make presumptions about all the parts of the world we don't have good data for. Adam Cuerden talk 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless statement 

message: We have to acknowledge that homeopathy is a very minor activity in the health care industry. It is not supported by any scientific studies. It is of historical interest, but potentially dangerous. Our previous version of this article made this more clear, and eventually this will have to be done at this article as well. --Filll 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on all fronts; with the minor exception that it is not completely historical as yet, unlike leeching it is still being taught at a few alternative schools. How do you see that the article has lost that clarity and what can be done to retrieve it? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even leeches aren't totally gone. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness, my mistake. The power of collaborative editing at work, my ignorance will not harm this article. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't read the article in awhile.  I do know that before it was so long that I could not get myself to make it through.  However, have we considered (from a historical pov) that perhaps Homeopathy has added to our current knowledge in some way.. Considering it brought us out of the dark ages of Heroic medicine, perhaps something along the line of "Do no harm".. or the value of a placebo...  anything along those lines.  In other words, there is always something we can learn from our past - and it is our past.  Even medicine's. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: I changed "Medical efficacy" to "Doubts about medical efficacy", in keeping with other subheaders in the "Criticism" section -- other subheaders include "Criticism of high dilutions" and "Questions of safety", so unless we want to change those to "High dilutions" and "Safety", this change seems perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic. --profg 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer it just say "Medical efficacy" since that's shorter, cleaner and more neutral. While the discussion does indeed discuss the doubts about the medical efficacy, I don't think the header needs to jump to that conclusion prior to the reader even reading the content. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how "Doubts about medical efficacy" will cause the reader to "jump to that conclusion" any quicker than "Criticism of high dilutions" and "Questions of safety" would. Maybe I'm missing something? --profg 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to have a title that describes the content. "Medical efficacy" might lead the reader to think it was a section about how homeopathy was shown to be effective, which it hasn't been. Adam Cuerden talk 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One word: nonstandard. Reinistalk 07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One question: you do know that "criticism" is properly a neutral word, not a negative?  Here it is being used with an implied negative sense.  From my POV, that homeopathy is nonsense, I don't care; but to be NPOV, as we all should be, the use of "criticism" bites.  •Jim62sch• 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Medical efficacy" section is in the criticism section so I fail to see how it would be unclear that the medical efficacy is being doubted. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: * Ref 73 is also questionable or flawed because you cannot have a trial of 'homeopathy for 'osteoarthritis' as there is no such 'disease' in homeopathic conceptuality; homeopathy treats individuals, not alleged 'disease entities,' which it regards as fictitious human constructs. There are just different people with different types of joint problems; each would require different remedies and evaluations. Such poorly conceived studies are utterly meaningless and actually reveal nothing about the clinical use of homeopathy. Most such studies are eagerly funded by drug companies and even that should sound alarm bells; there is a clearcut commercial conflict of interest.
* Same applies to ref 74 as again there is no such thing as 'migraine' as far as homeopathy is concerned. Such studies reveal the hopeless grasp these workers have of homeopathy and such studies funded by drug company money are inherently biased.
::The two bullets above touch the reason I wanted to include info on different types of homeopathy. It is correct that classical homeopathy does not consider a diagnosis of "osteoarthritis" or "migraine" to be useful, much less trying to treat all such cases with the same remedy. Consequently these studies and similar ones can say nothing about the efficacy of classical homeopathy. On the other hand, there is substantial use of clinical homeopathy, which practices exactly that way. While we can and should point out what applies to which, this article needs to cover both types, not just "true" homeopathy. (As a side jab, if classical homeopathy were the only effective form, you would expect the studies to show that. In fact, whether it is the result of placebo or not, classical and clinical homeopathy are about equally effective.) --Art Carlson 07:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Open your eyes. Advocates of homeopathy hold many different positions that contradict each other. Some rely on a detailed anamnesis, others buy their drugs over-the-counter. Some use a single dose of a single preparation, others use multiple doses and/or multiple substances. Some prescribe a remedy based only on symptoms, others first diagnose a disease. Some believe high-potency provings are unreliable, others believe they are best. Your homeopathy may be the right one, but it is not the only one. I wish I had some numbers, but I don't. Nevertheless, we have no basis to imply in the article that only one form of homeopathy exists, or that any particular form is in any way better than any other. --Art Carlson 08:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some random links that discuss this dichotomy are this and that (-> Contents -> Chapter 2: Scope of Homeopathic Pharmacy). --Art Carlson 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the opinion on the sources. Concerning the source by Ramey et al is quite reliable only because it itself is highly sourced. While they may not believe in Homeopathy or it's medical efficacy, I don't believe this alone should mean they can't be sourced. Could you post a list of the sources you think should absolutely be removed? We can discuss it from there. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of Peter's list 

message: :Okay,... let's look this over. I've given the full reference, because, frankly, soon as you change one or add one the numbering's going to change, making Peter's numbering somewhat useless.
:75: Jha, Alok. "Homeopaths 'endangering lives' by offering malaria remedies", Guardian Unlimited, 2006-07-14.   - This article in a major British newspaper is perfectly acceptable in a criticism section
:82  Online Lawyer Source: Zicam Settlement  - one of three references for the same sentence, all of which say about the same thing.  I suspect Peter actually means 72: Long L, Ernst E (2001). "Homeopathic remedies for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review". The British homoeopathic journal 90 (1): 37-43. .  - Edzard Ernst is a very notable critic, and, given where the reference is used, I see no problem with it.
:73: Whitmarsh TE, Coleston-Shields DM, Steiner TJ (1997). "Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine". Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache 17 (5): 600-4. .  - for as far as this source is actually used, which is not very far at all, it seems appropriate.
:74  Weissmann, Gerald (2006). "Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales". The FASEB Journal. 20: 1755–1758. . Retrieved on 2007-08-13.  - This one's fairly weak, and could reasonably be replaced by a better source providing the same information, given how it's used.
:38:  ^ a b Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K (2003). "A critical overview of homeopathy". Ann. Intern. Med. 138 (5): 393-9. .  - It's perfectly appropriate in its first use, providing a definition, and I don't see any particular reason why the brief mention in the second use is troublesome. The journal is notable. Could you clarify, Peter?
:58:  Bellows, HP (1906). "The test drug-proving of the O O and L Society. A reproving of belladonna.". O O & L Society. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.  There's no link, so this shouldn't have a retrieved-on date, but, since it's used strictly as a reference to early history of homeopathic testing (e..g "this is the 1906 article we mention"), I see no problem with it.
:27: Borderline. I wouldn't remove it outright, but I'd give a second source for everything. Since this article is pretty well sourced, we should be able to just go to its sources for a second opinion.
:6 & 7  Ernst E (1997). "The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine". Eur. J. Pediatr. 156 (7): 513-5. . and Ernst E, White AR (1995). "Homoeopathy and immunization". The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 45 (400): 629-30. .    Absolutely NO reason to remove them; Ernst is a particularly notable critic, these have been widely reported... Very notable studies that would be impossible to replace anyway.
:50: Barrett is certainly a notable critic, and there's plenty of recommendations from major medical orginisations for Quackwatch as a source.]] That said, we shouldn't use only Quackwatch: Let's add a couple more sources alongside this one.
In short, I'm afraid that I almost entirely disagree with Peter's views on source reliability, and in a few cases quite strongly disagree. Just because something is critical of homeopathy does not make it inherently unreliable for talking about criticism of homeopathy, particularly when the subjects being critical are highly notable in their own right. I think most of these sources are used appropriately, though some could use a second source to back them up. Adam Cuerden talk 07:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Weel, let's just add more sources, then - it should be relatively trivial. A few of these references are used in such a trivial manner that we really don't need to worry too much - For instance, the list of specific medical conditions where homeopathy has been shown to be ineffective is just a sample; none of them are particularly notable in themselves.  To be honest, I'm not sure I like that section anyway - it's too specific; and if we're letting single, unconfirmed trials in, then we're going to go straight back to the problems with the old article: about 1 in 20 small-scale studies will give false positives due to the cutoff chosen for statistical significance, and publication bias, badly-designed studies, or lack of an appropriate placebo control will increase this. In other words: If it's sufficiently researched, you should be able to find at least a few studies that "show" that any medical treatment has a slight effect, or, given enough studies or badly-enough designed studies, larger effects. It seems to rather be asking for trouble and edit wars to make too much of a few single studies. Adam Cuerden talk 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, would you object to sources written by authors who constantly tout alt-meds as being the outstandingly efficacious?  •Jim62sch• 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, has anyone seen this?  Good grief, they refer to ohomeopathy as pseudoscience.  No doubt an unreliable source.  •Jim62sch• 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the part about studying alt med claims "within their own claims and systems of beliefs" is outrageous. They should be studied within the framework of and using the methods of science. I hope and presume you meant to say "simply studies their claims and systems of beliefs within a scientific framework. --Art Carlson 07:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Art, and now in this context you will define 'scientific framework' for us I hope. thank you Peter morrell 12:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Science doesn't take into account any prior conceptions when doing experiments. An experiment on Homeopathy does not take into account the fact that it's philosophy seems to conflict with basic chemistry or physics. Good experiments (as most of the ones cited) simply study Homeopathy as they would study any other medical remedy. Double blind placebo controlled trials. If it works, then they examine the methodology of the trial and attempt to recreate it, perhaps with better protocols. If it's a failure, there's always someone else out there willing to try it again and again. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's true that Homeopaths see the "cause" and "workings" of sickness different from modern scientists, however I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that if someone has cancer or aids or the flu they would be categorized as 'sick' in homeopathy or modern medicine. This means that it would not be difficult to determine the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies on individuals which both homeopathy and modern medicine categorize as "sick", regardless of what either of the two think of as the cause or workings of sickness are. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, this was cool, "I do not think articles being pro or anti anything should be the overriding criterion that determines their worth per se, far from it" -- not everyone can blow their own primary argument out of the water.  Oh, as I must've missed it, 'splain to me why the source is not reliable -- preferably rationally (as in, actually explain why without the tangential nonsense you seem to be so fond of).  Thanks.  •Jim62sch• 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Peter's list 

message: The "Prevalence of use" section needs more countries mentioned to be better in scope and show a worldwide view. Does anyone have sources on the use of homeopathy in countries such as in Asia, Other European countries, African countries or South American countries? Sources that mention % of use and % of doctors who use as well as some histories of homeopathy in said countries would be good. Please make sure they are very reliable. Post them here so that I can improve the section ASAP. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this site: http://www.lmhint.net/national.html  you can find histories of homeopathy in many countries plus email contacts for each. Maybe you can contact them for some reliable published data on numbers of homeopaths in the main countries and the % use of homeopathy, as far as it can be established with any certainty. Does this help? thank you Peter morrell 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how helpful that source would be. Some histories of some countries might be helpful, but I also need statistics dealing with % of use in various countries as well. See if you can find some sources for that. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. The second source probably isn't very reliable, It cites no sources. The first one though might be reliable. I'll let some others input on that. Do you all think that this is a reliable source? It's from Boiron, A French Homeopathy manufacturer. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll wait a day or two and if no one objects I'll add the relevant info using it as a source. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either cite would hold up if we were going to move this towards FA. The Stewart-French site is by far the "worse" of the two, though: it's very amateurish, with lots of typos. However, Boiron's not going to hold up very well without some evidence it's a respected site. The Stewart-French mentions a WHO report - Can we track that down? Other possibilities are medical journals, etc. Preferably mainstream ones, or at least indexed journals. Adam Cuerden talk 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please help me find some scientific studies dealing with the statistics of use of homeopathy in various countries so that we can get that ugly tag removed. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting sources