Talk:Homeopathy

Random idea

Why don't we remove the references section to the top of the page? That should save us the headache of having to constantly move it down (or it keeping us from using the + tab to add sections). We'll just have to be careful not to archive it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i tried that it really screwd up the whole article i almost had to recommend the article for deleting and trying to recreate the article from memory. i guess we just have to live iwth it on the bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

I tried putting it above but it did not include the four cites that are on the page. Try putting a test reference right at the bottom of the page, you'll see it does not show up in the reference list. It appears that only references above the {{reflist}} template get included. If you know anyway around that problem, then I agree, put it at the top. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

nah waxt eof time. i already tried to put it on the top 6 ytimes and each occasion the talk page was completely annihilated. if i try ot put it on the top again i might not beable to fix it and the only thing we will have to do is rereate this whole talk page + archives from memory, which sounds extremelyl yidfficult. !!!~ Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was only annihilated because you missed out a "|}" to close the hide/show box. Note, putting it above does not annihilate the page. The problem is the references only get listed if they are above the {{reflist}} template. David D. (Talk) 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

sure pin the whole mess on me. i tried to fix it and i was able to see where i went wrong., thanks a lot. Smith Jones (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed fork Criticism of homeopathy

Per discussion occurring at WT:NPOV it is proposed that an article fork named Criticism of homeopathy be created. This article then can be a neutral presentation of homeopathy with a summary of and a link to the criticism. The criticism article should likewise summarize this one and link back. —Whig (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and double no. The scientific legitimacy of a subject is of paramount importance and should never be shuffled off into a fork. Jefffire (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary should prominently make clear the issues, but the fuller and detailed arguments can be described at length in the fork, both for and against. —Whig (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. This looks exactly like a PoV fork. Jefffire (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems an excellent way forward. The Tutor (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No this would constitute a POV fork, have a look at Wikipedia:Criticism for how criticism should be incorporated into the article. Addhoc (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out maybe a few dozen times. This is what Wikinfo does, not Wikipedia. At Wikipedia we have something called WP:NPOV. Ever hear of it? You might want to learn about it.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea in most cases. If the criticism is so large that overwhelms the article, what can be considered is a WP:SUMMARY, that is different than a POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

iagree with the dissnters. whenever we create an article like this, we end up with a overhwelmingly pro-homeopathy main article and an overwehelmingly anti-homeopathy criticism article, which would essentially have hte same problems as this article plus the fact that its an illegal content fork. Smith Jones (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to make a new fork of a pro-homeopathy article and then rename the present one anti-homeopathy! ;-) maybe I am kidding who knows? Peter morrell 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in a couple article disputes before when the idea was raised to create a separate article for criticism. In some cases it has worked, and other it has not. I don't believe it would work well with Homeopathy. Homeopathy, as a fringe belief, has ideas that cannot be presented adequately without including inline criticizing text. I would also caution any supporter of this idea who thinks it would give them room to present homeopathy without criticism. Any statement of how homeopathy works would still be roundly surrounded by the science. The history of how homeopathy developed would have to be put in context of pre-atomic physics which has since then thoroughly discarded those ideas, etc, etc. Criticism articles can work when the criticism is the minority or fringe position - and when the controversy is notable in and of itself. In this case, that would be backwards. Homeopathy is the fringe topic. It can't be presented without the criticism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

apart from the bald assertions that homeopathy is "fringe", i aree with everything schmucky the cat just said. criticizng text is key to the article and divesting it here and placing it over elsewehraea like in another article would be a disservice to readers. the science must remain in order to have a fair and adequate portrayal of homeopathy, its tenets, and criticisms thereof. if we split it off we could end up wiht an abomination like "criticisms of sylvia browne where the criticism is more or less forked off from the main article due to lenght alone. Smith Jones (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brown article had problems with BLP: we are talking about a practice, not a person. Homeopathy won't get its feelings hurt, or sue. If you would please READ WP:FORK you will see that forks per se are only discouraged, and NOT "illegal" and even what's discouraged is trying to do to it to hide a controversy, instead of to flesh it out and enlighten it when it's unavoidable, since the very topic is a POV. Please see Criticism of Mormonism and Anti-Mormonism for examples. Then, very carefully read this, from WP:Fork:

Articles whose subject is a POV: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

.

Now, what is it that you don't understand about this? Do you infer from it that there something wrong and illegal about doing what the guide suggests doing? SBHarris 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Several editors from both sides have indicated they don't consider this idea to be worth pursuing. In my honest opinion, this proposal hasn't much chance of being accepted. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, that's too bad. If we have Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism articles and a Scientific investigation of chiropractic article, we can certainly have a Criticism of homeopathy article, and meantime let the homeopaths have relatively free rein to present their own beliefs in the Homeopathy article (not too much hype), along with a short summary of the criticism or negative scientific findings, and link to the criticism/science article as a "main" article for the criticism. That's the way Wikipedia works. Example: we have a pedophilia article which is pretty neutral, but it contains equal lengh small summary subsections on Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism, and each references the appropriate longer sub-article, of the same name. Get it?

I might add that if you really want to do this symmetrically, you can have a Homeopathy article which presents mostly history and principles, as taught. Then a Scientific investigation of homeopathy article (to mirror the chiropractic one), with main subarticles to Scientific results favoring homeopathy and another on Negative scientific results unfavorable to homeopathy. Summarize and link all the way. Eventually you'll get to a place where everybody can write down all their reference-able stuff, without too much hassle from anybody else. Okay? SBHarris 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the "NPOV" treatment of child molestors on Wikipedia is one of its biggest disgraces and one of the things most commonly used to point out why Wikipedia is a joke, I would not use articles on that topic as the model for how things should be done in the future.

There is an endless amount of factual information about Catholicism to present, aside from criticism of the Catholic Church. That may be a good example of a split. But chiropractors, like homeopaths, have no business presenting their beliefs as true or trying to fill up a lengthy article with a topic devoid of substance. Any article that is written from a verifiable, true, neutral perspective that is inline with FRINGE, WEIGHT, and other stated policies, about chiropractors, or about homeopaths, will contain mostly criticism, since that is what the reliable sources have to offer about those topics, and that is why they are significant. Homeopathy is significant as a consumer fraud and as a leading form of pseudoscience, because millions of people are hoodwinked into participating in it each year. It is not significant as "medicine" or as a "field" because it is no such thing, and any information presenting it as such is de facto unreliable. Thus, the article should largely be about homeopathy as a social phenomenon, explaining why people believe in bunkum and what the legal status of medical fraud is. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Apologies for the length of this. As for medical "fraud," chiropractors and acupuncturists and homeopaths have just as much business presenting their ideas as "true" as your local religion does, when it sells you a ticket to Heaven of some kind, in exchange for your "support" (which generally means your money). Medical fraud is simply a subset of all consumer fraud, and we don't even apply "consumer fraud" to religion or philosophical beliefs. Why? For pragmatic reasons. Trying to do so resulted historically in things like the Hundred Years War, not because the principles weren't the same! The FTC and FDA don't look at religions, not because money doesn't change hands (it does-- see the Scientology wars with the IRS), but because we've just decided not to go there, because they can't win. I don't think you can mount a strictly logical (vs merely pragmatic) argument for why we shouldn't, though, if you really think the state should be involved with questions that science can't fully answer, where people pay money for services that can just as well be classified as "entertainment," such as fortune-telling and astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis. ;)

I'm on the review board for SKEPTIC magazine, and have written for the Skeptical Inquirer. How about you? As for Wikipedia, it's not Skeptipedia. Skeptipedia actually exists-- perhaps you were looking for it, and found yourself here by mistake? If you'll look at my own Wiki USER and TALK pages you'll see you're preaching to the converted about homeopathy-- I also think it's nonsense, on par with Feng shui and intercessory prayer. I'm about as thoroughgoing a materialist and rationalist as you're likely to find, but that does not mean that I think the best way to promote rational skepticism in the world is by suppressing presentation of information on nonskeptical beliefs. I'm a libertarian. I don't want the state (see the FDA) deciding what's "fraud"-- partly because these people are nearly as big fools as the quacks.

Anyway, most people in the US, indeed the world, have what I'll call "proto-religious" beliefs-- the idea that they can influence future events by means other than scientific. Never mind prayer-- consider "lucky" actions, and even watch people gyrate after rolling a bowling ball, as though their body movements had any influence over what was going to happen after the release was completed.

Our mission on Wikipedia is not to stamp all that out. We couldn't if we tried. Our mission is to write an encyclopedia documenting the human condition and human thinking. Where science is appropriate as a method, we should give the conclusions science has available, and if science is still arguing about something, we need to give both sides.

Where the question hasn't even been admitted to be resolvable with scientific methods (ethics, religious assertions not testable by science, and also assertions with built-in "science experiment filters"), we should leave for philosophical or ethical or religious debate, the various modes these have already established. It's no good stating that any information which leads against our a priori beliefs is "defacto" unreliable-- that simply defines the evidence we're willing to listen to in terms of what we think already (No true Scotsman has been quoted). I don't like that sort of thinking.

In any case, even if we were to agree to scientific "Queensbury rules" at the out-set, Catholicism and traditional Chinese medicine and (to some large extent) psychoanalysis and homeopathy are not even natural scientific pursuits, as you and I understand the term natural science (I'm not sure all homeopaths will ADMIT to this, but it becomes quite clear to me in arguing with them, since they are such masters of ad hoc-ery as never to be subject to the rules of science). Thus, it's no more fair to make an article on homeopathy hew to rules of scientific proof than it is an article about the utility of Catholic indulgences, rosary work or devotional medals of Saint Christopher do so. Religion survives on ad hoc-ery and mystery! That doesn't mean all such articles must contain reference after reference, stating that, according to the scientific method, they're all crap.

Major religions do have entire critical articles. Articles like those on Feng Shui and New age thinking in general have nice locular criticism sections, but they're small and not pervasive. If some are not spun off into subarticles, that is only because the criticism isn't very complete, or else reference to scientific skepticism as a subarticle serves for all. Much criticism of New Age thinking comes from older orthodox religion, in fact, and nobody has written the full Wikis on the Jeremiads of the evangelicals against the hippies. Nor do I want to read them! But I'm not against including them when they come along, so long as sourced, referenced, and summarized. Religion vs. religion is always entertaining (are you a believer?). I merely suggest that it's not the job of Wikipedia to be SKEPTIC magazine. That's SKEPTIC magazine's job.

So be inclusionist, and lighten up a bit. I'm sure you believe many things that you couldn't prove with the scientific method. Is it better, for example, to do the kind vs. the expedient/profitable thing, even if you have no chance of getting caught or noticed, either way? Yes, you say? Well, I say. Prove it. SBHarris 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"meantime let the homeopaths have relatively free rein to present their own beliefs"

That is exactly what forking the content out does NOT mean. Even if this was a good idea, that isn't the way it is done. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

While we're at it, let's make the "creationism" article say that God created the world 6000 years ago, the "slavery" article say that slavery was good for black Americans, the "Jews" article be nothing but conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the media, and the "9/11 attacks" article be nothing but an allegation that George Bush (and the same Jews) took down the towers. Then, we'll put all the actual information about those things in separate articles called "scientific view of creationism," "criticism of slavery," "responses to Jewish conspiracy theories," and "historical perspective on 9/11 attacks," which will be shorter than the articles about fringe theories, harder to find, present themselves as less legitimate since they are sub-article forks, and used as bludgeons to keep rational, objective information off of the main pages for those topics. That's the kind of Wikipedia that the homeopathy people appear to want. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Randy. Addhoc (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's good to see a rational point of view expressed again. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked we Jews do own the media.  :) Randy, excellent rant!!! I'm quoting it in the future, unless it's copyrighted somewhere.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

yea i have to agree with Randy's argument here. my main criticism of this idea is that it creates an artificial pressentation of homeopathic science by forking off science-based criticism to a subarticle that people might not initally see. The way its done now is a lot better, and unless someone can come up with a really good reason why hoemoapthy shoul dbe forked off into 4 or 5 subarticles with titles like [[Scientific results favoring homeopathy]] and negative scientific results disfavoring homeoapthy then it should not be done. Smith Jones (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the proposal, however. Simply creating Criticism of homeopathy does not fork POV in multiple directions, it allows all criticism to be included in an appropriate place which does not prevent the reader from learning about the subject itself in the main article, with appropriate summaries and links to ensure that nobody is confused, and the criticisms then set forth at as much length as needed. —Whig (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would also lead to legitimate criticisms of homoeopathy being excluded from the main article, which would then not be NPOV. Brunton (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't correct. The main article would necessarily contain a summary of the criticism and a link to the article where it can be set forth at as much length as needed. —Whig (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should not prefix "Criticism" with some label like "Scientific criticism" because organizations which identify themselves as scientific are not necessarily to be regarded by everyone as such. We should try to be conservative about creating more articles, going from one to five at a single time would be a bad idea. If someone wants to suggest an amendment to the proposal that the second article should have a different name or that we really do need a third article for some reason, then that would be a constructive discussion to have. —Whig (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

btut you see we have already gone through hudnreds of paragraphs of discussion of this idea and i and a lot of other people on this raticle talk page see no construcitve erason to multilate the article to such an extent that content is being forked around in random directions. for example, the article on scientific criticism can and hsould be easily incorporated into the article. Smith Jones (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that Homeopathy has been a battleground. Yes, and we're trying to fix that, to create a more peaceful editing environment for not only skeptics and proponents but for the whole of Wikipedia. Just because some people think that homeopathy is wrong does not mean it isn't notable. The criticism of homeopathy is also very important and notable and deserves an article and ought not to be hidden away but prominently summarized and linked here. —Whig (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has said two revealing things, both of which dictate that the fork should not be created- "This article then can be a neutral presentation of homeopathy". It is not neutral if it only contains material that is predicated on this nonsensical therapy being valid. " it allows all criticism to be included in an appropriate place which does not prevent the reader from learning about the subject itself in the main article" again with the implicit assumption that the therapy has validity and that learning about it need not require learning the counter-arguments. You may say, and I have made this point to Whig previously, that the Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was required to keep the Sun rising and be perfectly NPOV. You may not say, The Sun requires regular human sacrifice to keep rising as was discovered by the Aztecs and having established that 'fact' then head off into a description of which were found to be the best sacrificial knives. Homeopathy as a whole is nonsense, but it is also fatally internally fractured. Next, supposing that Whig does not believe that homeopathic 'nosodes' are valid homeopathy we'll have to fork off to another article about nosodes away from the homeopathy article to avoid the inconvenience of addressing the contradictions they pose in the 'true homeopathy' article. What about 'constitutional therapies'? Same applies. On the other hand, if you can cope with including those contradictory approaches to homeopathy in one article then you should cope with mentioning the ways in which homeopathy contradicts everything we know about medicine, biology chemistry and physics. It is a pity for the homeopaths that they cannot deal with the vast counterweight that any reasonable balancing material presents, but that is their problem. It is perfectly NPOV to say that homeopathy doesn't work. It doesn't. Fundamentally, the NPOV view is that homeopathy doesn't work. Just like the NPOV view is that the Earth rotates around the Sun not vice versa. It really is not controversial. The problem is that some people insist for various reasons that homeopathy is dealt with as if it still has a chance of being valid, will not contemplate the alternative and think that everyone is 'out to get them'. Being in the wrong may lead to paranoia but it doesn't lead to not being in the wrong and no matter how you tilt the pitch homeopathy is just plain wrong and silly to boot. Whig will point out that Wikipedia does not concern itself with what is True. However, when something happens to be False it is funny how the evidence just stacks up against it when any attempt is made to balance these things dispassionately. It could even be that its advocates would learn from this that they have placed their faith in a fiction. As I have already said, I have no problem presenting material about homeopathy any more than I have a problem presenting material about how the Aztecs thought the Sun required sacrifice to keep rising. They are interesting and valid topics for people to enquire about. The problem arises when the believers in such false ideas insist that their material is presented as if it was true and try to suppress the counter-evidence. OffTheFence (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence does not agree with our policies of NPOV, NOR and V. It would not be constructive to debate over the question of whether his POV is more "true" than someone else's. There is no intention of possibility of suppressing "the counter-evidence" by creating an article for the purpose of setting forward criticism at as much length as needed, keeping a prominent summary here. —Whig (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's that royal plural personal pronoun creeping in again. I have patiently explained to you and illustrated where Wikipedia's rules fail badly when it comes to sifting scientific research in a field dominated by poor quality research published in poor quality journals where the "peers" doing the reviewing are tendentious and/or weak. I have shown you why and how that research is of poor quality, which is particularly ironic given that the papers we have discussed were being presented as being of the highest standards. You have been unable to rebut that criticism, but have fallen back on various attempts to use Wikipedia's rules to engineer objectively bad information into its Articles. Having said that, I have become somewhat encouraged by the support given by other editors for applying constraints such as WP:WEIGHT. But where pro-homeopathy editors continually try to exploit these weaknesses the task of trying to create balance is tiresomely sisyphean. The saddest thing is that the obvious lesson to draw from the need to fall back on these tactics to protect homeopathy is that homeopathy does not deserve this protection. The problem only arises because its supportive evidence is of the weakest and most biased kind, based almost entirely, need I really remind you, on user testimonials such as the ones you have cited on your own behalf. OffTheFence (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate changing or ignoring Wikipedia's core policies. —Whig (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says? If the core policies lead to a stupid decision being made here then it is time to discuss them. However, it looks at the moment like the core policies are going to lead to your daft proposal being rejected. I should also point out that, as I have said previously, on reflection, I can see no need to reject those core policies as a whole, but they do need to be applied sensibly rather than in a partisan and tendentious manner by exploiting their susceptibility to excessively narrow interpretations that are to the detriment of achieving good encyclopaedia Articles. I also note, that yet again you have no answer to my specific criticisms. OffTheFence (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose when to apply the core policies of NPOV, NOR and V. They apply at all times to all articles no matter what you may think. —Whig (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not constructive, Filll. If you have a specific thing that you wish to disagree with, then make your point more clearly. —Whig (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this idea, since it would be a POV fork. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion was made to create a fork by User:Sbharris on the WT:NPOV thread which I strongly encourage you to read. It is not a POV fork if we do it properly. In particular, when I said that similar proposals had been called POV forks in the past, he replied: "Yes, but that was wrong. If you read WP:FORK carefully, you'll see it does NOT forbid forking in this way, so long as no information is lost, and summaries of each fork article are left in the other. Sometimes this is the only way out which pleases everybody. Politically, it's good. SBHarris 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)" —Whig (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia:Content forking policy states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why Criticism of homeopathy should contain all criticism and rebuttals with reliable sources, not just those of one POV. This article should also make proper reference to the criticism. —Whig (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is precious. You want us to take all criticism off of the "homeopathy" page, but then you want "criticism of homeopathy" to contain "rebuttals" to the criticism! It looks like all you want to do is have TWO pages full of farcical pro-homeopathy nonsense! I for one am shocked that a homeopathy proponent would manipulate the Wikipedia process, scheme towards a long-term goal, and hide his true motives, on this talk page. Shocked! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a misrepresentation. Per the WP:Content forking editing guideline, There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A blatant POV fork like that won't work and will fail to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. The article is of a size where splitting sections in careful accordance with WP:SUMMARY is in order, based on existing sections. #Prevalence and legal trends is one section which could reasonably be summarised and split off as a sub article. Further options can be considered. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "blatant POV fork." "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." I have no such intention, nor did Sbharris in proposing a fork be created. —Whig (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks that way. Criticism of a subject is a point of view, and you're openly pushing the idea of shifting full coverage of "the scientific point of view" elsewhere, while keeping promotion of homeopathy, or perhaps "the pseudoscientific point of view", in the main article. As Tim says, that's completely against the core values of NPOV. .. dave souza, talk 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's been lurking here for a little while, I'll go on record as opposing spitting. Regardless of how carefully we try to do it, the split articles will inevitably devolve into POV forks. Yilloslime (t) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is being pushed by one or two editors who have shown their POV very clearly. Can we move on, since there is a greater chance of finding one molecule in a homeopathy solution than creating a POV fork. If it's created, the list of individuals who will speedy delete is so long, that we'd have a bet on who would be first. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare something like this with a religion article - while all our religion articles have serious POV problems, they are presented as religions, not as facts. And even there, it isn't acceptable to segregate criticism off into daughter articles. Homeopathy is an obvious fantasy, based on imaginary concepts. We aren't going to segregate into an article called "Criticisms of Harry Potter" the claims that Harry Potter isn't real. We admit it up front: "Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels..." We owe it to our readers to do the same here. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that low potency homeopathy is equally fantastic? —Whig (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all make-believe - does it matter whether some make-believe is harder to believe than other? I don't think that distinction matters past the age of 9 or 10, not that I am an expert in child development or anything. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So a 1x potency is make-believe? —Whig (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not homeopathy and would probably be poisonousAcleron (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So Calms Forté, a commonly available over the counter sleep aid which is labeled as Homeopathic, and contains a number of 1x remedies, is either poisonous or not homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And today's fallacy is the False Dichotomy- " is either poisonous or not homeopathy?" It can be both. Homeopathy is nonsense at all potencies. At low potencies it can be nonsense and poisonous. At high potencies it is just nonsense. There is no evidence that the "Law of Similars" as any kind of generalisable natural law, so however homeopathy is used the "homeo" part always means it is nonsense. Cherry-picking a few items from normal medicine's cabinet, like vaccines, and saying this somehow proves that the Law of Similars is valid is a commonly deployed trick and deeply dishonest. For the Law of Similars to be true you need to prove that the arsenic at any dilution is capable of curing symptoms, whatever their cause, that appropriately resemble those caused by arsenic intoxication and to repeat that exercise for any number of other examples. A single counter-example is sufficient to disprove the "Law". This "Law" is asserted as true, but it has no valid evidential base at all. OffTheFence (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a religious argument here. We aren't talking about arsenic, but Calms Forté is a homeopathic medicine that is sitting right here in front of me which I bought at the Walgreen's per my doctor's advice, it is neither poisonous nor nonsense. It contains several 1x, 2x and 3x potencies of various remedies none of which is toxic at the minimal doses given. —Whig (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "religious argument". It seems to be your code phrase for logically valid arguments to which you have no effective response and would like to ignore. Be that as it may and this is getting a bit off the point, but since you bring it up- If it works and it has active ingredients at pharmaceutically meaningful concentrations then it is potentially toxic.[1] [2]. Heck, the effects are probably trivial at the doses in that product, but that doesn't alter the basic point. You'll have to decide for yourself whether an over-the-counter, mixed-ingredient, low-potency remedy supplied without the taking of a full homeopathic history has anything to do with homeopathy or whether it is just a herbal remedy dressed up as homeopathy to exploit a marketing niche. Your advocacy of this product is to be noted if ever you try to assert that non-individualised trials of homeopathy (that overwhelmingly show negative results) should be discounted as not being 'proper' homeopathy. OffTheFence (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't advocated any product. I said my doctor recommended it, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to non-individualized treatment. And furthermore, this debate is not going anywhere, and certainly does not belong here. —Whig (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's over-the-counter, it would not be regarded as homoeopathic by many proponents of homoeopathy because it lacks the individualisation which is claimed to be an essential part of homoeopathy. As to whether a 1X potency is make-believe, even at that potency homoeopathy still relies on "like cures like", a piece of make-believe based on two hundred year old medical thinking, which has no real supporting evidence. Brunton (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Whig, I clearly misconstrued you. When you mentioned a product that you had bought for yourself and cited it in context to defend against a criticism of the make-believe philosophy of homeopathy I made the stupid mistake of thinking that you did so on the basis of a positive opinion of the product. I was clearly mistaken. I was clearly also mistaken in thinking that you regard individualised prescription as being an important part of homeopathic therapy. Clearly if individualised treatment mattered one iota then you would not have bought an over-the-counter remedy. It would be sheer foolishness to buy such a remedy if one thought that individualisation was an important aspect of homeopathy. Thank you for clearing that up, I shall emphasise this when I hear criticism from homeopaths of studies of homeopathy that have not been individualised. You have been most helpful. Well, that's all really. The fork ain't gonna happen and we've cleared up some controversial issues. OffTheFence (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also purchased 30C and 200C remedies over the counter. Individualization occurs when a doctor recommends a specific remedy for a specific patient for their specific symptoms. You are making false assertions to arrive at false conclusions. The fork isn't likely to happen, at least at the present time. I agree with you on that. —Whig (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The original meaning of the word "homeopathy" was anything that used the "method of similars". Therefore, many standard medical practices like prescribing ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and other treatments are really "homeopathy" by the original definition given by Hahnemann.

Proposed fork Criticism of homeopathy - break

However, in current usage, the word "homeopathy" has come to be associated with tiny doses, and in particular submolecular doses. Regular medicine gives things in tiny doses, and 1X is not tiny; neither is 2X or 3X, and all are concentrations you might find in regular medicine, but regular medicine does not administer submolecular doses (higher "potentency" than 24X). So, the one big distinction between regular medicine and homeopathic medicine is the use of submolecular doses.--Filll (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fairly stated, Filll. But not all homeopaths use submolecular doses, and since homeopathy is used without calling it homeopathy whenever "stimulants" are given for ADHD, etc., we should make the criticism more specific. —Whig (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So if you are frantic to create a fork, and you claim there is not enough material on "evidence for homeopathy", why not leave the current article as it is, and we will create a fork Evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. And you can describe at length all the positive studies that find evidence for homeopathy. And of course, for NPOV, we will have to also quote all the contrary evidence as well. How about that for a fork?--Filll (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Evidence pro and con should be included. The controversy of H research could be detailed in such a Fork. H article can contain a summary of that page. Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01. Such an article should include sourced criticism of that evidence. It would be a good fork to create. —Whig (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The current page is a summary and stays as it is.--Filll (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dad! ;-) --Anthon01 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the proponents of a fork serious? Well try some of Doc Carter's 100x Explumbinated Tonic -- why it is gar-un-teed to undo all the effects of ingesting paint chips. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The criticism which is contained mostly in the Medical and scientific analysis and Research on effects in other biological systems sections, IMO, violates the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV which states, Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. This H page is a minority view's page specifically devoted to H. There is not provision in WP:NPOV that requires a particular percentage split of non-critical vs. critical information. The points made in the criticism are valid as per V & RS, however, the level of detail in the criticism sections is excessive and can be summarized and take up considerable less space on the page. IMO, appropriate reference doesn't mean great detail, but referencing key points that convey the overall SPOV on H.

Separate from what I raise here, a separate article on "Homeopathy research" could easily go into even greater detail comparing pro, neutral and anti-H views, could be cooperatively written and much more informative in regards to the SPOV. Key point:I think this would end the constant fighting at this page. If a summary style article is the best, then let's do it that way. Anthon01 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See response at #Brief comments by involved editors below, to what appears to be a repeat by Anthon01 of the same post that s/he added above. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we just move this page to "criticism of science" or something

Let's take the pro-fork POV to its logical extreme and delete all pages on homeopathy, chiropractic, ear candling, vaccines causing autism, herbalism, Dr. Phil, faith healing, Ayurvedic medicine, and other quack medical practices off of Wikipedia. We'll just have one page labeled "criticism of legitimate medical practice" or "criticism of science" or "criticism of Enlightenment culture," or perhaps "criticism of allowing people with disease to continue living," that can briefly summarize all of these things in strict accordance with some ridiculous bean-counting of their number of followers. Does that sound fair? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Such pages already more or less exist. Making an umbrella doesn't mean the subarticles cease to be. There is a Complementary and alternative medicine which references complementary medicine and alternative medicine, and along the way mentions integrative medicine and various other subarticles on herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and nutritional stuff like naturopathy. What's the problem? SBHarris 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing you are you missing is this violates WP principles and guidelines.--Filll (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the articles Sbharris listed violate WP principles or what Randy Blackamoor unseriously proposed? —Whig (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you only ask off-topic questions? Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is topical, as I am trying to understand what Filll was saying violates WP principles. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with German and French versions

Since supposedly homeopathy is so much more popular in France and Germany, and in particular German Wikipedia is much more strict and follows the Wikipedia rules much more closely than other Wikipedias, what do their homeopathy articles look like? I did some reading today. And guess what? They look pretty much like ours. I would be glad to translate their LEADs for anyone who wanted to compare. But both of them describe homeopathy as highly controversial. The German version calls it pseudoscience and "fantasy medicine". Both state that dilutions are carried on past the point of detection, etc. And these articles are in languages from countries that supposedly celebrate homeopathy and where it is a mainstream treatment, etc! It would be interesting to translate the Hindi version of homeopathy as well.

By the way, the references are quite light in the French and German versions compared to the English version; we have much better documentation.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My German is not very good, but from the number of talk archive pages at de:Diskussion:Homöopathie I'd say the editors of the German version are fighting just as much as the editors of this article; it looks like there are claims of NPOV problems over there. The French version is much more peaceful, and the lead of the French article is only 1 sentence long! --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the discussion is not near as nasty at the German version as at ours, and there are not near as many posts. They are voting on assorted things I notice, but it is not as contentious as this. The French LEAD is quite short; but the French article also has an introductory section which is where they really start to describe homeopathy. I will provide translations if anyone is interested.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just translated the Dutch version as well. Same thing; all three: Dutch, German and French are just like our version pretty much.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you working off an automated translation for these, or your own knowledge? I'm just thinking that I read French reasonably well, so I might be able to get a better picture of that article than just from Google translations or whatever. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I speak a little French and I know a tiny amount of German. I used some automated tools to help. If you want to help, I will give you some links to look at. --Filll (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the French article, I have to say that it comes down pretty hard on homeopathy, even early on. The first couple sections of the article are rough summaries (and more detailed versions of them exist further on). The first of these is a simple description of what homeopathy is and its basic tenets. The second goes into how well it works, and it comes out pretty clearly in saying that it doesn't. There's only a brief mention there that homeopaths still believe it works from anecdotal experience. No studies are mentioned as supporting that homeopathy works. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The German version calls it pseudoscience and "fantasy medicine". Don't know where you got that. The last sentence of the lead is "Aus diesen und weiteren Gründen wird die Homöopathie häufig als Paramedizin oder Pseudowissenschaft bezeichnet." For these reasons and more homeopathy is often called paramedicine or pseudoscience. In light of the discussions we have had here, the distinction between "Homeopathy is pseudoscience" and "Homeopathy is often called pseudoscience" is significant. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...whether it works or not, it's pseudoscience, isn't it? It's a child's caricature of science, which includes fantasies like "water memory". What else would you call a field based on imaginary principles? Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A multilingual friend has now looked at the homeopathy articles in Catalan, Occitan, Portuguese, Spanish, Galician, Italian, and Romanian as well, and assures me that in all those languages as well, homeopathy is described as unsupported by the evidence. So anyone who wants to change Wikipedia articles on homeopathy has their work cut out for them. That is 11 Wikipedia homeopathy articles by my count, in 11 different languages, that all include a substantial amount of critical material in their articles. Does not look good for the pro-homeopathy cabal...--Filll (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish critique

One way out of this fork idea would be to specify in the article where the critique is found. Example below of the current lead. In other words distinguish between the two 'voices' in the article? what do you think?

Lead

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine first defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the 18th century.[1] Homeopathic practitioners contend that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness. According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.[2][3][4] Practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state[5] of the patient, both of which are considered important to selecting the remedy.[6]

Critique

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge".[11][12][13] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[14] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience,[15][16][17][18] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".[19]

Usage

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in Britain and the United States using homeopathy in any one year,[20][21] to 15 percent in India, where homeopathy is now considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[22] Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions;[23][24] however, homeopaths have been criticised for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[25] anti-malarial drugs[26] and antibiotics.[27] In many countries, the laws that govern regulation and testing of conventional drugs often do not apply to homeopathic remedies.[28]

this could be done right through the entire article wherever crit appears not just in the lead. Advantage? any person reading it can then identify the crit clearly and read what they want. any comments? thanks Peter morrell 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the cleanest and most efficient way to organize the criticism of homeopathy is to put it in a criticism section, and not have it strewn throughout the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is counter to WP policy. And in any case, you are going to get a chunk of it in the LEAD anyway.--Filll (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Criticism-section for an explanation of how segregation into a criticism section is a bad idea. As Peter notes, the article at present does include much of the "criticism" in identifiable paragraphs, but the important thing is to relate all views to the particular aspect that they discuss, and not separate different views away so that one view appears to be unchallenged when it is in contention. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Summary of dispute: Broad disagreement over how much critical material the article should contain.

I'm opening this RFC in hopes that we can get some outside input on this matter. So far, it's just really been the same parties making the same arguments at different places. I invite all participants in this dispute to make a comment here explaining their position. Note that this is an article RFC, so let's try to keep it limited to the content and not stray too far into commenting on the behavior of editors. We can handle that via other processes if necessary.

Thank you in advance to anyone who takes the time to come here and offer their opinion.

(Comment that was previously here has been moved down to the next section.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief comments by involved editors

Uninvolved Respondents to RfC please comment below.

• My view: Homeopathy presents itself as a form of medicine and should be appropriately judged as such. In this perspective, it is in a distinct minority (see WP:FRINGE). The perspective of mainstream medicine and science should be given predominant weight in describing the efficacy of homeopathy. Claims of homeopaths may be presented, but they may not be represent as factual. When these claims are specifically refuted by mainstream medicine, it is appropriate to state such. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anthon01 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• In a minority article, the majority scientific view needs to be properly weighed against the minority's scientific claims and not against the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-Topic

I generally agree with this comment. Perhaps someone with an opposing POV could comment briefly here so respondents can get an idea of both sides of the argument? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is IMO, not clearly worded enough. First, it should be written in a neutral not your POV. I suggested we take some time to clearly present it neutrally and word it to focus on what you/we want answered. You might consider postponing it for now. Anthon01 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to here? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the RfC. Anthon01 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is how article RFCs are generally done. I made a short, neutral summary for the RFC board ("Broad disagreement over how much critical material the article should contain."), and here I present my view of the matter. I made it quite clear that others were encouraged to present their own views. I figured that would be a lot more feasible than trying to agree on something. You know how hard that has proven to be. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I think you nailed it . Anthon01 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current weight to exposition and critical analysis is about right, give or take, and was the result of consensus previously of skeptics and homeopathy supporters. The translation of the French, German and Dutch LEADs show that all of these articles have a similar tone to our current article, if not more critical. This is relevant because these languages are associated with places where Homeopathy is supposedly far more popular and accepted than it is in the US and the UK. Also, homeopathy is definitely a FRINGE treatment by almost any measure:

• the homeopathy share of world drug market is 0.3% [3]
• money spent per person on medical items in the US in 2004 is 5267$ [4]
• money spent per person in the US on all herbals including homeopathy is 54$ [5]
• there were 315 professional homeopaths in the US in 1993, but counting lay homeopaths (unlicensed), maybe over 1000 [6] ( there were only 50-100 homeopaths in the US in the early 70s [7]) compared with 884,000 regular physicians in the US in 2006 [8]

Even in India, where about 15-20% of the medical professionals are homeopaths, homeopathy is 3rd or 4th behind regular medicine and ayurvedic medicine.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed on WT:NPOV, Homeopathy is used by hundreds of millions of people and is an accepted part of the medical systems in some countries, therefore not fringe, though clearly a minority. —Whig (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As something that purports to be a medical treatment, homeopathy should be judged according to scientists working in the medical field, not by the numbers of laymen who are interested in it ("professionals working in the medical field" who are not MDs are also laymen). "Wikipedia is not a democracy." Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Blackamoor is correct: homeopathy purports to be a medical treatment and is judged as to whether it is a valid medical treatment by scientists and others working in the medical field. Large numbers of lay people who accept it have no bearing on whether it is accepted by the scientific community as valid medicine. Period. Odd nature (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Millions of people think Bigfoot exists. Science doesn't work on voting or popularity. This article states the whole history of the Homeopathy from the POV of its promoters and marketers. Science, being based on experimentation, falsifiability, analysis, testing, and finally, publication in a peer reviewed journal, states that homeopathy is not medicine. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all scientists and doctors are quite so negative. Homeopathy has been available on the National Health Service in the UK since the Health Service first began in 1948. This is from the NHS Direct website (crown copyright) 'Complementary therapy is gradually becoming more widely available on the NHS. At the moment, the kind of complementary treatment you can access depends somewhat on where you live in England. However, complementary therapies are being introduced in more healthcare settings, including hospitals, GP surgeries and community clinics. Ask your GP if you're not sure what's available in your area. There are five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK. They are located in Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London and Tunbridge Wells, Kent.' The Tutor (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So? Yes, nearly every scientific article on Homeopathy shows it's nothing. And utilizing the pathetic UK medical system as an example is sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not all doctors think it is nonsense. You think the 315 professional homeopaths in the US think it is nonsense? Good heavens. But they are only 0.036% of the number of allopathic physicians, so you need to put these things in context.--Filll (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marlin, careful how you flounce, sometimes I can see your petticoat. The Tutor (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what a flounce is, and a petticoat? Well, whatever. Just that any medical system that, in an effort to provide placebo effects, utilizes homeopathic hospitals, ought to spend its money on searching for said Bigfoot. Oh never mind, you Brits spend money searching for the Loch Ness Monster. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The way this RfC is worded fits perfectly with my view. Homeopathy was developed to be--and is currently studied, promoted, and dispensed as--a treatment for medical maladies. While some regions have more practiononers and consumers than others, and some medical/science organizations give homeopathy varying levels of creedence, the overall practice of homeopathy is demonstrably subordinate to modern evidence-based medicine by any objective metric. Furthermore, the modality relies upon theories seemingly in direct contradiction to current physical, chemical, and phamacological knowledge. Therefore, any discussion of its medical efficacy or mechanism of action is only appropriately written through the guidance of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. — Scientizzle 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The criticism which is contained mostly in the Medical and scientific analysis and Research on effects in other biological systems sections, IMO, violates the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV which states, Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. This H page is a minority view's page specifically devoted to H. There is not provision in WP:NPOV that requires a particular percentage split of non-critical vs. critical information. The points made in the criticism are valid as per V & RS, however, the level of detail in the criticism sections is excessive and can be summarized and take up considerable less space on the page. IMO, appropriate reference doesn't mean great detail, but referencing key points that convey the overall SPOV on H.
• Separate from what I raise here already, a separate article on "Homeopathy research" could easily go into even greater detail comparing pro, neutral and anti-H views, could be cooperatively written and much more informative in regards to the SPOV. Key point:I think this would end the constant fighting at this page. If a summary style article is the best, then let's do it that way. Anthon01 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you seem to be double-posting the above comment, Anthon01, but I'll answer it here. Summary style is the only way, POV forks are not acceptable. Note that all the provisions of NPOV continue to apply, and the main article should not give undue weight to the minority view against the majority medical view by depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and the like. Balance has to be maintained, and while critical commentary is best incorporated into relevant sections rather than segregated, it will also be appropriate to consider use of summary style to tighten other sections of the main article. .. dave souza, talk 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, for me (maybe others) this is the crux. In my read of WP:WEIGHT, minority pages are an exception to "quantity of text" part of WP:WEIGHT as they "may be spelled out in great detail." The majority POV requirement(SPOV) on such pages is "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint," and no attempt to "rewrite majority-view." Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, the right balance is needed to represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views on the topic that have been published by reliable sources. Giving attention to the minority view and showing it in detail doesn't allow editors to structure the article to make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. Each article has to show balance, and avoid undue weight. Again, see WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY. .. dave souza, talk 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-read those sections. I think we're in agreement. Is there something that I have said that concerns you? The majority SPOV needs to be balanced, in a minority article, against the minority's SPOV and not against the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "The majority SPOV needs to be balanced, in a minority article, against the minority's SPOV and not against the whole article" mean? SPOV is a deprecated policy in the first place, and the allegedly "minority" point of view here is by definition not a scientific one, so it doesn't make sense to refer to the "minority's SPOV." Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redo: In a minority article, the majority scientific view needs to be properly weighed against the minority's scientific claims and not against the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The minority is not making scientific claims. The minority is claiming that science is an invalid means for learning about the world. That's the whole point. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but leaders in homeopathy are trying to use science to prove and explain homeopathy. Anthon01 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Respondents to RfC

• My position has already been stated: "The perspective of mainstream medicine and science should be given predominant weight in describing the efficacy of homeopathy." Homeopathy must be judged by the standards of medical science - the only alternative is that it be presented as a cultural phenomenon of historical interest, or a belief system without basis in science. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• As a bystander, and observing the recent turmoil leading to the current status, I would think editors should take note of Intelligent Design. Just as controversial yet still it is presented factually as non-scientific and entirely unsupported by scientific evidence. The same is true for homeopathy. Although interested and sympathetic to the underlying idea I do think we should not ignore the the fact that WP has to present things accurately. AFAIK medical literature, nor any other scientific discipline, has supported the efficacy of this form of treatment. The article grosso modo appears to adhere to presenting what it stands for, while simultaneously recognising its unscientific nature. We should be careful and heed WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.217.166.60.19 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The current state of this article is about as neutral and even-handed as I can imagine it being. Given the weight of scientific consensus against homeopathy, great prominence should certainly be given to the evidence against it. Ben Ram (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag?

I see that some editors –including me- argue that the current article is biased and inaccurate. ( anthon01, DanaUllman, arion3x3,whig. Is this correct ? ) Should the administrators consider to tag it with the appropriate label? I think that since the article is under probation the tag could be added by the administrators only - not the editors to avoid an edit war. I m not sure if this is a good idea. I m researching. Comments. ?--Area69 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Most do not think it has a POV problem, or a bias problem. And our article is no more biased than the German, French or Dutch versions of the same article. I humbly suggest that trying to put POV tags and templates on the article might lead to sanctions for someone trying to do this. Do not do it. Instead, try to learn and understand WP policy and why the article is written the way it is, and what NPOV is and why this article conforms to NPOV. If you do not like the way it is written, perhaps a wiki that does not have NPOV as an organizing principle might be more to your liking. I can suggest several for you if you want.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong - just asking the editors --Area69 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise. Do not do it.--Filll (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Area69: Your sense of things IS accurate. Many of us do believe that the article, as it stands now, is over-weighted to skepticism. Please know (!) that I have no problem with skeptism and with accurate and notable critiques of homeopathy. However, there are many features of this article that do warrant a POV tag. Heck, only in the past 2 weeks was there any links to leading homeopathic organizations. There are other important changes that need to be made for accuracy of an encyclopedia nature. And yeah...when people tell me not to say something or not to look somewhere, it is usually a good idea to say something and look there. DanaUllman^Talk 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Over-weighted to skepticism? That's meant to be funny, right? NPOV does not mean "credulously accepting nonsense". Two thirds of the article uncritically presents fantasy as if it were true. The article still have a good way to go, because it underweights reality. Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think the POV tag is warranted, the article is more concerned with debunking homeopathy than describing it, makes broad and false claims implying no studies have shown efficacy, ignores commonly used low potency homeopathic formulations in favor of dismissing the use of high potencies, and that's just looking at the LEAD. —Whig (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And here we go again with bringing up the same topics repeatedly, intentionally misreading NPOV policy, and arguing for credulous support of claptrap. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, "intentionally misreading NPOV policy"? You seem to be assuming bad faith. —Whig (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing what now? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "intentionally misreading NPOV policy." That is not assuming good faith. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI>Good one Whig. I haven't laughed that hard in a month. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say, then say it or stop disrupting. This is not a chat room. —Whig (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The responses from Orangemarlin and Randy Blackmoor verify the problem that exists in this article, therefore, proving that this article deserves a POV tag. DanaUllman^Talk 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you think the presence of clear-thinking people who respect science is a "problem." However, neither reality nor stated Wikipedia policy agrees with you. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to conclude that within the medical community communis opinio is that this treatment is not different from using placebo. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article is POV, then so is the German version and the French version and the Dutch version. I suspect every version in every other language is also POV. So if you want to start some sort of crusade, it has to be done in every language. And I notice that the World Book Encyclopedia article on homeopathy is similar to this one, and is about 30% critical. And so is the Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia article on homeopathy, which is also about 30% critical. So you better start lobbying World Book and Funk And Wagnall's. The problem is, the readers deserve to read all about homeopathy, warts and all. They do not deserve to be on the receiving end of some uncritical sales pitch for some FRINGE belief.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know what a Pov tag is exactly but the article is not neutral. I wrote a review about it.--Radames1 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be neutral, but NPOV, which means it is supposed to have a substantial proportion of critical material in it. Do you think there is critical material in the article? If you do, that is good, that is NPOV which is one of the principles under which WP operates.--Filll (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

please nots lets not gett ingo this mess again. we ad a huge problem with tags and user boxes and whatnot a few archives ago and it completely stalld the debate and improvement of the article and turned the article into a probation case for the wikipedia community. a POV tag may or may not be appropriate but it uld be needlessly inflamatory and contradict the mitigation purposes of concensus, especially if it was added by an involved user and not a admin . Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to use the talk page as a forum for general discussion, and constant rehashing of generalities

Please remember that in accordance with stated Wikipedia policies, the talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Furthermore, specific queries such as "should the article have a POV tag," "should the article be forked," and so on are not a license to drop your canned statements about how great homeopathy is into the talk page for the 100th time. Constantly arguing the same discredited points (whether about homeopathy itself, or your erroneous interpretation of NPOV), because you hope to get some abuse of the process adopted during some window of time when the reasonable people are banned or not paying attention, is not acting in good faith, and thus good faith will not be assumed on the part of those who do it. Constantly arguing the same points even when they ARE rebutted, and acting as if the rebuttals were never posted, is the definition of "stonewalling" and is likewise not acting in good faith. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that this form of spamming the page with discredited points, over and over, is not acting in good faith, and not working towards actually writing an encyclopedia article. Since this article is under probation, there should be no problem with admins just blocking people who continue to engage in this sort of activity, against consensus and against Wikipedia policies.--Filll (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like an uninvolved admin to look at these accusations of bad faith by Randy Blackamoor and Filll and consider whether they are constructive. —Whig (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no substantive difference between their complaints about behavior and that comment right there. If their behavior is unconstructive, then so is yours (and mine too for pointing this out, most likely). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

veritas dolorem adfert. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a substantive difference, in that I am commenting on specific edits. —Whig (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this should be moved to smeomes talk page as it has nothing to do with homeoptathy. Any volunters? Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should start doing on this page what we do on other controversial pages when people repeat discredited and rebutted arguments, and spam with page with tons of material, repeated over and over. Userfy the posts, or just delete them on sight.--Filll (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A few boilerplate responses might help as well, or maybe a FAQ page. If they repeat the same objections, we should be able to repeat the same responses. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i disagree. i think Fillis suggesiton si a lot better since what Infophile is ugessting is more or less what is happening now. people raise the saeme objection above NPOV or make orhter demands and other people argue over whether or not the first people understand the policy or not and this goes on until someone gets blocked, someone leaves, or a new argument over a random word in the article springs up. it woudl be better to follow Filli's suggeston and moved it to a talk page unless it is obviously relevent to improving Homeopathy (the article, not the technique). Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i do approve of hte creation of a FAQ though but im not sure how muht ill be able to contribute it to it since to be honest these debates are melting my brian like cheese and i have no idea whats going on ona ymore. Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither side of this discussion has a monopoly on repetition. There are people on both sides who raise and argue the same points over and over again. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

exaclt y my point which is why immediately sticking this oftopic repetitive discussions into random peoples talk pages as I and Filli suggested is the only curretly viable way of dealing with such a mendacious problem. Smith Jones (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

smallish revert war on "medical and scientific analysis"

This addition [9] has been reverted and then re-reverted. I'm going to take that paragraph and rewrite it a bit, since the problem seems to be how the arguments from proponents of homeopathy are inlined with the critics' arguments and give the false sensation that the critics' arguments are refuted by the proponents' arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, try to make smaller paragraphs, dammit, it's imposible to see the small changes on those walls of text --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate the paragraphs too, but it's too hard to do it without causing a minor war. And I don't think you ned to change anything about the science. The editor making changes does not appear to have participated much in the past. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to his contributions list he has never contributed before. Note: I made a comment on Komelbar's talk page about not removing lead paragraphs, since he didn't seem to know about WP:LEAD --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Big paragraphs make copyediting the article for clarity a real pain --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Joining in the ranting) Ditto for the citation templates. Inline refs are a lot shorter, but we're not supposed to use those anymore... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does homeopathy work?

To be honest, it is not important if homeopathy works or not for the purpose of this article. Whether it works or not, clearly there are some who believe it works, and some who believe it does not work. It is not up to us to prove that homeopathy works, or does not work. It is up to us to document that some believe it works, and some believe it does not work. And to give some sort of idea about who believes it and who does not, and why.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you can't allow the main article to allege that Homeopathic medicines are placebo. I wish you can put back what I had posted earlier (that it works)61.2.67.72 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC Dr.Jhingade

Dr. Jhingade, you are misunderstanding. Let me ask you: Does anyone believe that homeopathy's action is due to a placebo effect? Obviously, some do. And so we have to describe that. You see? We do not declare if it is a placebo effect or not, but we do declare that some believe it is a placebo effect, or that the studies demonstrate that it has an effect that is not much different than placebo. Do you understand the difference?--Filll (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor, your argument is weak and your continued spamming of this talk page with your manifesto is both useless and irritating. Your response to Filll's statement is a non-sequitor. Since people use, advertise and study homeopathy, we must cover homeopathy within the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines...which includes stating the general lack of scientific support for the claims of its practitioners (including you). — Scientizzle 16:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Dr. Jhingade's" obvious commercial testimonials get removed from the page, yet other people who are selling homeopathic products continue to be allowed to edit here. What's the difference between one and the other? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

if you want to ge others removd from this page then you should identify the person selling homeopathic products and request a interventioin or try o handle it here. Selling homeopathic products is not in itself against the rules regairndg conflict of interest; trying to sell them here on the talk page is. the customs apply even if the person was trying to sel penis-enlargement pills or computers or anything like that. the talk page is for the improvmenet of the article, not for people to sell products of any kind. Smith Jones (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I had posted about the 'book (in .pdf format)', "Homeopathy: The scientific proofs of efficacy" for more proof/evidence; please search for the book and download it from the Internet (it doesn't lead to our web-site, so I can safely say I don't have commercial interests - I just want the truth to be known). Effects should be good enough to accept that Homeopathy works. There is a Homeopathic remedy, "Nux Vomica", which in the 30th potency, taken thrice a day, can produce loose motion in anyone except the 'Constitutional' Nux Vomica Patient - this any one can try, to prove it works. —Preceding 122.167.27.207 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingade comment added by 122.167.27.207 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to start treating this article like we do other controversial pages:

• Have an FAQ
• Remove repetitive spamming from the talk page, either to userfy it or archive it or just delete it.
• Start using administrative sanctions against those who violate WP principles. We have pussy footed around so long that we have created an ugly atmosphere here.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with swimming pool example

I believe that User: Wikidudeman pulled the swimming pool example from another site such as [10]. However, as I slowly work a more advanced article discussing homeopathic posology scales, I realized that there is a problem or two with this discussion. For example:

• There is a probability of getting a molecule of active substance associated with drinking a certain quantity of the Olympic swimming pool. However, this description does not mention probabilities anywhere. For example, if I was unlucky to only drink regular water, I could easily drink half the pool and not get a single molecule of the original substance.
• We are assuming that the molecules of the original substance do not "clump" together. Otherwise, the calculation would be much different.
• The current claim that one would have to drink 0.01 of an Olympic swimming pool would lead to a probability of consuming at least one molecule of about 1-exp(-.01n), where n is the number of original molecules left in the pool. If n is very small, this probability is small. If n gets larger, this probability approaches 1. For n=100, which is what the example in our article implies, we get a probability of about 1-(1/e).
• To consume at least 1 of n molecules of the original substance in a swimming pool containing N molecules, with probability P, one would have to consume k molecules, chosen independently, where k= log(1-P)/log(1-n/N), where independent means Statistical independence.

Comments?--Filll (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true, but I don't think we need to go into that right there. We should make a mention of this, though it doesn't have to be much. Perhaps just add in an "unlikely" somewhere? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to check my figures, but I think that the current suggestion of drinking 25 tons only gives one about a 60% chance of consuming at least one molecule of the original material. Perhaps we should mention this probability to make it clear we are not completely stupid. --Filll (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that if I drank half an Olympic swimming pool, assuming that the molecules of the original substance were randomly and independently distributed, the probability of consuming at least one would be about 1-exp(-n/2) where n is the number of molecules of the original material in the pool. For n being a few dozen (as in the example on the front page), the probability of consuming at least one molecule is very good. For more drastic dilutions, n is much smaller, and the probability drops accordingly.--Filll (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I made the text more precise. I hope this does not make it too hard to read. I put the technical bit in a footnote for anyone who wants to check it.--Filll (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you substituted "expect to get" with 63%, but wouldn't that phrase be best represented by a 95% chance? A better approach here might be to leave "expect to get" and change the 1% of the pool value for the appropriate volume given a 95% chance. Maybe 1% does represent a 95% chance, I have not checked. Where did the 1% come from? David D. (Talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1% comes from being sloppy. Want a 95% chance of consuming at least one molecule of the original material? Then we have to change the 1% to another figure.--Filll (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To get to 95% probability you have to drink about 3 times as much, about 3% of the pool, assuming that the pool contains 100 molecules of the original substance (slightly dubious; I think a more accurate figure is 83 but never mind).--Filll (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stipulated that high potency (>12C) homeopathic remedies contain no molecules of original substance. What is the point being made here? —Whig (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A drug's properties are an outcome of the arrangement of the matter in the drug. If there is no matter, it can have no properties. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't quite true, unless you really stress the arrangement of the matter. Energetic medicine has properties, viz. radiation is used to treat cancer. —Whig (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, if we are doing examples, we should try to make sure they are at least approximately accurate.--Filll (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The swimming pool isn't a good example, since a remedy is created with a lot less water than that. A 24X could be created with less than a liter of diluent very easily. —Whig (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The swimming pool example and reference looks like OR. The Tutor (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It actually comes from a dilution recommended by Hahnemann: 30C, which does reach approximately this scale is far beyond the scale of a swimming pool. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If you use 10ml bottles to create a remedy, using 1ml of mother tincture and 9ml of diluent to create 1x, 1ml of 1x and 9ml of diluent to create 2x, ..., a 60x (equivalent to a 30c) would take a total of 9x60=540ml of diluent. Still barely over half a liter. (If you used 100ml bottles and centesimal dilutions you'd still use less than three liters total.) —Whig (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain Hahnemann did not recommend doing the dilutions in swimming pools. But I may be wrong. Do you have a reference. The Tutor (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Swimming pool examples are common in the literature to try to give some sort of feeling for the dilutions. We are allowed to do simple arithmetic and it not violate OR. And the swimming pool example we have here is incomplete without a statement of probability.--Filll (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give a citation to a reliable source that makes a swimming pool example. I do not believe that this example is common in the homeopathic literature, perhaps it has been used by one or more skeptics. —Whig (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, would a probability calculation be pushing OR a bit far, though? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth also calculating how much energy is put into the swimming pool by the succussion, and how much hydrogen peroxide is generated by all that shaking. The Tutor (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Naw I do not think so. Look at what goes on in the mathematics, physics and chemistry articles here. This is nothing. It is simple arithmetic.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did the arithmetic for you above. If you create a 30C using three liters of water, you could say that the entire volume of mother tincture was dissolved in three liters, and you would have no problem recognizing that the remedy was present. Because of the method of separation and amplification (dilution and succussion) you doubt the remedy is present in the highest potency, but it is clearly distributed through the potencies. —Whig (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you forgot that with mixing the matter in the original, undiluted sample would not be distributed through not 540ml of diluent, but 60¹⁰ml of diluent - a volume comfortably larger than the volume of the earth. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Tim. Not at all. Only in your imagination does this happen. In reality, we used exactly 540ml of diluent in the 60x example. Not a drop more. —Whig (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is easier to understand what is happening if you think about adding water to the entire volume of a solution to make the dilution, rather than removing a fraction of the original and then diluting this sample. To get a ten-fold dilution 10X you would need to add 9ml of water to 1 ml sample (10ml final), to then dilute this to 2X you need to add 90ml of water (100 ml final), to get this to 3X you need to add 900ml of water (1,000ml final), to 4X you need 9,000ml (10,000ml final), to 5X 90,000ml (100 litres final), and so on. Do you understand what is going on now? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying but I am telling you that is not how it is done. —Whig (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no, homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution, not single dilution, but the calculation is the same in either case. You can't side-step chemistry by using smaller bottles. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your method would try to preserve the matter and not dilute it away, but make it statistically unlikely. However though it would be impractical to carry your method very far, LM potencies might be more believable to you. High potencies cannot be described in chemistry terms, as you cannot deal with submolecular things in chemistry. —Whig (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a method, it's a representation of the total dilution. David D. (Talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But dilution isn't what homeopathy does to make it more potent, dilution is what homeopathy does to reduce the material portion, succussion adds energy. —Whig (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a representation of how much the material portion has been reduced. I don't think the swimming pool analogy is related to potency. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is used to debunk the effectiveness of homeopathy, because of the unlikelihood of material portion being present in a dose. Succussion adds vibration, vibration is resonant with the matter that produces it, and as the matter is reduced, the vibration is amplified at each stage. This is the method, whether you believe it works or not, the matter is not what the homeopath seeks to preserve, but the vibration. —Whig (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that normal chemistry and physics can't deal with what is essentially faith healing, Whig seems to have pointed out a serious discrepancy, in that the examples given here are 1:10 dilutions. "C" commonly means 100, and this is how it's shown in the article, with dilutions of 1:100. Does something need corrected? . . dave souza, talk 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While disagreeing that it is essentially faith healing we are talking about, there is nothing wrong with using Centesimals instead of decimal dilutions, the calculation works out to less than three liters of water using 100ml bottles to create a 30C. —Whig (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it is used to debunk because to a scientist the fact there is nothing but water is the main issue with 30C. This, coupled with the scientific consensus that "vibrations" have no basis in chemistry at the molecular level (as opposed to the atomic level) is why it is important. If a physical distinction between a remedy after 30C and regular water after 30C could be reliably demonstrated the swimming pool analogy is less relevant (since then a possible mechanism exist, although how these vibrations survive the harsh conditions in the stomach to find their target would still baffle me even if they were detectable). But no difference has been reliably shown (disputed by homeopaths, I know), so the dilution becomes relevant from the perspective of medicine. Just saying there are vibrations is not enough, especially when the scientific community cannot even detect a difference between the remedies and placebo (disputed by homeopaths, I know). As far as science is concerned there is no need to consider homeopathic vibrations since there is no observable effect. David D. (Talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing that vibrations are there but at very small wavelengths we are into quantum territory, which increases the level of skepticism by people who are not comfortable with the reality of quantum worldviews. Still, medicine uses vibrations. See Lithotripsy. —Whig (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, quantum territory. There was a programme on the telly about the chap who's the lead singer in Eels, whose dad sorted out the Schroedinger's cat problem by postulating alternative universes. That's where you're at! . . dave souza, talk 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've noticed some people have problems dealing with quantum reality, too bad. It's part of our physics now. Has been for a century. —Whig (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about vibrations that are cause the water to keep some medicinal/biological property. That is what science disputes, cannot observe and cannot repeat (i.e. benveniste). Science is not disputing vibrations. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate argument over effectiveness, and appropriate methods of determining same. Double blind placebo controlled studies of homeopathy to treat single conditions does not match ordinary practice of individualization and symptom matching. —Whig (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And there is the problem. It ends up coming down to testimonials and there always seems to be a reason to explain the cases where it does not work. Without reliable and repeatable success it can never rise above a placebo phenomena. Prayer works for some people too, and the testimonials for that are just as amazing and convincing. Are you saying homeopathy is more successful than prayer from a medical perspective? It sounds like a wacky example but from a scientific perspective the evidence is about on a par. Placebo is the parimonious fall back that fits with the data already known. David D. (Talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to people believing what they want to believe on both sides, at times. I don't think we're about to settle it here, however. You can test it for yourself if you want, or choose which evidence to follow. We aren't here to decide who is correct but to document the practice and the arguments. —Whig (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to explain why to a scientist the dilution is relevant, more so than to a homeopath. But can I try it myself? This is something that has confused me for a while. I aggree that homeopathic remedies are available off the shelf with no prescription. Yet, according to homeopaths, the remedies are not generally applicable (i.e. the reason why large scale double blind studies cannot be done with success). If so, why are they sold off the shelf rather than being carefully prescribed by experienced homeopaths? David D. (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you wanted to test a decongestant drug but you don't have congestion. Will it do anything for your nose? Homeopathic drugs are matched to symptoms in a similar way but take more care to choose at higher potencies if you want it to be most effective. The effect on healthy people might be to introduce a sympathetic resonant vibration and cause symptoms in the sensitive individual, which is how provings are supposed to be done at the 30C potency. —Whig (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is my point, if they are matched to symptoms it would be easy to test their effectiveness. But the criticism of the scientific meta analyses, that find nothing better than placebo, is that the remedies cannot be generalised. Or am I misunderstanding the homeopathic critique? Likewise if the remedies can reliably cause symptoms in healthy people scientists would be fighting to document the phenomena. So why aren't they? Most likely because they do not produce symptoms. Why don't you e-mail me a remedy I can buy off the shelf that could give me symtoms, as a healthy person, and I'll try it. David D. (Talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you and we can discuss it. —Whig (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We are here to represent all views, not just homeopath views. Sorry Whig. If you want to just have a single view in the article, you are in the wrong place.--Filll (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course we are, Filll. I am not seeking to suppress anyone's views. —Whig (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But of course arithmetic is a proof rather than a view. Despite having failed my O-level arithmetic, I think I can see the flaw in your numbers. You're giving the impression that there's 10mL of the original goes into each dilution, and thus your 3L has in it 10mL of the original, but of course at each dilution you've discarded 90% of the previous solution, and have done that 60 times. The progression is geometric rather than arithmetic. Tim would tell you if he was here himself. .. dave souza, talk 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And there is no disagreement, the process geometrically dilutes away the original matter and introduces resonant vibrations at each dilution. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, good vibrations! Sorry, Tim, it was a catchphrase adapted from Para Handy. Dougie wad tell ye if he wis here himsel' ... dave souza, talk 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And this example explains exactly how the matter is diluted away. I think you can now see what we are trying to explain. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But there's no controversy over this, which requires such a dramatic example which is not relevant to actual practice. Nobody does swimming pool dilutions, everyone agrees there is no molecule of original substance in a >12C potency. —Whig (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there could be a few molecules in a swimming pool. Easier for the brains of mortals to grasp. it's an ILLUSTRATION. .. dave souza, talk 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be used, but it has to be done carefully and explained that from the homeopathic view this is really not relevant to potency only to the likelihood of encountering a molecule of undesirable toxic substance. —Whig (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you're venturing beyond obvious arithmetic and into opinion, a source is needed. Got one? .. dave souza, talk 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I could find plenty of sources that will tell you that the purpose of dilution is to reduce the toxicity of the original crude drug. [11] —Whig (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that you've diluted the homeopathic lotions and potions to remove the toxicity, since there are no molecules left in solution. So, we have common agreement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and homeopaths who use high potency remedies do not believe molecules are necessary if the potentization procedure has been followed to produce resonant vibrations. Lionel Milgrom describes disease states as "solitary waves or 'solitons'" and remedies as "equally soliton-like". —Whig (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the value of these sorts of examples?

• Commonly published by skeptics so notable; in many WP:RS
• Bridge the gap between homeopathic pratice and atomic theory
• Provide an illustration for the reader to understand what is going on better

I think we need these kinds of examples. I also think we should do the best job we can with them so they make sense, including getting the arithmetic correct. I do not think anyone except someone trying willfully to be difficult thinks that this is how homeopathic remedies are manufactured.--Filll (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We're still waiting for those reliable sources that use this argument, Filll. —Whig (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Filll here, and would suggest that rather than talking about the probability of encountering a molecule in a 15C dilution, perhaps the illustration would be clearer if it just focused on volumes. Something like, "In an Olympic swimming pool filled with a [however many]C dilution, there would only be [however many] molecules of the original substance." Given that one would typically imbibe--what a teaspoon full?--of a homeopathic remedy, it should be obvious to the reader that the chances of getting even a molecule are infinitesimal. I think this would be more intuitive and understandable than what the article currently says: "there are in the order of 10³² molecules of water in an Olympic size swimming pool and if such a pool were filled with a 15C homeopathic remedy, to have a 63% chance of consuming a single molecule from the original substance, one would need to swallow 1% of the volume of such a pool, or roughly 25 metric tons of water." Yilloslime (t) 07:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But the swimming pool example doesn't go nearly far enough, in that case, even a 30C potency is so much less likely for a molecule to be encountered as to be thoroughly impossible -- and furthermore molecules don't really exist in solution anyhow -- they are dispersed in various atomic and subatomic configurations throughout the medium. —Whig (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I get 1.5 molecules per 25 million liter olympic pool, assuming you do 15C dilution starting with a 1M solution. My math could very well be wrong. Someone should check. Yilloslime (t) 07:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And for a 30C dilution, you'd need a volume of water larger than the 1,460 teratonnes of water covering the Earths surface.... Yilloslime (t) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why not go for broke and calculate for 200C, or 10M. If you want to imagine it that way, your imaginary volume of water might be larger than the universe at some point. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should be encouraging people to drink the water from Olympic swimming pools. I think it is generally recognised as probably unhealthy, which rather detracts from any NPOV analogy. The Tutor (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

If there is a source that talks about swimming pools, this section may be acceptable; however, any sort of constructing examples to illustrate what is meant by a statement would be original research. Wikipedia does not engage in synthesis or analysis of information coming from reliable sources. We faithfully report and summarize. That's it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, of course there are sources that talk about Olympic swimming pools (I will list some but they are easy to find). That is where Wikidudeman got this example; you think he invented that? The only problem with all the examples I have looked at so far, is that none give the probability (which a moment's thought will tell you is necessary to understand the example). However, as I survey the WP articles on mathematics and physics (and even chemistry), this kind of trivial arithmetic is common on WP and is not regarded as OR.--Filll (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing is not encyclopedic, and I don't care how often people violate no original research. Either stick closely to what the sources say, or else the material should be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We are sticking so closely to the sources in this case that I think we are plagiarising.--Filll (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the guideline is specifically "veriability, not truth"... By that, even if the probability is accurate, we can't use it unless the sources do. Tch. Of course, there's always Ignore all rules, so if we can make the argument that this inclusion makes the encyclopedia better, than it shouldn't be a problem. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules does not apply to simple cases of original research. There is an overwhelming consensus that this sort of stuff does not belong in our articles. Citing WP:IAR isn't a free pass to ignore consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By "this sort of stuff," do you mean probability calculations? Or is it OR in general? If the latter, then why doesn't WP:IAR say instead "Ignore all rules except WP:OR"? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think quoting the original, and putting the arithmetic as an explanatory footnote, would be a way around the problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this pool analogy has been done in an argumentative style. It is not at all the same as calculating percentages for voting results or other simple use of mathematics to summarize information. The swimming pool analogy is much more of a synthesis to put forward the writer's own arguments against homeopathy. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that we particularly cared what reason the sources had for producing this example. I thought it was only important that the sources have this example, or something similar. I will note that there are pro-homeopathic sources that also include Olympic swimming pool examples for illustrative purposes as well, as near as I can determine. Have you not even done any searches? --Filll (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

I have also asked for a bit of advice on the Mathematics and Village Pump pages and the responses agree with Tim Vickers. --Filll (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not WP:OR to do a litte math to illustrate a point and put things in perspective, and the passage quoted by Filll above supports this. I disagree with Filll that a calculation of "the probability... is necessary to understand the example." I don't think is, in fact I think it makes things more complicated than they need to be: it make the calculations harder (and thus less transparent), and a lot of people just don't understand probability very well anyways. I think simply stating that "an Olympic swimming pool filled with 15C potency remedy would contain, on average, only 1.5 molecules of the original substance" gets the point across nicely, concisely, and understandably. Yilloslime (t) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the number of molecules in the pool is easier to grasp. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, discussing a pool seems like OR to me. SAying that 2+2=4 is staight simple math and allowed. WP is not a textbook. Second, the claims made for ultra-molecule homeopathic dilutions is that some other factor other then the mother tincture's molecule is having an effect. So what is the point of this analogy? Anthon01 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[12]. Pick a source. Any source. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It underscores those claims. It is an important characteristic of homeopathy that it cannot act through molecules, but only through a mechanism outside current scientific knowledge. We don't need to beat the idea to death, but it should be stated in a way that is easily grasped. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A very minor bit of looking and I found 22 sources that use this analogy. Maybe about half of these are blogs, so not that useful, unless we can use some sort of WP:SPS clause. Two or three are pro-homeopathic sources, trying to help people understand what serial dilution does. Two or three are mainstream press articles. Two or three are from specialized medical publications. And so on... This is not rocket science you know. The problem is trying to decide which sources to cite, not trying to find sources. Good heavens...--Filll (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will correct something I said before. I suggested that no sources talked about probability. In fact several of them do, they just talk about it wrong. They say to be certain of getting one molecule of the original substance, you have to drink 1% of the pool. Certain of course means 100% probability, or a probability of 1. And this is inaccurate. As I said before, drinking 1% of the pool gives you a chance of about 63% of consuming at least one molecule of the original substance. So the sources do talk about probability, they just have it slightly incorrect.--Filll (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a V & RS? The pool illustration does not conform to the theoretical or philopsophical underpinnings of H and has nothing to do with H. Anthon01 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01 and with Art that this is not a useful illustration might in fact be highly misleading and serves no useful purpose in the article that I can see. But then I am not mathematically minded. I also agree with Art that homeopathy has little or nothing to do with molecules, but that is just a personal view. Peter morrell 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of homeopaths, I can see why you might not think it relevant, but maybe look at it another way: Part of the reason for dilution is to remove toxicity (which all sides agree it does). Since toxicity is related to the number of molecules remaining, mentioning how unlikely it is to have any left (or on what scale one needs to go to to expect any) is relevant to showing how safe homeopathic remedies are. This reasoning both sides can agree on. The anti-homeopathy side would also add that this shows how unlikely it is to be effective, but that fact doesn't take away from the other reasons it's a useful illustration. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The illustration is overkill and inacurate as regards to H. All you have to say is that, in the case of ultra molecular dilutions, the original is diluted to the point that no molecules of the original substance is left. The effect of this illustration is to make a point about homeopathy that no homepath makes. How does that make sense? Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention? Some homeopaths do make this point. Even if they didn't, it's irrelevent. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed that. Who said that? So far I find the analogy irrelevent although I'm not beyond convincing. Anthon01 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Peter Morrell may have misunderstood me. Although homeopaths may not care much about swimming pools, there are two major problems with homeopathy from a scientific point of view, one is the lack of clear evidence of clinical efficacy, the other is the lack of a plausible mechanism. The latter is directly related to the ultramolecular dilutions, so it is important to get the point across that homeopathic remedies are not just dilute, they are dilute beyond comprehension. As a matter of fact, I think using mere swimming pools is a bit misleading. At the common potency of 30C, we'd be talking about 1 molecule in a billion suns. But who can comprehend that? If you want to stick with swimming pools, you could imagine making up a tub/pool of 15C remedy by putting in a single molecule, and them making a 30C remedy by taking a single molecule out of that pool and putting it in a second pool. Oh, heck. Can't we just say that there are no molecules left, period? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the skeptical and critical sources use this kind of example to show how implausible homeopathy is. The pro-homeopathy sources use this sort of example for illustrative purposes to show what dilution is, and to suggest that there is something outside of regular science and medicine going on in homeopathy, some other mechanism responsible for its efficacy, and to show how limited and unrealistic and inapplicable the conventional thinking of allopathic medicine is when dealing with homeopathy. So the example is useful for people on both sides of the debate, depending on how it is interpreted.--Filll (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And we're still waiting for those reliable sources that use this argument, Filll. —Whig (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what infophile does and find your own source. I am still trying to decide which of the 22 sources I dug up I like best. --Filll (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pick one and let us know. —Whig (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you pick your favorite? It was even quoted on ABC's 20/20 even a couple of years ago.

--Filll (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have that quote? —Whig (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could do some work and look around for yourself. I have to say, right now it seems you're purposefully not looking, because you'd prefer that no such sources exist. I sincerely hope you'll prove me wrong on this count, though. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sincerely and truly not looking whatsoever for your reliable sources, which you purport to make a point that I don't think makes any sense at all as I've already discussed at length above. I think this whole exercise is absurd because a swimming pool is a terrible analogy for anything. And when Filll says something without providing a reliable source, I have no reason to believe him. —Whig (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think such violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL needs to be sanctioned. I was challenged previously several times in such an obnoxious fashion and I always produced. Of course, you never heard a peep out of such loud rude bullies after I showed my sources. But it is not hard to find these sources kids. All this immature whining...there is no rush. This sort of text has been here for months and months. It can wait a little longer, if you are too important to be able to use google yourself.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained that AGF does not apply in your case, because you make things up. —Whig (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thankyou