Talk:Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.

Contents

[edit] Creation

I've taken the initiative and created this article as a main subarticle for Homeopathy (which at 109 kB was getting way too long), using the heading there as a LEAD here, but duplicating it as a summary of this article, within the homeopathy page. Fiddling with both may be done as necessary, but this is a first pass fix. SBHarris 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Jefffire (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
i agree that it looks very good. however i think that the outline of Great BRiains past homoepathy prevalence could be merged into the section on Great Britain to make it more consistnefct. Smith Jones (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathy as an undesirable synonym for modern medicine

SJ, I think it might be advisable to use a word other than allopathic medicine which is regarded by many mainstream docs as derogatory, a term of abuse. Just a thought, cheers Peter morrell 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if Smith Jones actually used the word here; it seems that on this page he didn't. But it is mentioned in several places, including the Germany section that I wrote. The reason is that it is one of the terms used in the WHO report, and I tried to cite them as correctly as possible, in the first iteration. (That's also the reason for the clumsy "alternative/complementary medicine" wording.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but 'mainstream medicine' might be a preferable term? Peter morrell 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for me, although I suspect that the WHO had good reasons not to use it. Of course, if it was because in some countries it's not mainstream, then it wouldn't really affect us that much. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i dont think that i have use d the phrase "allopathic medicine" either here or on this article tiself. however i agree with your point about it being seen as derogatory and we should only mention it if necessary fto make the subject clearer. Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to second this: Allopathy is not a good synonym for "medicine as taught in regular medical schools." For one thing, the so-called allopaths in this sense have never actually followed the principles ascribed to them. Hahnemann's main complaint with them was actually their empiricism: a steady refusal to follow beautiful theories instead of their ugly data.
For another, there are true allopaths in the world (including most herbalists, although they don't use that name), and I suspect that they cringe every time they see allopathy mischaracterized as (for example) prescribing synthetic ethinyl estradiol for hot flashes instead of wild yam.
Finally, the prevalence of these two different uses varies by country, and we should not assume that "my" default interpretation of this ambiguous term is the same as all of our readers.
Obviously, we should never change direct quotes. However, in our own writing, we also shouldn't use ambiguous terms like this whenever we can avoid them. WP:WTA#Words with controversial or multiple meanings applies directly to this situation. I will try to remove a few unnecessary instances of this word in a minute; I'd appreciate it if someone else would see what other improvements could be easily made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by this phrase: Hahnemann's main complaint with them was actually their empiricism: a steady refusal to follow beautiful theories instead of their ugly data?? What 'ugly data?' whose 'beautiful theories?' he detested theories and would have been flattered to be termed an out and out empiricist. Your claim is odd. I never had that impression, can you please expand on your idea, preferably with some evidence? thanks Peter morrell 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Are you familiar with what Thomas Huxley called the "Tragedy of Science"? It is "the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." As for Hahnemann's emphasis on the importance of theory, these may give you a different view:
  • "Hahnemann published only two cases in his long career, preferring that his students focus on the principles" instead of practical efficacy
  • Hahnemann rejected many then-current medical treatments "more on principle rather than because he had personally investigated each of them very thoroughly through first-hand use and found them wanting....If the theories were wrong, then all methods based on them were also wrong. This is flawed reasoning, however, as some methods might have worked but for very different reasons."
  • He "asserts that the true 'powers of the different medicines in the materia medica,' [Organon, xv] can only be reliably determined by testing 'their effects on the healthy human body,' [Organon, xv] and never 'from impure experiences at the sick bed'" -- entirely opposite from what modern people consider the highest proof of efficacy: that very practical "experience at the sick bed".
  • 'The third point is "upon principles that are at once plain and intelligible." This means law, it means fixed principles ; it means a law as certain as that of gravitation; not guess work, empiricism, or roundabout methods, or a cut-and-dried use of drugs as laid down by the last manufacturer. Our principles have never changed, they have always been the same and will remain the same. To become acquainted with these principles and doctrines, with fixed knowledges, with exactitude or method, to become acquainted with medicines that never change their properties, and to become acquainted with their action, is the all-important aim in homoeopathic study.'
  • According to Hahnemann, allopathy never followed any guidelines but was and still is based on experience. There is no real system and the theories change with every new one arising. Whereas homeopathy is, as Stuart Close put it, „A system of medicine based upon natural laws“. Now why is it important to have a system? If there is no system, there are no rules to obey, there is no direction and therefore there is just blind searching for the goal, guesswork – „theoretic medicine“ as Hahnemann said."
There is no question in my mind but that the state of medicine -- any style of medicine -- during Hahnemann's lifetime was horrible. Certainly some of the people he derided deserved most of the charges he laid at their doors, plus more. Some of them were even true allopaths (a statement that can't be made accurately about any modern physician). Some physicians were also astrologers, shamans, and more. However, these failings didn't make Hahnemann reject the notion of overarching principles and theories; to the contrary, it made him search diligently for the correct principles and theories, to reject effective treatments because of the theory ascribed to them, and to attempt to elevate his system of medicine to the Olympian honors generally accorded to the previous system.
Perhaps I use empiricism differently from you; I believe that some authors who write about homeopathy draw a very fine line between empiricism and rationalism, and I do not.
None of this, however, is especially important: the word allopathy can be used to mean more than one thing, and as a service to our readers, we should generally choose unambiguous terms when possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguities of the term allopathy are already in wiki in the relevant article so I think the word is OK. It has a range of meanings and they are all mentioned in the article about allopathic medicine, so I think the rest is tangential cruft. Nobody has yet come up with a better one, so until that time this encyclopedia can legitimately reflect the term's common use. I disagree with your simplistic rendition of Hahnemann's views and of the allopathic status of medicine both then and now, but it is perhaps futile here to pursue this thread. Cobbling together a few quotes (some not even attributable to Hahnemann himself, but to some of his successors) to support one's views is frowned upon here as synthesis and original research. thanks Peter morrell 08:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only provided this information because you specifically asked for evidence that Hahnemann was dedicated to theory. Such evidence clearly exists, and this aspect of his work is clearly accepted by a number of his contemporaries as well as modern homeopaths and scholars who have studied his writings. It is equally clear that this documented aspect of his life's work forms no part of your POV.
I do not propose adding this information to this article. I consider it irrelevant to this article, in fact. Therefore WP:OR is completely inapplicable.
What is applicable is WP:AVOID. The very first thing that guideline mentions is the importance of avoiding ambiguous terms. You have agreed that allopathic is an ambiguous term. Therefore, we should make reasonable(!) efforts to avoid using it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. What this encyclopedia should be doing is providing information on all terms in current use INCLUDING aspects of their ambiguity. That is already covered with this term. Your previous comments re Hahnemann are indeed irrelevant. So exactly what are you beefing on about? Peter morrell 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article has to be renamed

The word prevalence is unnecessary abstract. A better word would be usage. The word legality is not the correct term. It should be regulation or something similar. The phrase "around the world" should not appear in the title of the article. It is presumed that all articles in the English Wikipedia have a global scope (Englihs is the new Latin). My suggestion is: Usage and regulation of homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain further, as it is not clear from what you say why it HAS to be renamed. I prefer the word prevalence to usage. What is your objection to prevalence? Peter morrell 09:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry. I had no intention of being confrontational. MaxPont (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
MaxPont's post sounds unnecessarily combative to me, but I think I have found out what happened. Max, if you are a bit cross I guess it has to do with the fact that the use of "prevalence" and "legality" can be seen as putting homeopathy in the company of diseases and seems to imply that it may actually be illegal. Moreover, except for Peter's response your comment about this at Talk:Homeopathy#New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy" has been ignored. These things are unfortunate, but I think neither of them comes from an actual intent to discredit homeopathy by association. (Personally I just didn't see your post, since I am no longer interested in that thread. I think it would be out of character for Peter morrell or Sbharris (who created this article) to imply such things intentionally to discredit homeopathy. I am quite hopeful that we can find a consensus here, and to that end I will first describe what I think are the problems here.
prevalence: In ordinary language this is usually a synonym for dominance, which is misleading here. In scientific language it means exactly what we are talking about: how widespread something is. The question of how widespread something is is asked mainly in epidemiology. Epidemiology has a theoretical part that is sometimes applied to positive or neutral things as well as to diseases, and for scientists it is obvious that the right thing to do is to use the word "prevalence" in this wider context as well.
We have two problems here. 1. Some people are not familiar with the scientific use of the word and think of dominance. 2. Strong negative connotations of the word from its use in epidemiology. This is reinforced by the fact many dictionaries define prevalence (somewhat incorrectly) as if it could only be applied to diseases.
legality: Legality is about whether something conforms to law. In this case the obvious reading seems to be whether or not homeopathy is legal, and perhaps to what extent people who practise homeopathy conform to the laws.
This is not what this article is about. From only reading the title a reader must currently get the impression that there is a significant number of countries in which homeopathy is actually illegal. (Are there any? Then they should be mentioned in the article.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I can add more of an explanation. In my opinion, prevalence is too abstract without adding precision, and legality is not the correct term (regulation is). MaxPont (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely say that, unless reference can be made to significant numbers of countries where homoeopathy is actually illegal, "legality" is not appropriate. The subject matter of the page at present is usage and regulation. Brunton (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition: in the future this article would be the place to add market data (total size of the market for homeo products in various countries, etc.) Maybe that should also be indicated in the article title. MaxPont (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
When I first read the title I thought I had a better suggestion. But it turns out that the German word I had in mind, which is a bit like "widespreadness", translates exactly to prevalence. I think I can see why Peter doesn't like "usage", but I don't have a better suggestion. I suppose there is no doubt that "regulation" is better than "legality". I think it's even better than "legal status", the term used by the WHO in a similar situation.
I think the marked data are covered by "prevalence"/"usage". But we could try to find a common generalisation of the two aspects. How about "Status of homeopathy by country"? --Hans Adler (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "prevalence" because this word has more meaning that "use" (and it includes it), and I also prefer "legality" to "regulation" because legality includes regulation and is more. DanaUllmanTalk 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Prevalence is a specific word, but not a common one. The problem with "usage" is that it can be misunderstood in the same ways as "practice" to refer to praxis rather than geolocation. What we want is not just "usage" but "geographic usage"-- the closest synonym I can think of to locational prevalence. As for chronological prevalence, see below. Ah well, this is how articles naturally grow and multiply on Wikipedia. It's not paper. SBHarris 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prevalence over time

Here is a radical idea. This article is about the synchronic heterogeneity of homeopathy, but there is also an interesting diachronic heterogeneity. E.g. around 1850, homeopathy was the leading alternative form of medicine in the US, with the number of homeopathic physicians being 1/10 the number of mainstream physicians. There are anecdotes about the wives of mainstreams physicians seeking treatment from, or being, homeopaths. 100 years later almost nothing was left. (All according to Whorton.) Why not present both aspects in one article. I am interested in starting an article on the history of homeopathy anyway. It could begin with a general outline, followed by sections about the history of homeopathy in various parts of the world. I think there is potential here for a large article, and that stressing the present a bit more than usual in a "history" article shouldn't be a big problem. So a solution could be to rename this article as History of homeopathy and add the appropriate content. Incidentally, I think that we need more relatively central articles of this kind, in order to get a culture in which editors interested in homeopathy and nothing much more can learn the principles of WP including conflict resolution in a somewhat calmer and more productive atmosphere. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want that then you should start a new article called history of homeopathy period. not sure how much support you will get for that. thanks Peter morrell 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This was an idea for getting a resolution to this bike shed problem, because I am under the impression that MaxPont and DanaUllman both feel strongly about it. If such an article is very controversial I obviously not going to start yet another conflict. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Bike shed? I don't follow riddles too well, sorry. Plainspeak preferred. Peter morrell 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe prevalence is OK, though I would prefer a less abstract word. We should make a title where we can include the following content:

  • Adoption of homeopathy in various countries
  • History: introduction, adoption, etc.
  • Monetary market size and market penetration (consumer usuage)
  • Regulatory framework in variuos countries

How do we capture this in an article title? MaxPont (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK how about 'International position of homeopathy?' or 'Homeopathy throughout the world?' Peter morrell 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't give my opinion on your proposal because I don't really care about the title. But here is another one: 'Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy'. It seems that the points we need to cover for each country are (at most) history, regulations for homeopathic medicine, regulations for practising homeopathy, popularity, and whether public health insurance pays for homeopathy. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy" (copied from homeopathy talkpage)

Friends, I was alerted to this data from a skeptics' blog, and it provides a rich body of data. For info on the survey, see [1]. For info on the company behind the data, see: [2]. A summary from this report could be: An international market research survey discovered relatively high levels of "trust" in homeopathy worldwide. Specifically, they found that 64% of people in India, 58% of Brazilians, 53% of Chileans, 49% of Saudi Arabians, 49% of United Arab Emirates, 40% of French, 35% of South Africans, 28% of Russians, 27% of Germans, 25% of Argentians, 25% of Hungarians, 18% of Americans, and 15% of British "trust homeopathy."

Before I consider adding this data and reference, I'm bringing it here for discussion. DanaUllmanTalk 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A survey from a marketing and market research company, with no named authors? Importantly, there is no information on the sample size in this survey, no information on how the sample was selected, and no information on how the survey was carried out. This could be discussed in general terms, but I wouldn't trust the precise figures at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good points, Tim, but when you consider that market research companies provide information to large corporations who trust their work and then put their money (often big money) into products based on this research, it seems that large companies consider such research to be "reliable." This market research company is one of the biggies and thus seems to be a reliable source. DanaUllmanTalk 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be OK with this being added if the source is directly specified and it is discussed in generalities, eg A market research survey suggests that homeopathy may be quite popular in India and but much less popular in developed countries such as the USA and Britain. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that if many of the largest corporations in the world consider market research data to be reliable, it would seem that we should simply report this information for what it is: "According to an international market research company". Perhaps something like this can be said: "According to a 2008 survey from an international market research company, a near or greater than majority of people in India, Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates “trust homeopathy,” and a 25%-40% of the population of people in France, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Argentina, and Hungary also trusted homeopathy. Only 18% of American and 15% of British expressed a trust in homeopathy." DanaUllmanTalk 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider including a modified and agreed-upon slab of this info above in THIS article. Comments? Peter morrell 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is always important to question the legitamacy of surveys (as well as all data), but when data from other surveys confirm parts of a potentially questionable survey, we might realize that the survey in question is trustworthy. In this light, below are some RS surveys published by major medical journals or by governments that confirm parts of the Global TGI survey. Judge for yourself:
In 1998, homeopathy was the most frequently used CAM therapy in 5 out of 14 surveyed countries in Europe and among the three most frequently used CAM therapies in 11 out of 14 surveyed countries. [Norges offentlige utredninger, NOU 1998:21 Alternativ medisin. (Official report published by the Norwegian Department of Health. Available at: [3] Three Europeans out of four know what homeopathy is and an impressive 29% use it for their health care. [Homeopathic medicinal products. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directives 92/73 and 92/74]
According to a House of Lords report (2000), 17% of the British population use homeopathic medicines. [House of Lords Science and Technology Report, November, 2000 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12303.htm] The respect accorded homeopathy and homeopathic practice by British physicians is evidenced by a 1986 survey in the British Medical Journal that showed that 42% of physicians referred patients to homeopathic doctors. [Richard Wharton and George Lewith, "Complementary Medicine and the General Practitioner," British Medical Journal, 292 (June 7, 1986): 1498-1500.] Other evidence of support from health professionals was a 1990 survey of British pharmacists that found 55% considered homeopathic medicines "useful," while only 14% considered them "useless." [M.V. Nelson, G.R. Railie, and H. Areny, "Pharmacists' Perceptions of Alternative Health Approaches: A Comparison Between U.S. and British Pharmacists," Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 1990, 15: 141-6.]
In Scotland, 12% of general practitioners use homeopathic medicines and 49% of all general practitioner practices prescribe them (at least one medical doctor in a group practice).[ Ross, S, Simpson, CR, McLay, JS. British Homoeopathic and herbal prescribing in general practice in Scotland. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62,6: December 2006, 647-652.]
In 2002, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported that 75% of Germans have used complementary or natural medicine.[Tuffs, Annette. Three out of Four Germans Have Used Complementary or Natural Remedies, BMJ, November 2 2002;325:990] They also reported that 5,700 doctors received specialized training in natural medicine, with this number doubling to 10,800 by 2000. Homeopathic medicine is practiced by 4,500 medical doctors in German, almost twice as many as did so in 1994. The German government conducted this survey, and it also discovered that there was a 33% reduction in sick days if people used natural therapies, especially homeopathy or acupuncture. It was also reported that women used natural therapies more than men did, but when men used them, they benefited more than women did.
Other European countries in which homeopathy has a relatively strong presence include Switzerland, where different surveys have suggested that somewhere between 11% and 27% of general practitioners and internists prescribe homeopathic medicines; Italy where 9% of the medical doctors prescribe homeopathic remedies sometimes; and the Netherlands where 45% of physicians consider homeopathic medicines effective and 47% of medical doctors use one or more complementary therapies, with homeopathy (40% of these select doctors) being the most popular. [Fisher, Peter and Ward, Adam. "Complementary Medicine in Europe," British Medical Journal, 309, July 9, 1994: 107-10.] DanaUllmanTalk 01:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the idea of using this source for anything but general guidance when making editorial decisions. According the the language used in the report ("respondents"), they got the numbers by just asking people about their opinion. Since the responses when doing this depend very much on your approach (ringing someone at 6 am and asking "Good morning, this is the homeopathy survey; do you trust homeopathy?" vs. leading up to the question with "yes" questions like "do you think health is important?"), the absolute numbers are not very meaningful. I am not saying I suspect obvious manipulation or leading questions, but I am just not personally convinced that the range of possible results depending on how you ask, even while trying to avoid obvious mistakes, doesn't look like 8-38% for Britain, 31-54% for Saudi Arabia etc. So I wouldn't mention the absolute numbers. As to the relative numbers ("Homeopathy is much more popular in Brazil than in Britain"), we would need to trust them that they really use comparable approaches in the different countries, translate the answers correctly (the nuances are important, and also the other questions on the questionnaire), and have some way of correcting for systematic errors if that's necessary. Other studies or statistics are not a good test here unless they are specifically comparing two or more countries, or perhaps if we had good statistics from two countries with virtually identical health systems. By the way, I don't understand the status of this document. Is it the complete report, which they are giving away to the press for free to get coverage? Or is it only a teaser? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the word 'legality'

how many cuontries actually have illegalized homeopathy? even places like the USSR that persecuted homeopathic physicians never oficially banned them and tolerated them for a large part when they did not get in the way of the state. If there is no actual variation in legality of homeopathy then maybe this article should become osmething like "Prevalence and Regulation of Homoephaty. Smith Jones (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

quesitons comments concerns???

I renamed from "Internationail prevalence and regulation of homeopathy" to "Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy" to . Normally I wouldn't have been so bold with a page move, but there was a typo in the title, and I wanted to fix that fast. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • whops thanks for the save there Hans. Smith Jones (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

Should the UK section make the distinction between the Society of Homeopaths and the Faculty of Homeopathy clear? The latter is a body for statutorily registered healthcare professionals who are subject to the disciplinary procedures of their relevant regulatory bodies. The former is the largest organisation for non-medically qualified homoeopaths. On a related note, the UK section also doesn't make the regulatory status of homoeopathy in the UK clear. It is not regulated by statute, and the title "homeopath" is not protected - anyone can practise as a homoeopath. Brunton (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I propose changing the third paragraph of the UK section to:

The National Health Service (NHS) currently operates five homeopathic hospitals. Although homeopathy is not regulated by law in the United kingdom, the London-based Faculty of Homeopathy, membership of which is open to statutorily registered healthcare professionals[4] and which has over 1,400 members, was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1950[5]. There are also a number of organisations for non-medically qualified homeopaths, the largest of which, the Society of Homeopaths, was founded in 1978 and has over 1,500 members[6].

Any objections? Brunton (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am not sure you need to be as careful as that in the current microclimate at this article. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm not entirely happy with the second sentence as it may contain a non-sequitur - I'm not sure that the incorporation of the FoH has anything to do with regulation of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've arrived at something with the same basic content that I'm happy with, so as there's been no objection I'm making the edit. Brunton (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source for information on many countries

The Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) has a newsletter containing interesting information on the state of homeopathy in various countries, including e.g. Georgia and Uruguay. Issues from 1997 to 2001 are available online. [7] I doubt it's a reliable source, but it's probably a good source of inspiration to extend this article if anybody has the motivation to look at this. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] possible source for US prevalence

A 1854 report about dissolving the connection of Homoeopathists(sic) with the Massachusetts Medical Society[8]. Not sure if this is relevant enough to add on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)