This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbrodbeck (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 22 February 2016 (→Summary section of the article does not provide a balanced view of the controversy related to the topic: you don't understand NPOV, not at all.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:10, 22 February 2016 by Dbrodbeck (talk | contribs) (→Summary section of the article does not provide a balanced view of the controversy related to the topic: you don't understand NPOV, not at all.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | 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. |
 | Important notice: 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. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
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
|
 | Homeopathy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Homeopathy.
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<Please remove the following paragraphs as they are completely biased point of views probably from an over enthusiastic homeopathic skeptics and is not allowing the reader to make their own judgement where two sides of the coin are presented. Right now as it stands is an unfair one sided introduction to homeopathy which millions of people use all over the world- and for over hundreds of years. And in many countries like India it is recognised by the government and there are hundreds of recognised colleges from which thousands of homeopaths graduate out from every year.To call these fake and a sham on wikipedia is an insult to the practice. There are good scientific evidence on the contrary and should be inserted by those who are experts in the field. Nevertheless such a biased introduction reduces the validity of articles in wikipedia for which I regularly pay yearly to keep up the good work. I am a doctor and a scientist (non homeopathic) from Cambridge and can assure you that this sentence as well as others like it are showing only one side of the story. I was a non believer and personally got cured of a medically incurable disease which definitely was not 'psycho somatic' as the signs were medical and my surgeon was astonished and has recorded this. The whole article needs to be reviewed and updated especially by a person who can input recent evidence for homeopathy. So please invite or accept invitations for edits. The words used below like 'nonsense. quakery' sham' are personal opinions quoted from unscientific places and has no place in wikipedia. There should be only evidence for and against without biased silly opinions>
Those paras to be removed are (there are other such and please remove them too):
<Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition; large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, suggesting that any positive feelings that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness.>
<The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, and a sham.>
<Assessments by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the British National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Swiss Federal Health Office have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, recommending against the practice receiving any further funding.> Sc560 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done The content is good and in accord with the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, your argument for "fairness" is nothing but a laundry list of logical fallacies: argumentum ad antiquitatem, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority (the old "I'm a doctor, so I know" business), false authority (experts of homeopathy carry no more weight on its validity than experts on unicorns carry on establishing the existence of the latter) the old "I used to be a skeptic, but now I know" gambit, and probably a few more. All of the best quality evidence supports the article as is. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe "quackery" and "a sham" should be removed, as it does not appear to be neutral and rather insulting. I know that it's pseudoscience, but... RotubirtnoC (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is a matter of pseudoscience, with no reliable evidence of efficacy, being sold as if it has medical benefit - that is the definition of quackery. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe "quackery" and "a sham" should be removed, as it does not appear to be neutral and rather insulting. I know that it's pseudoscience, but... RotubirtnoC (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think several reliable sources do not concur with this point of view: for instance :
"In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo.51 However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61"--Neb46545 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Several problems there, Neb. 1) Our article states that "the scientific and medical communities" classify homeopathy as nonsense, quackery, and a sham. The references cited in your link come almost exclusively from sources such as "Homeopathy" and other alternative medicine rags. Those publications don't reflect the opinion of the scientific and medical communities - they primarily reflect the foregone conclusions of true believers. 2) More importantly, none of the references given in our article regarding the nonsense, sham and quackery statements link to the Shang study. The Shang study is simply one of many references offered which call into question the efficacy of homeopathy. It does not play a major role in our article and, as best as I can tell, is not referenced anywhere in the body of the article, but only in the lede. Finding potential flaws in the Shang study has nothing to do with the broad scientific opinion that homeopathy is nonsense, quackery, or a sham. It's a red herring. 3) I find it humorous that the people claiming to have found flaws in Shang's statistical methods rely on almost universally underpowered studies that look at completely heterogeneous manifestations of disease and treatment options to frame their counterpoint in attempts to establish that there is really any sort of debate here. For example, looking at some of Dullman's favorites which examine the effects of personalized homeopathy in treating childhood diarrhea in Nicaragua and Nepal, we find several possible pathogens and causes of diarrhea being "treated" with a whole list of homeopathic "treatments". They aren't testing anything in these papers; they do little more than present an aggregate of n = 1 interventions and wind up with barely significant results of dubious clinical value. The research in favor of homeopathy is crap - Shang's methods don't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Besides your personal investigations and opinions about the meta analyses which support homeopathy's efficacy and they are not cited even if they are published in mainstream reliable sources--- there are important authors of several reviews on homeopathy who are cited in this article and they don;t agree that homeopathy is all placebo - Does an encyclopedia have to report these views ? Of course ---unless they want to pretend that every important author and researcher in mainstream literature li agrees with the line Homeopathy is placebo etc....(Are you really ready to discuss the math in the studies you refer to?) --Neb46545 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neb46545 after looking through the last article you referenced I fail to see how you can convey such as a hole hearted endorsement of homeopathy. I am always surprised that even true believers in homeopathy can not design a study and come up with a result that is more than just vaguely positive. Do you know of any quality study(s) that show an unequivocally positive result?Unconventional2 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are several "studies" that report unequivocally positive results; the problem is that they are poorly designed, underpowered, report misleading details about their experiments (Benveniste), or haven't been replicated by reliable labs. Listing them here (as we have seen several editors more than willing to do) won't accomplish anything since they can't be incorporated into our article. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I should probably have been a little clearer. Quality = Randomized double blind placebo control studies with enough power/participants to be of statistical significance. And a well-defined pre-stated objective i.e. not a finishing expedition. Unconventional2 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Even this misses the crux of the problem. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there were such a study—that is, a perfectly designed, well-blinded randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power, testing a single pre-specific primary endpoint, which found that homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo with p <0.05. What is the likelihood that this study result is a false-positive, despite its perfect design?
- A) 5%
- B) Somewhere around 99.999%
- (Hint: the answer is B. If you perform randomized controlled trials of therapies that lack any sort of prior probability of effectiveness, then all you're doing at best is identifying statistical noise. Of course, the existing clinical trials of homeopathy are generally not well-designed, so even that is being overly optimistic). MastCell 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Don't forget the relevant XKCD: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. A Bayesian analysis should also be a requirement of any quality study. Thanks for the cartoon! Unconventional2 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Don't forget the relevant XKCD: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Even this misses the crux of the problem. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there were such a study—that is, a perfectly designed, well-blinded randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power, testing a single pre-specific primary endpoint, which found that homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo with p <0.05. What is the likelihood that this study result is a false-positive, despite its perfect design?
- I should probably have been a little clearer. Quality = Randomized double blind placebo control studies with enough power/participants to be of statistical significance. And a well-defined pre-stated objective i.e. not a finishing expedition. Unconventional2 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are several "studies" that report unequivocally positive results; the problem is that they are poorly designed, underpowered, report misleading details about their experiments (Benveniste), or haven't been replicated by reliable labs. Listing them here (as we have seen several editors more than willing to do) won't accomplish anything since they can't be incorporated into our article. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a matter of opinion - your linked article raising questions about Shang's analysis does not offset the mainstream scientific assessment of homeopathy and has no bearing whatsoever on the statement in question. This is just more of the same demand for undue weight. Yes, there are reviews out there that come to the conclusion that homeopathy works, but they are using the same pool of data that the likes of Linde have incorporated into analyses finding that quality matters. The fact that Linde and others have pointed out this flaw with the data supplants any positive results using the same data. the long and short of it is that positive results disappear when quality is controlled for. As for the math in the Jacobs papers, this is not the place for it, but I will point out that the authors themselves admit that they were underpowered in the Nicaragua trial and that the results reported in the Nepal trial (probability of having diarrhea after 5 days) had no standard deviation reported and were different than the stated primary assessment objective of the paper (days until resolution of diarrhea), so it's impossible to carry out any power calculations. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Neb46545 after looking through the last article you referenced I fail to see how you can convey such as a hole hearted endorsement of homeopathy. I am always surprised that even true believers in homeopathy can not design a study and come up with a result that is more than just vaguely positive. Do you know of any quality study(s) that show an unequivocally positive result?Unconventional2 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Besides your personal investigations and opinions about the meta analyses which support homeopathy's efficacy and they are not cited even if they are published in mainstream reliable sources--- there are important authors of several reviews on homeopathy who are cited in this article and they don;t agree that homeopathy is all placebo - Does an encyclopedia have to report these views ? Of course ---unless they want to pretend that every important author and researcher in mainstream literature li agrees with the line Homeopathy is placebo etc....(Are you really ready to discuss the math in the studies you refer to?) --Neb46545 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Several problems there, Neb. 1) Our article states that "the scientific and medical communities" classify homeopathy as nonsense, quackery, and a sham. The references cited in your link come almost exclusively from sources such as "Homeopathy" and other alternative medicine rags. Those publications don't reflect the opinion of the scientific and medical communities - they primarily reflect the foregone conclusions of true believers. 2) More importantly, none of the references given in our article regarding the nonsense, sham and quackery statements link to the Shang study. The Shang study is simply one of many references offered which call into question the efficacy of homeopathy. It does not play a major role in our article and, as best as I can tell, is not referenced anywhere in the body of the article, but only in the lede. Finding potential flaws in the Shang study has nothing to do with the broad scientific opinion that homeopathy is nonsense, quackery, or a sham. It's a red herring. 3) I find it humorous that the people claiming to have found flaws in Shang's statistical methods rely on almost universally underpowered studies that look at completely heterogeneous manifestations of disease and treatment options to frame their counterpoint in attempts to establish that there is really any sort of debate here. For example, looking at some of Dullman's favorites which examine the effects of personalized homeopathy in treating childhood diarrhea in Nicaragua and Nepal, we find several possible pathogens and causes of diarrhea being "treated" with a whole list of homeopathic "treatments". They aren't testing anything in these papers; they do little more than present an aggregate of n = 1 interventions and wind up with barely significant results of dubious clinical value. The research in favor of homeopathy is crap - Shang's methods don't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@MastCell what you are writing makes no sense in mathematical logic ----even if one conducts any number of trials on homeopathy because "any sort of prior probability of effectiveness " is ...lacking then the positive results should be statistical noise ? This is a logical fallacy - who is the judge and the general criteria and definition for "prior probability of effectiveness" ? Science disproves revises itself quite often and this is not a controversial statement. So it would be easier for all the researchers to say - including the anti homeopathy crusaders - whatever we find will be statistical noise - therefore homeopathy does not work -- that would be a great scientific statement. ---- On topic now - you are comparing individualized homeopathy where the censored reliable reviews show an effect and non individualized homeopathy where they do not . A neutral editor reports all results equally since they are reported in first rate journals - no matter if you disagree with the outcome or methods. Unless you write a polemic and you are just using only the sources who agree with your point of view. --Neb46545 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a forum and not the place to have Bayesian analysis explained to you. The lack of any plausible mechanism means that statistically significant results can just as easily be interpreted as being due to one study group being labeled "A" in a ledger and the other group being labeled "B" (or any other real, imagined, or wholly mundane differences between the groups that appears beforehand or as an artifact of the study). I can give you some bullshit magical explanation of why writing down these letters will affect the outcome of the study in question, or how invisible fairies are responsible for the outcome, and these explanations for any observed statistical difference would be just as sound as the notion that the difference is due to diluting and shaking. It is much more likely due to statistical noise or unrecorded methodological flaws (Benveniste).
- Do you have any specific changes that you want to suggest for our article that can be referenced to WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources? Keep in mind that Linde and others have pointed out that the positive results reported in those reviews already identified and discussed here are due to their inclusion of garbage primary studies. When quality is controlled for, the effect disappears. Quite simply, the information that you want to include in our article does not exist, as any review which finds a positive effect from homeopathy is superseded by those analyses which point out the glaring flaw of including low quality studies. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin': On the topic of statistical sophistication, I came across this article in the International Journal of High Dilution Research (to which, of course, I subscribe). It illustrates a nearly complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts among recently graduated homeopaths. (Of the 74 surveyed homeopaths, a whopping 8% were able to correctly interpret a p value, while none—0%—were able to correctly interpret an unadjusted odds ratio or a Kaplan-Meier estimator, both of which are very basic biostatistical tools). This finding was published in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal dedicated to promoting homeopathy, which makes it all the more interesting. It does explain a lot of the circular conversations on these talk pages, I suppose. (If you want to take the statistical-knowledge test yourself, it's here—but no peeking at the answers ahead of time!) MastCell 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MastCell: I wanted to test myself, but your link to the test actually took me to the paper, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible! -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: Ooops! I thought that link went directly to the exam, but you're right, it circles back to the JAMA paper. To find the actual exam, go to the article page, then go to the box on the right of the article text and click on "Supplemental Content" (next to the paperclip icon). That will take you to the stats test. Good luck (and remember, even if you guess randomly you should get ~25% of the questions right, which is significantly higher than the homeopath's performance). MastCell 02:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MastCell: I wanted to test myself, but your link to the test actually took me to the paper, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible! -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin': On the topic of statistical sophistication, I came across this article in the International Journal of High Dilution Research (to which, of course, I subscribe). It illustrates a nearly complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts among recently graduated homeopaths. (Of the 74 surveyed homeopaths, a whopping 8% were able to correctly interpret a p value, while none—0%—were able to correctly interpret an unadjusted odds ratio or a Kaplan-Meier estimator, both of which are very basic biostatistical tools). This finding was published in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal dedicated to promoting homeopathy, which makes it all the more interesting. It does explain a lot of the circular conversations on these talk pages, I suppose. (If you want to take the statistical-knowledge test yourself, it's here—but no peeking at the answers ahead of time!) MastCell 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Summary section of the article does not provide a balanced view of the controversy related to the topic
The summary section makes a sweeping comment - "large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, suggesting that any positive feelings that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect and normal recovery from illness"
However, later in the article there is mention of an FDA ruling which says - "The FDA cited the growth of sales of over the counter homeopathic medicines, $2.7 billion as of 2007, many labeled as "natural, safe, and effective." As per the article further here the matter is still subjudice.
In this context, the summary is not fairly representing the issue of controversy around Homeopathy. The line in the summary quoted above should be followed by an additional disclaimer that "On April 20–21, 2015, the FDA held a hearing on homeopathic product regulation and the matter is currently being discussed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulkarninikhil (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- You can't be serious. "Many labeled as 'natural, safe, and effective'". You're comparing the findings of meta-analyses of clinical trials with the marketing claims of homeopathy distributors and claiming this presents some kind of controversy? One statement comes from reliable sources, the other is a marketing phrase. That the FDA has dragged its feet on regulating homeopathy is rather irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Kulkarnininikhil that the intro as currently written is not a neutral representation of the article text. Cla68 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article is neutral in keeping with WP:NPOV. Neutral does not mean "equal time", nor is it meant to reflect popular opinion. The bulk of scientific evidence paints homeopathy as a fringe belief. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is homeopathy considered to be a fringe belief in India? Cla68 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- How does the above comment help to improve the article? -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is creationism considered a fringe belief in Louisiana? Guy (Help!) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because, if homeopathy is not considered to be a fringe practice in India, one of the biggest and most populated countries in the world, then it undermines the blanket statement that homeopathy is considered to be a fringe practice. So, again, is homeopathy considered to be a fringe practice in India? Cla68 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've said this to you before, your poor understanding of sourcing, and PAG, belies your experience here. Why bother? -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be evading the question...Is homeopathy considered a "fringe belief" in India? Yes or no? Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be missing the point - the popular acceptance of something has no bearing on the reality of its value. Properly designed and analyzed experiments (science) establishes value/validity. The scientific method is not different in India, nor is the pool of data, so science says it's a fringe belief in India the same as anywhere else. You are offering an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, meaning that your argument does nothing to establish your conclusion. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- See the comment here, and the source it cites which states that as of 2014 "Only 5 to 7 percent usage of ‘other’ including AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga or Naturopathy Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy) was reported both in rural and urban area." But in any case, the criterion for whether the topic is regarded as fringe here is how the medical and scientific consensus regards it. Brunton (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be evading the question...Is homeopathy considered a "fringe belief" in India? Yes or no? Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've said this to you before, your poor understanding of sourcing, and PAG, belies your experience here. Why bother? -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because, if homeopathy is not considered to be a fringe practice in India, one of the biggest and most populated countries in the world, then it undermines the blanket statement that homeopathy is considered to be a fringe practice. So, again, is homeopathy considered to be a fringe practice in India? Cla68 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is homeopathy considered to be a fringe belief in India? Cla68 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article is neutral in keeping with WP:NPOV. Neutral does not mean "equal time", nor is it meant to reflect popular opinion. The bulk of scientific evidence paints homeopathy as a fringe belief. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Kulkarnininikhil that the intro as currently written is not a neutral representation of the article text. Cla68 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Dullman has also recently tried the "everyone in India can't be wrong" argument. Funny thing is, the life expectancy in India is currently 66 years, while that in the U.S. is 79 years. This article points out that there has recently been an increase of life expectancy in India of 5 years and that it is due primarily to the introduction of modern public health interventions. So one has to wonder, is it the reliance on things such as homeopathy that is responsible for the still low overall expectancy in India? It seems pretty clear that supplanting such nonsense with real medicine has a demonstrable and profound beneficial effect. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the real question is not what the general public of India believes but whatever or not their views should given priority over established science. --174.91.186.82 (talk)
- EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' is right: "the popular acceptance of something has no bearing on the reality of its value." At Misplaced Pages, when dealing with scientifically falsifiable matters, the term "fringe" is unrelated to any degree of statistical minority or majority acceptance or rejection in the general populace. It refers exclusively to acceptance or rejection by the mainstream scientific community. If a clear majority of the scientific community reject an idea, then believers are considered on the "fringe", even if a large majority of the general populace are also believers. Scientists hold the trump card when it comes to verifiable facts. This also applies to climate change, where a clear majority of American Republicans deny the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change/global warming. That majority are ALL "fringe", just as ALL believers in homeopathy are "fringe", even if they are a majority in India (which may be the case there). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Bull, that isn't true. If the majority of the world disagrees with a few scientists, and the sources reflect that, then that view carries here in WP. We crowdsource. This isn't "SciencePedia". Cla68 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Right, the argumentum ad populum. Fifty million smokers can't be wrong! That said, I don't know where you got your facts; recent data suggest that the vast majority of Indians rely on conventional medicine rather than homeopathy (see this from Edzard Ernst, for instance). Do you have some sources saying otherwise that you'd like to discuss? MastCell 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Cla68: this is unequivocally, completely, and crucially wrong. We specifically do not crowdsource, we represent what the experts have published in reliable sources. Having 51% of the population's support is not a factor in determining what exists in the scientific mainstream. To quote our NPOV policy, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- While the popularity and prevalence of a belief may be of general interest, homeopathy makes specific claims of intervention "A" causing outcome "B". Such claims can not be addressed by popular belief, but are most appropriately assessed through the scientific method. The popularity of homeopathy is already touched on in the article here and here. The popularity of homeopathy has no bearing on the rest of the article, which is dedicated to presenting evidence which establishes the reality of the situation - i.e. it is possible for a lot of people to believe in patently absurd nonsense. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Bull, that isn't true. If the majority of the world disagrees with a few scientists, and the sources reflect that, then that view carries here in WP. We crowdsource. This isn't "SciencePedia". Cla68 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' is right: "the popular acceptance of something has no bearing on the reality of its value." At Misplaced Pages, when dealing with scientifically falsifiable matters, the term "fringe" is unrelated to any degree of statistical minority or majority acceptance or rejection in the general populace. It refers exclusively to acceptance or rejection by the mainstream scientific community. If a clear majority of the scientific community reject an idea, then believers are considered on the "fringe", even if a large majority of the general populace are also believers. Scientists hold the trump card when it comes to verifiable facts. This also applies to climate change, where a clear majority of American Republicans deny the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change/global warming. That majority are ALL "fringe", just as ALL believers in homeopathy are "fringe", even if they are a majority in India (which may be the case there). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the real question is not what the general public of India believes but whatever or not their views should given priority over established science. --174.91.186.82 (talk)
- Dullman has also recently tried the "everyone in India can't be wrong" argument. Funny thing is, the life expectancy in India is currently 66 years, while that in the U.S. is 79 years. This article points out that there has recently been an increase of life expectancy in India of 5 years and that it is due primarily to the introduction of modern public health interventions. So one has to wonder, is it the reliance on things such as homeopathy that is responsible for the still low overall expectancy in India? It seems pretty clear that supplanting such nonsense with real medicine has a demonstrable and profound beneficial effect. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages doesn't take a side right? Either popular or scientific. It's against our policy. What it does is influence the weight that the article gives it. If 2 billion people in the world believe in Christian creationism but 10,000 scientists believe in Darwinism (and I'm skewing the numbers a little, I know), then our articles should reflect that weight. If you don't like it that the majority of the world haven't accepted everything that scientists necessarily accept, then you need to start your own wiki- "ScienceWiki". This is Misplaced Pages, and it goes by the wisdom of the crowd. Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is simply not correct. Check VQuakr's post above for applicable WP rules. Our article mentions popular opinion and then commits itself to presenting evidence. BTW, think about what you are suggesting - there is no compelling evidence that homeopathy works (after 200 years), therefore we should report popular opinion. The structure of our article does not need to change; you may, however, want to look at your beliefs if an appeal to popularity is the best you can do, as is being admitted by your proposal here. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are completely misunderstanding the NPOV policy. This is not a democracy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Sections of this article sound like opinions than facts
One line I am quoting is - "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second". While the fact stated in his sentence is that "entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second" - use of the terms "patent nonsense" and the formation of the sentence makes it appear as if the author is representing their opinion of the matter than stating the fact. The language of this article is very biased and does not live up to the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages principles mainly: "Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulkarninikhil (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- The neutral point of view is the point of view taken by reliable sources. If reliable sources describe it as patent nonsense, well, there you go. Now "patent nonsense" is obviously opinion, which is why we put it in quotes. But that is the prevailing opinion, so it's worth mentioning regardless. Neutral most certainly does not mean sugar coating the views of reliable sources and handling the subject with kid gloves. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Someguy, in my opinion you are incorrectly interpreting WP's NPOV policy. The "prevailing opinion" can be stated in a neutral voice in a WP article so that it does not come off as being in WP's voice. Cla68 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- The statement is referenced to an external source, making it clear that it is not in "WP's voice". EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where a "prevailing opinion" is held by the vast majority of experts, it is appropriate for us to state it in Misplaced Pages's voice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- While that might make the True Believers a little less insane about this article, it would not really be an improvement since the prevailing opinion is based on reality whereas homeopathy is based on fantasy. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Someguy, in my opinion you are incorrectly interpreting WP's NPOV policy. The "prevailing opinion" can be stated in a neutral voice in a WP article so that it does not come off as being in WP's voice. Cla68 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- High-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages