Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 →


Contents

NPOV dispute

The use of POV sources like Quackwatch, its related members and organizations is unbalanced. Whig 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

POV when citing them for propositions of fact. They are, however, a critic of homeopathy. So if we were to say "Quackwatch, a website critical of homeopathy asserts..." that would be fine. It seems like no part of the article needs a factual citation to him: the Avogadro's number bit is already elucidated elsewhere. Another cite refers to them as a critic. Looks ok on a casual glance Cool Hand Luke 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. Sometimes people think that a POV source can be used to cite statements of fact. That was the case above. It isn't that QW is a bad source, it's just only good in some ways for some things. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think my point here is that we include links to POV, but only one-sidedly, without balance. This is not NPOV. Whig 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This should have been under a different heading. I am not trying to interrupt another discussion, but had brought a new point under an NPOV dispute heading which someone reverted. Whig 06:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so what's the dispute? A subject criticized as often as homeopathy would not be NPOV if we excluded criticism. Cool Hand Luke 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to exclude criticism. In fact the article is mostly criticism now, as Peter mentions below. Be that as it may, I am only saying the article needs balance and the editors are refusing to allow any source to be added which balances the Quackwatch (and allied) POV. Whig 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no reliable source which comes to a conclusion substantively different than quackwatch regarding the scientific basis of homeopathy. ScienceApologist 15:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I might butt in here. I think the disupte centres mostly around the balance we need to try and obtain in the sources and in the article itself. Some of these sources are clearly extremist anti alt med sites that are very clearly POV and should be questioned rather than purged. Maybe some can be retained but that is down to the view of a neutral consensus. Another point concerns the article. It is riddled with crit and that gives the impression that crit is the only valid approach to this medicinal system. Yes, it is a valid medical system in use all over the world, used by millions and employed by hundreds of thousands of MD doctors. Yet every time even the faintest suggestion in sentence or in refs has been added to this article, over the last 18 months or so, that this is the case, it has been hastily deleted by the same band of anti homeopathy zealots we see in these talk pages. Now that's OK up to a point cuz yes it is a fringe subject and yes it does attract a lot of crit, BUT the article remains unbalanced and the poor folks who have tried repeatedly to include any sentence or ref that even remotely smacks of a pro homeopathy position is pounced on and removed. This has had the effect of wearing down all those folks who have tried to make such good faith inputs to the article and many have been scared away like chickens by the vociferous and hostile interventions of these anti homeopathy editors. This has given the strong impression of a war against this article from the pro science lobby. Does that give you a clearer picture? How we move forward is another question. thank you. Peter morrell 07:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is under attack by a "pro science lobby"? I could think of worse things.
At any rate, what sort of pro-homeopathy sources could we include? It seems that reliable claims of non-placebo effectiveness will be hard to come by. We already mention the prevalence of homeopathic remedies. Perhaps something about how patients perceive it to be a holistic alternative to conventional medicine? I think that sort of commentary would belong in the article, but what kinds of sources are now being excluded? Cool Hand Luke 07:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't recall all the sources that have been added and then deleted over the last 18 months. It would take weeks to plough through the diffs and find such data. Here [1] is an excellent modern textbook on the subject. Some quotes from chapter 3 of this book would be suitable, for example, to demonstrate the probability that the MDs worldwide who have used this therapeutic modality in the last 200 years were not all deluded fools, cranks and weirdos reliant entirely on some alleged placebo effect and thereby endangering their good faith patients. There are any number of excellent homeopathic sources which ought to be included in the article for the sake of balance. Any that were once there have been deleted by WDM or the folks alluded to earlier. I am merely making a suggestion. I don't claim to have all the answers and nor do I claim ownership and control over this article. Peter morrell 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with including homeopathic sources for describing what homeopaths claim. However, there is not a single homeopathic source which should be used to describe any scientific validity to the subject. In that realm, quackwatch is a much more reliable source. ScienceApologist 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed and is certainly not a scientific journal. Scientific claims should only be supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals - not from unchecked, partisan, self-published resources such as Quackwatch or the equivalent pro-homeopathy site. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the claims that quackwatch is debunking are themselves not peer-reviewed research in reputable journals, WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources comes into play. We can use quackwatch here because the subject he is criticizing has not received the attention in the mainstream journals. ScienceApologist 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Parity of Sources is an excellent policy which I admit I wasn't up on until you just pointed it out. That being said, it is still far better to use peer-reviewed studies rather than non-peer-reviewed opinions asserted as fact by a known partisan website. When we have better sources (more review, less bias, etc.), we should always opt for the better source. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have some alternative sources you would like to see included, that's fine with me. However, I don't see any justification for excluding quackwatch since Barrett is critiquing ideas that themselves have no basis in peer-reviewed literature. ScienceApologist 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to say what Quackwatch says, with attribution, so long as that POV is balanced by alternative POV of appropriate weight. In specific, I believe that the Hankey sentence discussed above would be appropriate to balance some of the anti-homeopathy POV throughout this article. Whig 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the Hankey sentence, in principle the guiding line for how to "balance" an article is NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. It is clear that the general consensus of mainstream medicine is that homeopathy is at best a placebo. The general consensus of biochemists, physicists, and other physical scientists is that there is no basis for the claims of homeopathists with regards to their extreme dilutions. Therefore, by the NPOV policy itself we are bound to explain that this is the case. That's not to say that we can't include counterarguments from the homeopathists, only that their counterarguments are not as weighty as the arguments against homeopathy. ScienceApologist 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The weight of the part of the article focusing on possible physical science explanations for homeopathy should fall WEIGHT-wise with the scientists, but this topic is not owned exclusively by science. It is also a topic of metaphysics, homeopathy being based on vitalism. From this angle, science has little to say except that it's "implausible" and doesn't fit in with the way science at this point seems to explain the world. There's nothing about this old theory (vitalism) that science can absolutely preclude -- a scientist would have to say that, given scientific explanations for the world we have now, we cannot rule out that there is a vital force. Homeopathy is a topic of metaphysics, science, and folk medicine; science does not own it. Friarslantern (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


From the Natural History Museum‘s website.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html

A debate with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre medical writer and broadcaster. Perhaps it could be added.

I watched it. To be honest, it was just two doctors, a homeopath and an allopath, claiming that the other was wrong. They looked at the studies, and one said all the studies that showed there was no evidence of efficacy were biased. And the other said that all the studies that showed evidence of efficacy were biased. In neither case was there enough information produced so that anyone could really judge and compare reasonably. So...what does this contribute?--Filll 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it contributes. It is a fair discussion between two respected MDs.

This is a perfect example of what a fair discussion should be. There are two different points of view, it is from a trustable source, (the Natural History Museum), it is very well presented and allows to the audience to think and decide. I think the Natural History Museum did a great job. James Randi's video does not offer any more info either, it is from one point of view only but it should be there it contributes – I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.118.215 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, no-one is disputing the Nat Hist Mus as a reliable source, but as mentioned above, what does it actually offer the reader/viewer? Peter morrell 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is serious criticism for the Lancet meta analysis (2005) from Dr. Fisher and there are appropriate answers to this criticism from. Dr Ben Goldacre. These specific arguments do not exist in the article. So far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.118.215 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK for my money go ahead no prob. Is there a consensus to include it or isn't anyone bothered either way? Go ahead and see if anyone reverts it. thanks Peter morrell 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, of course, so I don't know about the deeper problems. But I do know that the lead is terribly attributed, uses WTAs where it has absolutely no need to, and needs other work as well. As a general thing, if the lead is representative of the article, then the whole thing is indeed POV, and needs to be re-written in such a way that everything is attributed, and greater historical context is given for statements. I also note that there are very agressive editors here, who are even willing to revert tags which are explained on the talk page, and cite a consensus which obviously does not exist. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

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)

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)
Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tim Vickers 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wendell Holmes Link

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.[1][2] "

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)
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)
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)

re Detailed consultations.

Hi Thumperward.

I wanted to say why I reverted your edit. As noted at the top of this page, "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Because this is a controversial topic, justification and reference sources for changes are usually required. Thanks, Wanderer57 14:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The lead MUST summarize the entire article and not mentioning an important aspect of it would cause it to be incomplete. The article mentions the aspects of provings and thus the lead must also. As far as the references go, Using ";" to separate references makes it very confusing to see which references end where and which start where. The Bullets are much more clearer. We've already discussed the bunched up references and that markup is the best way to make it clear and readable. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, copyedits are not substantial changes.
Secondly, the paragraph in question is not a summary of what comes later: it's full duplication. A summary of the later paragraph could be expressed by adding a few words before the phrase "Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution" to indicate that a holistic investigation of the patient's health and mood is carried out first.
Thirdly, the references are a mess, and need a lot more work. This should not be masked by swathing them in presentational markup: it should be addressed directly. We shouldn't be including multiple sources in one reference in the first place; less notable or relevant sources should be removed, and other sources should be cited in separate reference tags.
Chris Cunningham 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it a total duplication? I wasn't aware of that. If that's true then we can reword it to properly summarize the content that comes later.
Concerning the references, What do you mean by "Presentational markup"? The bullets are a solution used in several articles to separate multiple references in a single citation. All of the references are relevant and it's important to properly reference the material with as many relevant references as is needed. Previously the sentence looked like "Sentence says so and so [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]" with each number being another reference. We added them all together into once citation so that just one link leads to the references used. Using a ";" makes it confusing. If you can find a better way to do it so that it's also not confusing and easy to read them please do so. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The [1][2][3][4] version is standard formatting for multiple footnotes both in Wikipedia and in the real world. It also helps to allow re-use where a sources is cited more than once. If there are other articles which are misusing presentational markup then they should be fixed too.
As to wat presentational markup is: it's markup which is only used for the sake of making things look better. Wikipedia should separate content from presentation wherever possible, and should seek to avoid any use of presentational markup. What may help readers using a Web browser to pick out individual references may have an entirely different effect if, for instance, a blind user is using a custom application to translate and read out Wiki markup. Chris Cunningham 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orangemarlin and Thumperward:
The edit summaries are actually not meant to include uncivil POV statements and questions such as:
"And what's with the POV crap added?" and
"the "detailed investigation" part is not-a-quack ass-covering".
The sentences that Thumperward deleted, I restored, and Orangemarlin deleted again have been in the article since about October 10, with slight variations. They are not something I added. I explained my revert above.
Re "copyedits are not substantial changes". In a controversial article such as this one, where there have been huge debates over wording, deletion of three sentences is a substantial change, IMHO.
Since the reference editing and the sentence deletion were in the same edit, both were reverted. I had nothing against the reference editing.
Wanderer57 18:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to keep questions of content and form separate. Thumperward and Orangemarlin seem to contest the NPOV of the sentences
In homeopathy, practitioners often carry out detailed consultations with patients. Homeopaths generally begin with a comprehensive examination of a patient's history, body type, temperature, food preferences, sleep habits, menstrual and emotional factors.[3][4] One of a wide variety of homeopathic remedies is then selected, based on the similarity of its effect on a healthy person to the symptoms found, and diluted by the process described above.
I believe that it is an uncontroversial characteristic of homeopathy, at least of classical homeopathy, that more time is spent on the initial anamnesis than in conventional medicine, and I don't see any problem with reporting this. Is this fact being contested, or just the wording? Do we need a reference for this? As to the form, I am not convinced that grouping references is a good idea, but it is not very important to me. --Art Carlson 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I apologise for the less-than-courteous edit summary. It was brusque, but not intended to cause offence.
Secondly, the issue is not that the phrase is "controversial" as such, but that its inclusion (in such detail as to allocate 20-25% of the intro to it) in the article lead gives undue weight to the examination as a factor in the subject's importance. Most of the discussion, and hence controversy, around the subject comes from the prescription itself, not the diagnosis. It would seem evident that most any medical practice would entail detailed examination beforehand; that homoeopathy dictates a holistic approach to such examination was not addressed succinctly by this paragraph, and were it to be included it could quite easily be so in a clause prior to the sentence I indicated in my previous comment. Chris Cunningham 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chris. Thank you for the clarifications. A couple of comments. I think the first part of your second paragraph implies that the controversial aspects of homeopathy deserve more coverage than more "conventional" and positive ones. 2nd point - I think homeopathy puts particular emphasis on initial very detailed study of the patient. This is NOT true of all medical practice. Some psychiatrists use an approach that could be caricatured without too much distortion as "Hi Doctor, I'm depressed". "Try these pills and see if they help. Come back next month. Sooner if they make you sick." Wanderer57 06:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "detailed consultations" paragraph and don't see it as promoting any POV. Tim Vickers 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Chris Cunningham does raise a valid and simple point - relative to its uniqueness, importance, and fraction of the article as a whole, that statement is longer than it needs to be for the lede. It's not POV per se, but just undue weight. I don't see this as a major issue, but I think shortening is reasonable. Antelan talk 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolved.

Current version looks great. Thanks, folks. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

proposal

I suggest that this article refer to religion somewhere, since it requires a similar belief. Just need to find a spot. I would also suggest a thourough clean up, the explanation on the dilution is perhaps a little too thorough. Sikkema 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources in mind to draw this connection? Homeopathy proponents would likely bristle at that comment, and something that would probably be contested should be backed by an RS. Antelan talk 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems almost anything will "probably be contested" by somebody. Anything more controversial than the spelling of homeopathy should be backed by an RS.
Sorry, bad example. It has three spellings.  ;o) Wanderer57 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of "religion" per se, the word "metaphysical" is closer to the truth. It takes not only defiance of logic but alot of magical thinking to really believe in homeopathy, especially the idea of water memory. Magical thinking is a prime factor, since it involves several key elements necessary for a belief in homeopathy. -- Fyslee / talk 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note CONTROVERSIAL TAG on this article

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

I reverted some recent changes. Changes to this article really ought to be discussed. Many editors have worked a lot to reach the degree of consensus that exists.

Thanks, Wanderer57 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sentences in the lead seem out of order, i.e. the physical aspects of dilution are discussed in two different locations, as is the theory behind it, etc. I would like to change the sentence order without making any changes in the actual material, as follows:

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of Complementary and alternative medicine postulated in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[5] 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. This process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, is claimed to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment, and to retain some therapeutic powers. Although at many of the higher dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain,[6] homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some memory of the diluted substance to remain, and that this imprint has therapeutic effects on the body.[7] Hahnemann believed the process of dilution and shaking aroused and enhanced "spirit-like medicinal powers held within a drug,"[8] but this is not consistent with the established laws of chemistry and physics, and there is no evidence that water or alcohol retain memories of substances.[9]

The ideas of homeopathy seem scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and scientific theories.[10] Very highly diluted homeopathic medicines obviously cannot have any classical pharmacological effect, though this does not automatically mean that homeopathy is clinically ineffective. Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy have limited support in scientific and clinical studies.[11][12][13][14] Researchers are investigating possible mechanisms and sites of action of homeopathic dilutions in the body.

Practitioners of homeopathy, some of whom are conventionally qualified medical doctors, carry out detailed consultations with patients before selecting from a wide variety of remedies. Usage of homeopathy varies from country to country but is generally low, with about 2% of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year.[15][16]

The lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, 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."[17] Indeed, meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[18][19][20][21] Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, and some homeopaths advise patients to avoid standard medical procedures such as vaccination.[22][23]

Yes, no?? Hal peridol 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No. That's not just a minor arrangement of sentences. You've changed the wording in some places. For instance the current article says that "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" yet you've written "Seem scientifically implausible". Wikidudeman (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Hal took the version that Rmathie introduced as the consensus version - it isn't. Rmathie inserted the "seem scientifically implausible" stuff. This version[2] is a better starting point, if we're going to rearrange the intro (which I am not convinced is necessary, at any rate). Cheers, Skinwalker 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that that was the version I started from. My major concern with the introduction is the way it is organized. The first paragraph gives a definition and talks about dilution and how homeopaths think it works. Then a paragraph about the prevalence of use. Then a sentence logically connected to the discussion of dilution stating that the theory is scientifically unsupported. Then another sentence similar to that two paragraphs ago about the historical theory of dilution, etc. It is very fragmented in flow. Hal peridol 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, I would like to move the sentence "Hahnemann believed the process..." to immediately follow "...imprint has therapeutic effects on the body", and the two sentences about consultation and usage to the end of the intro. Hal peridol 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just make the edits, if they are reverted then we can discuss it. I need to see what they are in Diff's before I can judge. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wikidudeman: I figure the CONTROVERSIAL tag on the article means what it says -- discuss substantial changes before making them. You seem to be saying the opposite -- make edits, then we can discuss if a "revert war" starts up. Did I understand you correctly?
Wikipedia consensus process flowchart
Wikipedia consensus process flowchart
I'm asking because I think it would be better for the article and the editors involved if this was clearer. Thanks. Wanderer57 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with wikidudeman it will simply be easier to judge the changes you have in mind by just doing them and then we can see how it looks and decide. thanks Peter morrell 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter and Wikidudeman: Are you just talking about the changes Hal has suggested, or about edits to the article in general? I think it would be good if this was really clear. Thanks. Wanderer57 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OK well, I am talking solely about the proposed changes Hal has suggested making. Once they are up then they can be judged easier. thanks Peter morrell 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you THINK that the change will be reverted then discuss it first. If you don't know if it will be reverted or not then make the change and see what happens. Be Bold. "Edit wars" only occur when An edit is made, the edit is reverted and that revert is reverted without changes made to the initial version of the edit. Simply making an edit and waiting to see if it's reverted doesn't equal an edit war. Make an edit, if it's reverted then you discuss it. If it's not, Then you've got a new consensus. Here is a flow chart explaining it: Wikidudeman (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Cute flow chart. Oversimplified about 9X.  ;o)
Consensus in Homeopathy often seems to mean people are tired of arguing, not that they agree. (personal opinion.)
Peter says he was talking solely about Hal's proposed changes. How about you, Wikidudeman? Thanks, Wanderer57 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all - and just as my opinion, on a controversial topic such as this, I generally do prefer to give at least some idea of what I'll be doing before actually doing it, particularly since I know that most parts of the article have seen multiple changes. That way, there's already a section available for discussion of the changes. Hal peridol 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 →

Removal of word controversial

I notice that people have removed the word controversial from the LEAD. I replaced it. This has been in the LEAD for years. This wording was agreed to by consensus. It is clearly a controversial technique. Who disagrees that homeopathy is controversial? Why on earth would anyone remove that? --Filll 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"controversial", much like "clearly", is one of those words which screams "POV" in almost any case. Labelling a whole topic as "controversial", in the very first sentence, immediately puts the reader in a particular state of mind. Considering that the article is in Category: Fraud already, apparently uncontested of late, I'd rather that the lead actually took a stance and outright called it a pseudoscience than took the easy way out and labelled it "controversial". Either that or we remove the word (and the bad categories) and let the reader decide based on the content, rather than trying to lead them. Chris Cunningham 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:LEAD and you'll see that significant content should be mentioned in the lead, and that's why controversial is perfectly appropriate in the lead. -- Fyslee / talk 07:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it's appropriate in the first sentence. This would generally not be considered NPOV as the first description used in the first sentence of an encyclopedia. Friarslantern 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it's inappropriate either. NPOV doesn't mean that no opinions or facts are being expressed, just that we (the editors) don't show our POV. If something is documented or incontrovertible fact (such as homeopathy being controversial), it would make no difference even if it were a very strong POV on only one side of a question (which it isn't in this case, it's just a dry fact), it would still be NPOV to state it. Since the WP:LEAD should summarize important points in the article, just using that one word saves whole sentences and keeps the lead shorter. -- Fyslee / talk 21:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A subject can certainly be both a pseudoscience and controversial; there's no need to select among the two. Intelligent design certainly was both, for a time, in the United States. Antelan talk 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Most folks have been perfectly happy with the word controversial now for a long time. It is pretty harmless in this context. It is akin to disputed. Homeopathy is certainly both from a mainstream viewpoint so I can't really see what all the fuss about one word is all about! thanks Peter morrell 07:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The sources say controversial. That's what it is, controversial. If it weren't then there wouldn't be 18 archives of constant arguing about the topic. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe this topic as controversial. Tim Vickers 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt about it. It's controversial, but this too can be discussed as it depends on which "arena" is being discussed. Among mainstream scientists in the "arena" of established science there is no controversy - they are skeptical and reject it totally. It's a non-issue to them. What is controversial to them is when they find other scientists (obviously in a fringe, pseudoscience arena) still attempting to pawn it off as true and scientific (which makes it qualify for the designation "pseudoscience"). They then apply their well-established skepticism to the situation (pseudoscientists and producers of homeopathic products attempting to fool people) and protest loudly in the press and skeptical journals, while generally ignoring it in their own journals, which are devoted to real scientific inquiry, not dead and long since debunked metaphysical theories that require magical thinking.
Now that's where the controversy exists. There would be no controversy if fringe pseudoscientists and true believers didn't keep resurrecting what should be a dead horse. We find legitimate mainstream scientists in one arena where there is no controversy, and pseudoscientists in another (parallel-universe sort of) arena where they preach nonsense.
At the top of this page we find this box:
News On 14 September 2007, Homeopathy/Archive 20 was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
In that slash.dot source we find the interesting words: "... Ars chose a relatively uncontroversial pseudo-science to examine so that they could examine the factors which make homeopathy a psuedo-science: ignoring settled issues in science, misapplication of real science, rejection of scientific standards, claims of suppression, large gaps between the conclusion and evidence, and a focus only on the fringes of what we currently understand." [emphasis added by Fyslee]
This use of "uncontroversial" is obviously referring to the first arena, where scientists are agreed that it's nonsense. It is nonscience and uncontroversial to them. The arstechnica article should be used in this article:
-- Fyslee / talk 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure I got the point of your discussion, Fyslee. If one "arena" disagrees strongly with the other "arena" (and if the arenas are big enough), there is controversy, even if there was unanimity in the 1st arena. Wanderer57 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that there is controversy between the two arenas, but not in the mainstream scientific one. There it is a settled issue and generally ignored. Above were listed some of the factors which make homeopathy a pseudoscience:
  • ignoring settled issues in science,
  • misapplication of real science,
  • rejection of scientific standards,
  • claims of suppression,
  • large gaps between the conclusion and evidence, and
  • a focus only on the fringes of what we currently understand.
Some regular editors occasionally seem to labor under the delusion that mainstream science is in doubt about the legitimacy of homeopathy. That is not the case. They think it's hogwash.
One of the main reasons it is still around is its privileged and protected status under FDA regulations. "The FDA treats homeopathic remedies very differently than conventional medicines. Homeopathic products do not need FDA approval before sale; they do have to be proven safe since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, any products prior to 1994 may or may not have been tested for safety, but they do not have to prove efficacy; they do not have to be labeled with an expiration date; and they do not have to undergo finished product testing to verify contents and strength, all of these are voluntary actions done by the manufacturer. The manufacturer is required to have all ingredients on the label; however, it might not specify which ones are active."
Here is an excellent source dealing with the history of these (lack of)regulations:
-- Fyslee / talk 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm a mainstream scientist, and I don't doubt that homeopathy is hogwash, but I'm not sure that proves anything. If the situation is a clear cut as you portray, why is it so hard to find a really solid source that also uses such clear language? The sources we cite in the article use language like "not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions", "relevant methodological weaknesses", and "insufficient evidence to support". That may be the way that scientists express lack of doubt, but I'm not sure we have the authority to revise their choice of wording. --Art Carlson 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we can't revise their wording. That would be OR. I do have an explanation (which we can't use here, but which has been described elsewhere) for precisely(!) the wording you mention. Those studies, IIRC, are done by scientists who are believers in homeopathy. With few exceptions, they are the only ones who bother researching it. As is common with research from believers in alternative medicine, and from research specifically funded by the NCCAM, if the research totally fails to confirm their beliefs, their conclusions are often nonconclusive, even though the research was a total failure as far as attempting to prove that some alternative method is worth using or actually does what is usually claimed for it. Instead of just telling it like it is and concluding that "our research showed so little or absolutely no effect that we must conclude that any more research of this type will likely be a waste of time and money; that further use of such claims must be considered fraudulent; and that further use of this method cannot be excused"....they waffle, beat around the bush, and provide such inconclusive pseudo-conclusions. They need to be more honest, but that would be like cutting off the branch they are sitting on, so they waffle. To some degree this also happens within legitimate, mainstream, medical research, but it is a dangerous thing to do since it will usually be discovered and the researchers not only fired in disgrace with their names exposed in the NY Times, they will also be blacklisted. When it happens to researchers in alternative subjects (not often since there isn't as much monitoring in that branch) it sometimes happens to already disgraced or fringe scientists. They have little or nothing to lose, and it usually doesn't get much notice, since the industry they work for (the alternative medical industry is larger than the pharmaceutical industry) is perfectly content with such inconclusive pseudo-conclusions. -- Fyslee / talk 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Do homeopaths universally claim scientific backing where there is clearly none? Or perhaps don't many of them simply believe in the vital force theory? I don't know. To these practitioners, homeopathy would fall in the realm of metaphysics, where the question of its controversy has not even been considered here. Science doesn't own this topic, particularly if the posited basis for it is in a realm unacknowledged by science (i.e., metaphysics). I'd say if our language here is accurate (meta-analyses show that "any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo") that's a relatively weak statement for something that may rightly be a real, but very weak, effect. It's really friggin' hard to prove such a negative; thus, scientific knowledge generally doesn't indicate there are no water "memories" -- even though scientists generally will opine that there is no such thing, not because there is evidence that there is no such thing, but rather because a)there is no clear evidence that positively supports such a theory at this time, and b)as a sociological matter, as a way of combatting their opposites, people who make gratuitous claims about the material world based on religious, spiritual, or philosophical bases, a practice once thought to be dying out but which in the last decade or two has been revived due to the popularity of Christian fundamentalism and New Age movements. Normally, science is content to say "we have looked into it quite a bit and have no good evidence for the efficacy of such a practice." Here, they want to go a step further and make broader statements, with the ostensible caché of science. IMHO. Friarslantern 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Science can, however, say that studies show any effect, if it exists, is very small, and thus cannot be of the grand size with ability to treat all diseases that homeopaths claim. Adam Cuerden talk 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Adam has restored the previously disputed quackwatch article link re Oliver Wendell Holmes. I thought we had agreed through consensus NOT to link to this item? Can we delete it once again please? thanks Peter morrell 08:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A. It's not a quackwatch article, it's a reprint, B. someone had deleted it from external links outright. If you want to change the link, fine, but it's an important historical critique, so it deserves to be mentioned. Adam Cuerden talk 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It did indeed get deleted for some reason not sure why or how; it was agreed I think to use the Cazalet version instead which is probably still used as a ref in the text body; however, it is not a good article or critique because it rambles all over the place and is just a rhetorical dismissal of homeopathy based purely on disbelief. It is however an historical item. Far better (i.e. meatier and substantial as proper discussions rather than diatribes) are the works of Henderson, Forbes, Simpson et al from the same period, none of which regrettably are online. There is also a reply to Holmes by Bellows, from the same period. These are all downloadable from Univ Michigan Library. thanks Peter morrell 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue was thoroughly discussed in the earlier section "Quackwatch refs". My impression then was a decision to use the Cazalet link (as neutral) rather than the Quackwatch link, to lead to the Holmes article.
Despite the excellent flowchart provided above, I don't know when "an impression of a decision" turns into a "Wikipedia consensus". It is like Wonder Woman changing her clothes; it happens in a flash and no one sees it happen.
Kidding aside, IMHO there is a real problem in this Talk page, of discussions that do not result in clear decisions. Subsequently, one person can say the consensus was so-and-so, and another say the consensus was the opposite. At this point the whole discussion can be re-enacted.
Is there any mechanism available for making and logging decisions? (he says optimistically) Wanderer57 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


There are both formal and informal methods of doing this. Usually people just go informally; if it looks like a lot of people disagree with your stance, then you are pretty sure that it will get reverted when you try to implement your suggested changes. So you don't bother. There is also a way to do actual "voting" of a sort on the talk pages, a type of RfC.--Filll 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Filll. I've seen the SHMPA (see how many people argue) method in operation and I personally don't think it's very good. As I said above, we have arguments about what the consensus "was" when in fact either none was ever reached, or else it went unrecorded.
I would like to know your opinion on 1) is it a "reasonably good" method, and 2) can we do better by going to the "voting" you mention? (Same questions to the other people who work here.) Thanks, Wanderer57 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is used in the body of the article as a ref, there is no need to keep it in the External Links. Plus, more than just used as a ref, Holmes' essay is discussed in the article. Remove it from external links because it is repetitive (and redundant ;-). I thought we had already agreed to this a few conversations back. Also, Peter, works don't have to be online for you to cite them. If it is a notable published work, it can be cited without an online reference. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. (Meaning that I switched the links, though I still think it should be removed from EL as it is already referenced and highlighted in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article

[3] Adam Cuerden talk 11:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it could be promising for inclusion into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it promising for inclusion? what does this article prove? Peter morrell 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it proves anything. It's promising for inclusion because it seems somewhat notable. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it notable? Peter morrell 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Be serious. It is not notable as an example of ONE; it might be notable if it were a list of thousands of similar cases. It might be suitable for inclusion if it were balanced by stories of cures through homeopathy. Can you find some? No prize for guessing why it was sent in by an anti homeopath. Peter morrell 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, in some newspapers you can find reports of homeopathic cures. Let's include those too just for balance, eh? or don't you believe in balance and NPOV? what name calling? be specific. thanks Peter morrell 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone here speak Hebrew and/or obtain access to Israeli medical journals?[4] Skinwalker 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

A Look from the outside

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)

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)
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)
"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)

Hang about - remind me again - had the theory of bacteria been adequately proven and accepted by peer reviewers at the time that Semmelweiss was cast out of the medical community? Did Jenner receive full acceptance from the scientific research of the time? I think not. But as said - this should be an article about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. It should reflect what homeopaths say first and then the detractors who point out the scientific state today. Would you not agree? Or else you are implicitly saying you prefer the article to be anti-homeopathy and choose to word it thus? docboat 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

No, the goal is to explain what homeopathy is, not to make it plausible or implausible. It is not about concensus either, but about verifiable facts, put in a NPOV manner. It is also not about what mainstream scientists determine homeopathy to be, for this is about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. And because there are editors on this page who do not understand these simple things, this article is POV. Can we agree on that? docboat 07:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Tell everything about a subject - yes, agreed. The issue is really about the bias we all have to an article, and if you have - as stated in the talk page - an inherent bias against the topic, then you are bound to have a POV attitude in your writing style. And I fear you misunderstood my point. It is not about writing from a POV position of a homeopath, but of writing an article that tells us about homeopathy, first and foremost. An article written in NPOV style - and it has rightly been pointed out that this article is not written in such an NPOV style. It should be addressed. Now, I have absolutely no intention of making alterations to this article just now - it has too many cooks of differing culinary art for it to tolerate another dose of salt, however homeopathically dosed. But it would be really good if you, and other anti-homeopathic contributors (you do not mind the label, you asserted?) would sit back and review the style of this article. As I said earlier, this needs to be an article on homeopathy, and at the moment it is an excellent article on anti-homeopathy. docboat 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • Hi, Antelan. It is not so much about specifics - someone made some specific changes today which were reverted (see the topic below) - but about attitude. If we can simply agree on that issue, that there is a POV bias because of attitude (and it goes both ways, for sure!) then what we should do is get together, pro/anti and neutral on the topic, and look at how the wording and style has been chosen, and see if there is a middle ground concensus which meets the facts and deals with POV. Perhaps the article needs to be taken apart section by section, and worked over. Something like having a red line of headers to hang the topic on, and attack each header systematically. For example, my first "translation" above should have the "yet" removed. And so on. docboat 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been specific about POV in the lead, and my edits are a suggestion as to how to fix it. Please someone fix the archives. I think it is quite clear that Homeopathy does contradict science, and we should get used to that. But we should also note that it is widely used in the medical pharmacological arena. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Hi, 91.96.36.230 here. To make clear what i mean with strange to read. As i started to read the article i had the feeling that the the authors of the lead are trying to push my opinion in a direction from the start. It tastes fishy when a article starts with opinions and it leaves a feeling of unreliability (oh god sorry for my horrible grammar, i hope the half of my "ramblings" are understandable). By the way i read the english wiki often after i read a article in the german wiki, because the articles in the english have often more content. The german wiki has a very similiar lead to this one, but without all the negative parts. The first sentence makes it clear that it is a controverse practice (in both germ. wiki and engl.) and the last sentence of the first part and the second part makes it clear that there is no scientific prove that it works. So why is there a need to use the word claim/believe in every sentence? 80.228.182.230 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 →


Systematic bias

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)

POV lead

I tried to neutralize the lead by eliminating WTAs, to give proper attribution to the statements -which are now in very bad shape- and to give a better picture of the practical status of Homeopathy in practice. It was immediately reverted. Thus, I've placed a POV tag on the article till the problems can be worked out. Please take my edits as a suggestion. There is no need to write the lead in a POV manner, as the same content can be conveyed without breaking NPOV, ATT and WTA. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific please. What WTAs? What is not properly attributed? Specifically? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin, your first edit (in this round) started with this edit summary:
  • "Writing in a neutral tone without WTAs, without changing meaning."
Well, it did change the meaning. It happened when you changed this:
  • "This process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, called potentization, is claimed to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment, and to retain some therapeutic powers." [emphasis added]
to this:
  • "This process of serial dilution, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, is called potentization. It is intended to remove any negative side-effects of the treatment, while retaining therapeutic powers,..." [emphasis added]
Your edit introduced a subtle change that makes assumptions of fact about matters that are not proven fact and that defy logic. It changed a presentation of what homeopaths actually claim happens (thus presenting - but not advocating - the pro-homeopathic POV), to a statement of what they intend that left the statement with their assumption that two things actually are true and happen i.e. that negative side-effects really are removed, and that there even exist therapeutic powers. Neither one is proven to be true at all, and therefore should not be presented as if they are. It ends up not only presenting the pro-homeopathy POV, it assumes it is true, which is selling and advocating homeopathy, both forbidden by NPOV. It would be a different matter if those matters were obvious facts unequivocally proven by science to be true. Then it could be stated without any modifying terms, since uncontroversial statements don't need qualifiers or even special documentation or references. Then common sense rules our editing. Things (like homeopathy) that defy common sense, as well as physical reality and possibility (based on present knowledge and evidence) must be accompanied by modifiers.
I AGF and don't think you consciously intended to do this, but your beliefs and biases in favor of homeopathy (and the paranormal) are so strong that it's pretty hard for you to avoid. (Welcome to the club. You're not the only one who suffers from myopia at times, but you don't seem to understand it.) This is quite natural, but considering your track record of constantly doing this, which is abundantly documented in all the disputes you have gotten into, you should consider editing other types of articles (where you have no particular opinion either way). -- Fyslee / talk 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
With the specific example Fyslee spells out about (claim v. intended), I have to say that I see MartinPhi's point entirely. Please read WP:WTA#Claim. The sentence as it is written with "claim" does feel a bit weaselly and seems to suggest that Homeopaths aren't being truthful about the effects of potenization. Quite the opposite, homeopaths certainly do believe the truth about the effects of potentization. Regardless of whether you believe or dismiss homeopathy, homeopaths do believe in it and thus in their minds they are being truthful about the intent of potentization. Thus, I think "intended" is a much better word to use than "claim". Remember, just because someone is intending something, does not make that effect certain. Thus, by using "intended" we are not saying that the effects of potentization are real, but rather that the effects are merely intended to happen by homeopaths (but with intent there is a possibility that it may or may not happen).
With that and other POV issues MartinPhi alludes to, I think his addition of a POV tag to the article is certainly justified and should not be reverted until this discussion has settled. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. The POV tag is justified. But I really like the approach I see now to dealing with POV. docboat 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I can support a specific and narrow change from "claim" to "intend" in the passage described by Fyslee. Skinwalker 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please feel free to implement when you feel we are ready. MartinPhi, might I suggest going through each WTA issue and specify how you feel it could be better as we have done above. Small steps, everyone. Small steps. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The use of "intended" does seem to be sufficiently ambiguous as to be interpreted as possible advocacy of the belief. Several alternate options exist, e.g.; "the process...is believed by homeopaths to...", "the process...is seen by homeopaths as a means to..." etc. - LuckyLouie 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at. Your propositions may solve the problem. If we don't do something (if "claim" is changed to "intend"), it will leave readers with the impression that such things actually are true and happen. That would be misleading. The first one does it fine, while the second still leaves the door open. This works: "the process...is believed by homeopaths to..." That states the pro-homeopathy POV clearly. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Unintentional narrowing of discussion to a forced choice ("claimed" or "intended" - choose one!") is never a good thing, and "...said by homeopaths to..." may be another viable option in this case. - LuckyLouie 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood you. I thought we were trying to try out different wordings to try and find one we could agree on and I provided my opinion. Apparently that was not your intention. Whatever. -- Fyslee / talk 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't misunderstand, you got it right, we are both in agreement. I was just trying to give you some more options. Sorry for the inscrutable comment. It's late ; ) - LuckyLouie 06:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Late for you, early for me....;-) It's alright. We just have (at least) two jobs here: We need to make sure that the pro-homeopathy POV is clearly expressed so readers understand the POV. At the same time - because that POV makes a number of false assumptions - we need to protect readers from deception. Such assumptions do cause real, unnecessary, and preventable deaths. Readers need to be prevented from coming away with the impression that those assumptions are true. That's where the scientific/skeptical POV is expressed. Both POV are required for the article to be balanced and NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What are some alternatives we can use to "claim" or "intend"? It seems both are considered loaded terms. I can think of a few...

  • "hypothesize" bad due to connection with scientific method
  • "postulate" again, ascribes scientific investigation
  • "posit" may not be the best english
  • "allege" may also be loaded
  • "attest" does not imply bad faith by homeopaths, yet does not imply efficacy either
  • "imply" perhaps not accurate, as it is explicitly claimed and not implied
  • "signify" <--- this is my favorite, lmao </silly>

I'm open to considering changes to the lead, but I concur with Fyslee and others that we need to balance the objectively false assumptions behind homeopathic theory with a neutral description of the topic. We cannot cross the line into a sympathetic point of view, which Martin's edits were clearly designed to accomplish. Skinwalker 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, speaking as an allopathic physician, I need to tell you that the #3 (#4 depending on sources) cause of death in the USA with 120,000 annual deaths is "properly prescribed medication which has been properly administered" and accounts for 6% of all UK hospital admissions, 0.15% of which end fatally. Damned if I can find the sources just now, but google will no doubt answer. Now how about deaths due to homeopathy? And what, I ask you, does the presence of an article on homeopathy, written from the POV of homeopaths, have to do with free choice of the individual? Surely, as a darwinian, we need to allow people to make informed (if silly) choices about their own health? The ones who demand an antibiotic for a viral sore throat are just as ill-informed as a cancer sufferer who chooses to ignore chemotherapy in preference to a homeopathic remedy. Now as for deception: heavy stuff. If you want to call homeopathy a "deception", that is fine. You will, of course, be able to assert the fact of deception clearly? The fact that you dispute any efficacy is fine too. But you have absolutely no duty to protect readers from deception. Your task on this encyclopaedia is to provide information. This point is important - please read it closely: It is the duty of each rational person to take responsibility for their own health and well-being. It is not the responsibility of others to force their concept of right and wrong on anyone else. I cite the example of Jehovah's Witnesses, people that have caused me extreme distress when watching helplessly when they exsanguinate. I can quote an understanding of "blood" in the biblical sense as pertaining to eating animal sacrifice, not transfusion. And it is irrelevant. It is the right of an individual to take the steps that s/he feels right. So with this article. Your POV concerning a lack of efficacy must not be allowed to detract from the topic at hand. Anyway, just a few thoughts from the sharp end of medicine. docboat 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How about the word contend? is that not more neutral? thanks Peter morrell 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I like contend as well. Anyone else? Skinwalker 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Contend is better than claim. Not perfect. But definitely an improvement. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9310601

1: Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43 INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

I think the phrase "Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, have shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and that studies that suggest genuine homeopathic effects have generally been flawed in design.[15][16][17][18. is not accurate and should be modified in order to include the results of the meta analysis published in the Lancet. You could also include the observation that " there is insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."

BTW I did not see this study in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New article

Maybe folks can decide if they would like to include this new article [5] Jeanette Winterson, In Defence of Homeopathy, The Guardian, 13 November 2007 thanks Peter morrell 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article, but nothing new. We have a journalist writing her opinion. She does cite some sources, which may make them citable. I guess it all depends on what part of the article someone wishes to use and why. -- Fyslee / talk 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Heavy on anecdotal evidence, not much on either description or scientific analysis. No visible notability of the source. I don't think it helps us. --Art Carlson 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And this one justifies homeopathy through... nanoparticles? That's a new one. We can use as Winterson's opinion, but I don't think her opinion is that notable. Skinwalker 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, whatever's sexy this week. Give me some time and I'll cook up an explanation based on the giant magnetoresistance. --Art Carlson 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That was uncalled for. This is a serious topic, not a plaything for the amusement of those who are determined to push POV. docboat 13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please lighten up. I gave serious consideration to whether I needed to add a smiley or a pre-emptive apology to prevent hurt feelings. I decided the participants were mature enough not to take it as a personal attack. I guess I was wrong. You might not like my joke, but I think accusing me of POV pushing in the article is "uncalled for". You have to admit, anyone trying to explain homeopathy with nanoparticles either hasn't thought the idea through or doesn't have a clue. Physicists have known for decades that nanoparticles have different properties from bulk material, and they have known for centuries that sufficiently small particles remain suspended indefinitely. And nanoparticles are diluted out of existence even faster than molecules are. Is that serious enough? --Art Carlson 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an additional problem using that article to support claims in Wikipedia:
From the article: "Bulk material should have constant physical properties, regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is not the case."
From Wikipeda: Nanoparticle: "A bulk material should have constant physical properties regardless of its size, but at the nano-scale this is often not the case." (Text added 08:34, 8 October 2005 by Dancarney.
We end up with slightly circular citations, I think. — BillC talk 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! I think we're treating this with the appropriate level of seriousness. Skinwalker 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, possibly, if you are treating things with a level of seriousness which is appropriate for you. But it bodes ill for the article if the main editors on a topic are both antipathetic to the topic and lighthearted in their approach. Don't you agree? But I shall lighten up and try to see the funny side. docboat 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of physical models proposed, including Bénard cells, vibrations, etc. We don't have instruments that I'm aware can prove which physical model is correct at this time, but we do know by the first law of thermodynamics that all energy is conserved, and we do know from quantum mechanics that particles and waves are physically interchangable. The atomic limit is not a real limit in physics. Whig 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, these have little relevance in (bio)chemistry. A molecule can only react with another molecule if both are actually, physically present. The statistical "randomness" of the quantum domain cancels out at a remarkably low level; chemical substances really do behave according to quite mechanical rules. --FOo 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh, but you fail to take into account the fact that homeopaths treat substances that are absent as if they were present. (Don't try to figure out the (lack of) logic in that one. It will drive you mad....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Quantum chemistry relates to interactions at the submolecular level. Whig 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it still deals with the interactions and electronic structure of atoms and molecules that are actually present in the substance in question. Quantum chemistry does not deal with suspected left-over waveforms from molecules that previously shared a beaker with the substance but are no longer present. It does not propose that absent or nonexistent molecules influence chemical reactions. As such it has zero relevance to homeopathy. --FOo 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy does not fit into the standard theories of chemistry. It is nonetheless physically plausible, according to cited physicists, and has medicinal effect, according to cited medical doctors. Whig 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
On its own terms, homeopathy is energetic medicine, that is to say, it is not presumed to be chemical in operation any more than X-rays. Whig 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Winterson is an author, not a scientist. I read this and knew it would come up here - not relevant in the slightest. Her opinion is no more valid than mine (probably less). Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a much better follow-up in today's Guardian (16th November 2007) which explains evidence-based medicine and how it applies to homeopathy. Unlike Winterson's mumbo-jumbo this one actually contains some useful information. WombatDeath 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can specify what useful info it contains? it reads as usual like one long boring uninformed flow of anti homeopathy rhetoric. the usual blather. what facts? what new info? in actual fact it's crap ...nothing new in that Peter morrell 12:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I've told you already: "explains evidence-based medicine and how it applies to homeopathy". I didn't say that it was new information, since that depends on the knowledge of the reader; I said that it was useful. If you want more, I was personally enlightened by the description of the clinical research database (having been previously unaware of it) as a mechanism to counter publication bias.
On a related note, it is rather perplexing that you reject an article on scientific testing as 'uninformed' and 'crap' while supporting another consisting of voodoo and anecdotal evidence. What information, exactly, is offered by Winterson that you feel should be used in this article? WombatDeath 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Although both are highly rhetorical and unsourced (except the Lancet version of Goldacre's article), I also found Goldacre much meatier than Winterson. I think he does a good job of summing up the arguments against homeopathy in a systematic way. Although you might question whether the experiment has been done "time and time again", I thought his description of a "model trial for homeopathy" was exactly what homeopaths say we need more of. --Art Carlson 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead length

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I just removed this section:

"Although at many of the higher dilutions have no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain,[6] homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some memory of the diluted substance to remain, and that this imprint has therapeutic effects on the body.[24] "

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)

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)
But is this article about the controversy or about homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Canvassing

You should all be aware that a notice has been placed here: page

diff ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)