This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 20 June 2014 (→Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:44, 20 June 2014 by LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) (→Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014: r)(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. |
 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. |
Pseodoscience
The article calls homeopathy a pseudoscience, but nowhere in wikipedia's guidelines does this seem to be allowed. Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories There is no scientific consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience, especially in Europe, therefore, it is classified as a questionable science. Klocek (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not explicitly stated, in the Misplaced Pages guidelines that anything should be called anything. The thing is that there is nothing in the guidelines that says it shouldn't be - and anything that's not forbidden is OK. What we ARE required to do is to represent the world from a mainstream scientific perspective and to provide references for what we say.
- The mainstream scientific view is that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience...and we have references to prove that. So there is no reason we shouldn't say so. More importantly, the WP:FRINGE guidelines make it clear that it would be a breach of the neutral position to allow the homeopathists to dominate the content of the article with their bogus (according to mainstream science - and therefore according to Misplaced Pages) position.
- Aside from all of that - you may ask why poor old homeopathy is being called a pseudoscience in the first place? Some see this word as some kind of an insult. It's not, it's a straightforward classification of an idea or discipline. The definition of the word pseudoscience given in most dictionaries agrees with the one provided by Wiktionary, which I'll quote for you:
- Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
- Homeopathy undoubtedly purports to be scientific - it makes MANY claims to be able to produce certain results from certain practices based on scientific-sounding descriptions of some very odd properties of water.
- The deciding factor is therefore whether or not homeopathy follows "The Scientific Method".
- I suggest you read at least the introduction to our Scientific method article...but here is a summary of what this means:
- Basically, the scientific method requires that you form an idea which you are not yet certain about. We call that a "hypothesis". A good hypothesis has to explain everything that we already know about the topic and then makes certain testable predictions about the universe. The next step is that you do some experiments to see if those predictions turn out to be true - and if they do, your hypothesis is a better explanation for how the universe works than the one we already have. So you write a paper describing your new hypothesis, what predictions you made, what experiments you did, what results you got and how you interpret those results to back up your hypothesis. This paper is then peer-reviewed for obvious mistakes and deceptions and to be sure that nobody else already showed it was true. That's by a bunch of other people who work in that field ("your peers") - and if it passes muster, it'll be published in some journal or other. If the hypothesis is reasonably compelling, other scientists will attempt to repeat your experiments to see if what you did really works as you claim and they may try to come up with alternative explanations for what you observed. They write more papers - perhaps devise more experiments to test your claims. Eventually, if enough of the other people who test this agree that your hypothesis is the best explanation for the experimental results, your hypothesis becomes accepted into the mainstream as a "theory". (Which is what used to be called a "law").
- So - the burning question here is: Do homeopathists do this? The answer is a blindingly clear "NO!" - they most certainly do not. What they did is to come up with two basic hypotheses:
- Diluting something until there is none left 'imprints' the water in some permanent or at least long-lived fashion.
- Drinking imprinted water affects your health in some manner - possibly the reverse of the harm that would be caused by ingesting the original substance.
- What experiments have been done to follow up on (1)? The answer is - none whatever. Not one single documented example of a homeopathist systematically testing whether water takes on this "imprint" has ever been performed! Where are the double-blind studies of (2)? Where is the statistical analysis of how many people were cured of their colds by very diluted raw duck liver?
- That is why we call homeopathy a "pseudoscience" - it makes scientific claims - but never does the hard work to test them...instead they skip the basic science, skip the human trials and go straight to selling the stuff in little bottles in WalMart.
- Misplaced Pages says that homeopathy is a pseudoscience because that is precisely, and undeniably what it is. This is the mainstream view of scientists - and it clearly follows the definition of the word and what is going on in the world of homeopathy.
- We don't say that religions are pseudosciences because they tell people to take their wild and crazy claims on faith - and (with some exceptions) tend not to make scientific predictions or wrap themselves in the mantle of science. We don't say that quantum physics is pseudoscience because although quantum physicists make scientific claims, they really do follow the scientific method.
Klocek (talk · contribs) - there is a scientific consensus that homoeopathy is pseudoscience, including "in Europe". Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience --24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. Homeopathy with astrology are the textbook case of obvious pseudoscience.--McSly (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- no - you are wrong - look what the best review for oscillo says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- While SteveBaker provides an excellent explanation above, the real reason the article includes "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience" is the which (in the article) point to reliable sources that verify the statement. Anyone wanting to contest the statement needs to explain how the sources are incorrectly used, or provide other specific evidence to contradict the statement—bearing in mind that reliable sources are required. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming that by "the best review for oscillo" you mean the Cochrane review, it doesn't say anything about whether or not homoeopathy is regarded as pseudoscience, so cannot be used as a source on this point. Brunton (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if we need more sourcing for this, several of the essays in the book Philosophy of Pseudoscience (ed. Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry) recently published by the University of Chicago Press use homoeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, for example (p. 30), "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously", or (p. 49), "homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience". Brunton (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- no - you are wrong - look what the best review for oscillo says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. Homeopathy with astrology are the textbook case of obvious pseudoscience.--McSly (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
correcting misrepresentative opinion
The asertion of the UK House of Commons Scientific Select Committee is contentious with regard to the support garnered from within the committe, it noted that only three of those sitting actually voted and of those three none had any specilaist knowledge of the subject. No Health Care Trust at the time were invited to speak neither was representatives from Homeopathic association and not least no patient was afforded the same opportunity. As to the closing Paragraph remark that the government agrees is disingenous especial in light of Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House Of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010,which noted,these limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions have not, as the Committee claimed, “been settled already”. Earl Baldwin of Bewdley. June 2010. Added to which 206 sitting MPs signed an early day motion expressing concerns over the report content and procedure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is a direct quote from the report. If you want to have this modified or removed you will have to provide a WP:RS source of equal or greater weight which clearly contradicts the report. What you have provide so far is primarily WP:OR . --Daffydavid (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- That EDM was by David Tredinnick (politician). 'Nuff said. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Better Source for Placebo Claim?
The lede makes the strong claim that "its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" yet the cited source is much less committal in its interpretation:
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
Surely there is a better source, that more firmly supports the statement in the lede? I'd rather not back up an assertion that "homeopathic remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" with a finding that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies." Most studies I've found online are meta-studies that are themselves based on analysis of earlier studies, many of which were conducted with the intention of proving that homeopathy works. So the meta-studies generally take the approach of finding flaws with the earlier studies, or cross-referencing effects to smooth out differences and reduce the significance of measured effects. I understand why they need to do this (nobody but homeopathy supporters tend to want to fund large-scale studies of homeopathy) but for something that is so widely accepted as pseudoscience among the mainstream medical community, surely there is some primary research with a less wishy-washy demonstration of the placebo claim?
Also, the same source is actually listed twice in the references. I'd try to fix it but the proper syntax for handling citations in Misplaced Pages is.. less than obvious to me. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The quote is saying that because the measured results of homeopathy are most certainly no better than placebo, then the small amount of positive results found in the trials probably is because homeopathy is just a placebo. The results being statistically no better than placebo is a given. You can measure it, it's definitely true. However, the idea that the mechanism through which homeopathy operates is the same as the way a sugar pill operates isn't something that you can know for sure from just the data they looked at. I don't believe it, but maybe Homeopathy really does cure a few percent of patients because of god-knows-what-mechanism, but at the cost of suppressing the placebo effect and somehow making people not get better just because they think they will - resulting in a real treatment that happens to cure an identical number of people compared to placebo. So if homeopathy suppressed the placebo effect and provided some genuine benefit - then perhaps it "works" (albeit very, very badly!). So this report is carefully stating that these purely statistical results are not in any way disproving the idea that homeopathy is just a placebo - and they do show that it's no better than a placebo...which is a polite, carefully scientific, cagey, way of saying "it's bloody obvious that it's a placebo!" SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Extremely high dilutions as basically only line of argument against homeopathy over several paragraphs?
Over several paragraphs in the "Evidence and Efficacy" section of the article, homeopathy is dismissed with the sole argument that extremely high dilutions (over D20/C10) statistically leave none of the original substance in the final product:
"The low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance..."
"The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations often leave none of the original substance in the final product."
"The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy preclude a biologically plausible mechanism of action."
This, of course is statistically true for those extreme dilutions. However, this argumentation (and, I reiterate, this argumentation is basically used as the sole argument in those paragraphs) ignores that most homeopathic medications are usally administered at far lower dilutions (D3 to D12), which do not pose the need to argue with "water memory" or "quantum effects", as even a dilution as high as D12 (X12) still contains roughly 10 substance molecules per mol (14g/0.5oz) of water. I think pointing out the impossible "high" dilutions as the sole line of argumentation while completely ignoring the "lower" dilutions is a structural flaw of those paragraphs and should be adressed. -- megA (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is a section discussing high dilution, under the "Plausibility" sub-heading. But it is not by any means the "only line of argument", nor even the major one. There is more emphasis on the lack of reliable evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness. After all, as my grandmother used to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Gronk Oz, MegA is correct. While there are various other reasons to doubt the claims of homeopathy, they are nonetheless not adequately addressed in the specified paragraphs. MegA's point was about the article, not about homeopathy. This article actually does a pretty terrible job of providing references explaining why homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. I came here looking for an easily accessible list of such references, but most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it. I understand why that is (they're meta-studies based on primary studies that were attempting to prove homeopathy was effective) but there are good primary studies, if you dig deep enough. They're old and not all of them are online, though. I'm trying to locate them now, but help would be appreciated. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
For your enjoyment
http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/wikipedia-call-to-action-to-update-homeopathy-at-wikipedia Be aware of online petitions! As a fun sidenote, this clearly demonstrate how homeopaths think how science works: By petition.^^Rka001 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why are they calling for "a large number of people sign this petition"? Surely, the less people that sign it, the more effective it will be. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I got a request to sign a petition from change.org to avoid the Homeopathic section's closure at the Bristol (or was it Glasgow?) Hospital which claimed that a petition for it's closure was signed by 2000 sceptics/critics of Homeopathy, while they have 24,000 signatures to avoid its closure and were looking to make it 25,000 signatures. However, are we at wikipedia going to put such trivia into this article? I hope not!—Khabboos (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Rka001, if that petition is signed by say 25,000 people and submitted to Jimmy/Jimbo Wales and he agrees to put all the criticism in one section or have a different page for "criticism of Homeopathy" that petition may achieve what it was intended to.—Khabboos (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Khabboos, that is not how Misplaced Pages works but I'm beginning to think you are already aware of that. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Positive studies and clinical trials
I will find good references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. for these studies, but please let me know if we can insert these into this article —Khabboos (talk) 15:03, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
- --
Redacted. At least part was a direct copypaste from --LeadSongDog come howl! 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC) --
- Where have you copied this wall of text from? Do you think anybody is going to read it? Isn't it a copyright violation? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- It can't be a copyvio because I have only posted the studies and clinical trials the source mentioned! I have even added the html codes.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- LeadSongDog, that was not the source I used. Anyway, can we add those studies/clinical trials using references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. into this article? Can I add that matter back here (on the Talk page) as a collapsed table?—Khabboos (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please state your proposed added text and the source that supports it. Note medical sources need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, for example: Study 1) In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica, by Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J., published in the Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444, which showed Inhibitory Basophil degranulation and Study 2) Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate, by Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F., published in the Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9., which showed Protective Glutamate toxicity etc.—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:MEDRS? These are rather old primary sources, so not at all suitable. Alexbrn 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make is that there are good, positive studies/clinical trials and we at least need to have an NPOV tag for this article - almost every sentence is attacking homeopathy (I've been topic banned from terrorism related articles and I'm looking for other articles to edit, so that I can appeal my TBan in a month).—Khabboos (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so you haven't read MEDRS. Please do so. **Very** few studies or clinical trials, even in non-fringe areas, are suitable. Also, seeking a second place to conduct wikicombat is not going to do your case much good. Why not work on something mundane for a while, instead? Just click the "random article" link and see what comes up? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- 1. The point you are trying to make (there are positive trials) has already been covered in the lede, by citing two secondary sources on that matter. 2. We are not using primary sources because the underlying statistics predict 5% of the studies being false positives/negatives. 3. Of all things, this article is not the best choice to show your goodwill, especially when you are clearly biased against reporting the scientific consent. Rka001 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have the time for any 'wikicombat', so I won't even edit this article. I did read the matter at WP:MEDRS. Now, as a rookie/novice here, I want to know what wikipedia's official policy is. It claims to be an encyclopedia and like say, the Encyclopedia Brittannica should simply explain what homeopathy is (I object to the words pseudoscience, nonsense, quackery or a sham, placebos etc. in this article), but almost all the comp. and alt. med. articles, including articles on its advocates/practitioners (like Deepak Chopra) are attack pieces. If I'm right, we can at least have an NPOV tag at the top of this article.—Khabboos (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policy is easily looked up and from a quick glance at your talk page it would appear the policies have been explained to you many times. A NPOV tag is not appropriate on this article and this matter has been discussed endlessly. See the archives for this talk page if you want a more detailed answer. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article cites published sytematic reviews and analyses rather than cherry-picked "positive" trials. By their very nature, systematic reviews include the "positive" trials. We don't need to include them twice, and doing this would give them undue weight. Brunton (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Daffydavid, I can't keep searching for it (there are so many pages to search), so can you tell me what the objection to the NPOV tag was, in brief.—Khabboos (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article reports the scientific consensus, supported by the types of source recommended by WP:MEDRS. The words that you object to including are also adequately sourced. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't feel offended, but isn't that what others are saying about Homeopathy and not how an encyclopedia should explain Homeopathy (wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia right)?—Khabboos (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You fail to understand Misplaced Pages. Articles here do far more than "explain". They cover every aspect of the subject which can be found in RS. That includes controversies and opinions, not just the dry facts of what and how. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just read citizendium's article on Homeopathy (which seems to be much better than this wikipedia article) and feel that we can use their references - the studies and mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Any comments?—Khabboos (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can we use the references cited at citizendium here in this section of 'our' article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just as we wouldn't have an article explaining what flat earthers believe without pointing out that their beliefs are patently contradicted by the scientific evidence, we don't have a homeopathy article explaining what practitioners believe without highlighting the abundance of evidence that demonstrates it is nonsense. That is in conformance with NPOV requirements. Creating a false balance is NOT in line with NPOV policies. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can we use the references cited at citizendium here in this section of 'our' article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't feel offended, but isn't that what others are saying about Homeopathy and not how an encyclopedia should explain Homeopathy (wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia right)?—Khabboos (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article reports the scientific consensus, supported by the types of source recommended by WP:MEDRS. The words that you object to including are also adequately sourced. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Daffydavid, I can't keep searching for it (there are so many pages to search), so can you tell me what the objection to the NPOV tag was, in brief.—Khabboos (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article cites published sytematic reviews and analyses rather than cherry-picked "positive" trials. By their very nature, systematic reviews include the "positive" trials. We don't need to include them twice, and doing this would give them undue weight. Brunton (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policy is easily looked up and from a quick glance at your talk page it would appear the policies have been explained to you many times. A NPOV tag is not appropriate on this article and this matter has been discussed endlessly. See the archives for this talk page if you want a more detailed answer. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have the time for any 'wikicombat', so I won't even edit this article. I did read the matter at WP:MEDRS. Now, as a rookie/novice here, I want to know what wikipedia's official policy is. It claims to be an encyclopedia and like say, the Encyclopedia Brittannica should simply explain what homeopathy is (I object to the words pseudoscience, nonsense, quackery or a sham, placebos etc. in this article), but almost all the comp. and alt. med. articles, including articles on its advocates/practitioners (like Deepak Chopra) are attack pieces. If I'm right, we can at least have an NPOV tag at the top of this article.—Khabboos (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- 1. The point you are trying to make (there are positive trials) has already been covered in the lede, by citing two secondary sources on that matter. 2. We are not using primary sources because the underlying statistics predict 5% of the studies being false positives/negatives. 3. Of all things, this article is not the best choice to show your goodwill, especially when you are clearly biased against reporting the scientific consent. Rka001 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so you haven't read MEDRS. Please do so. **Very** few studies or clinical trials, even in non-fringe areas, are suitable. Also, seeking a second place to conduct wikicombat is not going to do your case much good. Why not work on something mundane for a while, instead? Just click the "random article" link and see what comes up? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make is that there are good, positive studies/clinical trials and we at least need to have an NPOV tag for this article - almost every sentence is attacking homeopathy (I've been topic banned from terrorism related articles and I'm looking for other articles to edit, so that I can appeal my TBan in a month).—Khabboos (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:MEDRS? These are rather old primary sources, so not at all suitable. Alexbrn 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, for example: Study 1) In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica, by Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J., published in the Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444, which showed Inhibitory Basophil degranulation and Study 2) Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate, by Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F., published in the Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9., which showed Protective Glutamate toxicity etc.—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please state your proposed added text and the source that supports it. Note medical sources need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- LeadSongDog, that was not the source I used. Anyway, can we add those studies/clinical trials using references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. into this article? Can I add that matter back here (on the Talk page) as a collapsed table?—Khabboos (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- It can't be a copyvio because I have only posted the studies and clinical trials the source mentioned! I have even added the html codes.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Where have you copied this wall of text from? Do you think anybody is going to read it? Isn't it a copyright violation? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Citizendium operates under very different rules than we do - and the result is an encyclopedia that not many people trust enough to actually read. It has an Alexia rank in the 300,000 range and it's getting worse every month - where Misplaced Pages's rank is more or less always between 5 and 10. (That means that only half a dozen websites in the entire world are read more widely than Misplaced Pages - and a third of a million web sites are more widely read than Citizendium). Given that they are both publicly-editable free-access comprehensive encyclopedias - you have to wonder why that is.
- Misplaced Pages's guiding principle on this kind of subject is that we unflinchingly take the mainstream scientific view. No serious, properly run systematic review has ever shown homeopathy to be any better than placebo - which is why we use that word a lot in our article. Yes, we also use the word "pseudoscience" - please look up the definition of that word before you assume it's some kind of derogatory term - it's not. It means that this is a field of study that makes claims of a scientifically predictive, testable nature (you give someone treatment X and their illness Y is made better Z% of the time) - but it's practitioners don't follow the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, peer review, publication, systematic review, theory). Nobody can deny that fact - homeopathists don't do proper double-blind placebo-controlled experiments on statistically reasonable numbers of subjects...they do a "proving" and leap from trying it on one person to saying "Behold! We have a new wonderdrug!". We also use the words "nonsense", "quackery" and "sham" - they are in a sentence that says: "The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, or a sham." - we're not saying that it necessarily is any of those things - we're saying that mainstream science has "characterized" it as those things...for which we have multiple references - and which is obviously a notable fact about Homeopathy that (given WIkipedia's stated rules about following the mainstream scientific view) it would be biassed reporting if we chose to suppress it.
- Personally: If you're trying to impress admins with how well you work in the Misplaced Pages community - you're going completely the wrong way about it - and I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you've been the subject of a topic ban. What you should be doing with your time is to get familiar with our community rules, guidelines and standards and doing more asking than telling. For sure, Misplaced Pages says that alt medicine is bunkum - it says that because that's the belief of mainstream science - and that is one of our guiding principles. As an editor interested in working in this kind of an article, you need to get familiar with those kinds of policy. If you've read - but don't agree with - that guiding principle, then you're in deep trouble because it's held at the very highest levels of the organization and produces strong keep consensus whenever it's discussed. There are other online encyclopedias (and perhaps Citizendium is one of them) who might feel differently - but that's their decision, not ours. Anyone can set up an "online encyclopedia" with any set of rules they want - and the readers will decide which of them is the most useful. The Alexia rankings are (in effect) a measure of the efficacy of the founding principles of these websites - and Misplaced Pages has clearly gotten it right in areas where Citizendium has failed miserably.
- However, Misplaced Pages is by far the most trusted and widely read encyclopedia in the world - and I'd suggest that part of the reason for that is precisely because we take the mainstream view and don't allow crazy theories like Homeopathy to represent themselves as "THE TRUTH".
- If you don't like that - then you don't have to continue to work here. But don't expect anything you say here to persuade us to say anything other than what proper hard-core science has to say on this topic - and that is most certainly that it's a pile of steaming bullshit.
- When wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, its articles should be encyclopedic, not attack pieces, right? (Smile
)—Khabboos (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's only an attack piece if you assume the views of a homeopathist. If I were a believer in homeopathy, then probably, I would feel attacked by an article that says that everything I stand for is bullshit. On the other hand, a mainstream scientist who's spent their career studying human biochemistry, doing clever experiments, trying his best to cure cancer is going to feel every bit as badly attacked if we say that telling cancer patients to drink 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 diluted dog milk (yes, really!)...will cure them so much better than all that nasty science stuff. So in any controversial subject area, you're never going to please everyone...and if you're an information provider, you shouldn't even try. Instead, we have to pick a position on these matters that's 'neutral' - and write from that neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). In the case of medical and scientific articles, WIkipedia mandates (quite strongly) that the mainstream scientific view is the neutral position. So to be neutral in this matter, we say that science is right and homeopathists are wrong. Sure, someone gets upset - but the truth is often like that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- When wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, its articles should be encyclopedic, not attack pieces, right? (Smile
- Bottom line here: You have to argue either:
- Misplaced Pages guidelines on NPOV/FRINGE/etc in matters like this are wrong...or...
- Editors of this article are not following the WIkipedia guidelines.
- Those are the only two arguments that carry any weight whatever. If it's (1) that is your beef (and I think it is) - then go to the pages describing those policies and try to get them changed (good luck with that! It's never going to happen!)....if it's (2) and you think we're disobeying Wikipedias guidelines - then please point out the specific section of the rules/policies/guidelines that you think we're infringing and we can talk about whether that's really a problem or not.
- What won't work here (and will eventually land you with another topic ban for disruption) is arguing that homeopathy is true and that's what we should say. That's irrelevant because we have plenty of references for what the article says. SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK Steve, don't get mad with me, but if I say it's (1), how do I request a change of policy (never mind the result)?—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Each policy page has its own associated talk page for discussion of edits to that policy. Overall, policies are governed by wp:POLICY. For less specific issues, such as "what policy addresses XYZ" questions, try asking at wp:Village pump (policy). That said, it's far more productive to first understand policies before setting out to change them. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK thanks, LSD!—Khabboos (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Each policy page has its own associated talk page for discussion of edits to that policy. Overall, policies are governed by wp:POLICY. For less specific issues, such as "what policy addresses XYZ" questions, try asking at wp:Village pump (policy). That said, it's far more productive to first understand policies before setting out to change them. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK Steve, don't get mad with me, but if I say it's (1), how do I request a change of policy (never mind the result)?—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following text. ...a pseudoscience and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.
Replace it with. ... "a system and philosophy of medicine born from acute observations that substances ingested by humans have presentations of symptomatology common to themselves and when matched closely to a specific individual's symptomatic presentation can produce a curing effect. One of the first observations of this principle was from Hippocrates, commonly recognized as the father of modern medicine. "
Reason for edit: (Requesting more substantive changes and reliable sources.) Calling homeopathy an ineffective pseudoscience is not correct and does not do justice to one of the two basic and founding principles of medicine, the treatment with similar rather than opposite medicines. The break with modern science occurs within an aspect of homeopathy in which the remedies are diluted beyond Avogadro's number. This, however only takes place in the higher potency (more dilute) prescriptions and not with lower potency (less dilute) prescriptions. Homeopathy has always had, low and high potency prescribers advocating their respective positions. It would not be correct to advocate for either one within a definition of Homeopathy. Also, Homeopathy is not an archaic form of medicine as there are thousands of active practitioners today. As Homeopathy is highly criticized by allopathic practitioners and promoters, and also highly politically and competitively, contentious within and between its own practitioner base, it is best to state the principles and leave out the judgements. As to Homeopathy's efficacy, besides the thousands of successfully treated patients from every civilized country in the world, the principle of the "law of similars" is well born out as a true and scientific principle through common observation and, in principle, used in commonly accepted treatments for snake bites, hangovers, and in vaccinations (the main difference not in principal, but being the material strength of the dosage) (the more concentrated the dosage the greater the toxic risk). This is the reason for Hahnemann's dilutions, a desire to effect a cure and "do no harm". Cruscntrl (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think we were born yesterday. Not Done. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cruscntrl, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read the section just above this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned in the section above (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Khabboos:, it would seem you have not yet read the material I linked. Please do so. The above is certainly not reflective of an accurate reading. WP:RS pertains to all articles, not just those about CAM. WP:MEDRS interprets and clarifies the application of WP:RS in the context of medical assertions and all articles about medicine, including CAM. In every subject area, the underlying principle is that we should use the most reliable sources we can identify, and then reflect the thrust of what those sources say in our rephrased content. We avoid adding our own interpretation, per wp:NOR, wp:SYN, and various others. My comment above was definitely NOT a suggestion to complain, but to do the work of first understanding and learning to work within the policies which have been formed by consensus of the community over many years of discussion among a lot of intelligent, involved editors. Until one actually understands the policies and the discussion that formed them, one is unlikely to be able to make any constructive change to them. In short, one has to do the homework. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cruscntrl, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read the section just above this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned in the section above (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
Tuomelawas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Smith2012was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Baran2014was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
Shang2005was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- 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