Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics.
Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline.
Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.)
A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.
Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory.
References
Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID18480136.
Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.)
A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community.
Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.)
A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged.
Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.)
A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence.
Note also that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why.
Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.)
A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages.
Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.)
A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research or speculation.
Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)
A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages.
Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.)
A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting
Why is the information on Homoeopathy not updated? As technology advances, new researches have been undertaken by CCRH, India , BSc students, IIT Mumbai and can show new evidences about working of Homoeopathy 2A00:23C6:190C:6D00:E103:1AF8:5EF1:6914 (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems up-to-date to me. If you have new information, you are welcome to propose a change to the article. Don't forget to cite the sources backing the changes you are proposing. I also strongly suggest that you read the FAQ at te top of this page as well as the archives of this talk page to get familiar with previous discussions on the same subject. --McSly (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Homoeopathy is a science and therefore it is still existing.. Before claiming it as PSEUDOSCIENCE, kindly check the respective literature. One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it. Similarly One can take example of Electricity. You know power house etc.. but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy? Homoeopathy Similarly works in this way. h Nidhidaven (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The relevant academic literature has exhaustive consensus against considering homeopathy as a science and regardless of the mechanism, no effectiveness beyond placebo has been shown as for its medicinal effect. agucova (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it.
Resorting to Russell's teapot is not a great argument. Your argument about electricity is just plain asinine, since we have ample evidence of how electricity works & can even measure its presence (unlike your "water memory"). — The Hand That Feeds You:15:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
…but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy?
The light wouldn’t be much use if you couldn’t. But quite apart from that, there’s no good evidence for efficacy, the ideas behind it are contradicted by what we know about chemistry, physics and arithmetic, and we have appropriate RSs that say it is pseudoscience. Brunton (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Even by the standards of this talk page 'do you see any visible energy when you turn on the lights' has to be one of the weakest arguments yet. Dilution to non-existence doesn't improve efficacy around here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
To answer the OP's question, as we owe them that much, YES indeed we do. I fear they may not understand the answer, as they certainly dont understand their own question. Ah well, nevermind. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, just as we have invented special devices for detecting energy, implicitly there should be some way to invent devices to detect the medicinal particles. Once such is invented, then homeopathy can be considered a proper science. JumboDS64 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
We have devices capable of detecting medicinal particles, lots of them. The funny thing is, when they are pointed at homeopathic remedies, no such particles show up. One assumes that is why they don't work. Girth Summit (blether)21:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Homoeopathy not Homeopathy
People often confuse the two as they don’t understand the significance of the name “Homoeopathy”. Homois means like or similar - pathos means suffering and hence Homoeopathy means similar suffering. It should not be misspelt as Homeopathy with all due respect. 86.190.168.98 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The relevant part of the WP:MOS is WP:COMMONNAME. We don't concern ourselves with whether or not a name is 'correct', we look at what the sources call it. The 'homoeopathy' spelling variant is included in the article, but the majority of sources in the article itself seem to use the 'homeopathy' variant. I did a quick check on Google now: 'homoeopathy' gets about 19 million hits, whereas 'homeopathy' gets 1,400 million hits. I think out current title is the correct choice, in terms of our internal style guide. Girth Summit (blether)14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Girth. For many years I used the "correct" spelling everywhere, but the usage thing won me over and the incorrect spelling everybody uses no longer grates with me. I still see red when I see Fiber instead of Fibre though, but that isn't quite the same thing as it is a regional variation. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
homeo- and homoeo- are the identical prefix; it's just spelled two ways, like color and colour. Both spellings are fine. Equinox◑22:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There has been mounting scientific evidence that Homoeopathy works Dr Anand Pariyarath (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
There is mounting scientific, clinical and statistical evidence that Homoeopathy is effective in mitigating and curing different diseases. Dr Anand Pariyarath (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review
"Conclusion: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo.The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1938 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
In a low-impact alt-med journal which would presumably provide as generous a hearing as homeopathy would ever get, the authors were still only able to torture the data enough to produce a we-need-more-studies conclusion. Even they were forced to admit that "...when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen." Rigorous tests of homeopathy produce negative results. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Bias
I would actually love to read from someone who doesn’t seem to have such a negative bias towards the practice of Homeopathy write in this. Maybe taking the time to listen to people who practice this form of medicine and not blame personal preference on some sort of phobia all together. 2600:1008:B105:3663:1475:EE28:64C:E701 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics.
Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline.
Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.)
A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
