Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Wikipedia policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics. Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.) A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Wikipedia consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.) A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction.[1] This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory. References ^ Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID 18480136. Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.) A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.) A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.) A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence. Note also that it is not the job of Wikipedia to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why. Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.) A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia. Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.) A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or speculation. Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.) A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia. Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.) A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.

Homeopathy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 2, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Homeopathy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting articles

Template:Vital article

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Homeopathy. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

homeopathy is scientific and not a pseudoscience or not a placebo effects, some criticizers are used to say like that and they are given sources of criticizers only. so many homeopathic books and websites and journals are there. and it is medical system in world for more than 200 years. this page is created and added only by whom dislikes homeopathyhomeopathy. about homoeopathy we can know proper from homeopathic books, and from homeopathic degree, post graduate,and PhD holders.Drhishamct (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please substantiate your claims with actual sources. Read the article, read the discussion archives, and read the rules of Wikipedia. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although it should also be available near the top of this talk page, please also see Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ for more information. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with above comments. Wikipedia is meant to provide information and not to prove or disprove anything. Mentioning that its not effective is clearly biased with malign intention. It is on individual discretion to use any method of medication or not; saying that it is not effective based on few scientific journals is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 06:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can provided thousands of reference article with actual results that homeopathic is effective way of medication. Infact, in some cases much more effective than other treatments^[1]. Further, homeopathy treatment is used by over 200 million people worldwide ^[2].

• This discussion is POV pushing. Homeopathy is a well-established pseudoscience. It's clinical effect, if any, is attributed to placebo. Delta13C (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was very effective, it would not be alternative medicine, it would be used extensively in actual modern medicine. Believing that mainstream medicine censors alternative medicine for purely commercial reasons is an erroneous conspiracy theory. This does not mean that pseudoscience is not a striving business, unfortunately. I'm repeating myself because I already pointed to it, but please read: Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ. More importantly, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience. These are about Wikipedia policies, community decisions and discretionary sanctions on the subject. We do not report on our personal point of view, but in that of the reliable sources which themselves report about experts in the relevant fields. This talk page is also not a forum for discussion of the topic (WP:NOTFORUM), but is to discuss specific changes to the article. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever reference provided above conflicting itself - it is not Neutral point of view when we conclude that it is effective or not. Saying Alternative Medicine is not effective and not scientific is not correct. Anyhow, Wikipedia only provide information and not VERDICT.Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content again reverted without consent and complete discussion. It if it is done further will be reported to Wikipedia Administrator.

• You seem to be making threats. You need to ask yourself why you are so motivated to disregard the scientific consensus on homeopathy being a pseudoscientific system of placebo therapy. Delta13C (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not threat - as per Wikipedia - we need to provide sufficient time to the user before reporting content/user to Wikipedia Administrator. This will be used as archive Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not how it works. Please familiarize yourself with policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the extensive FAQ at the top of the page. --tronvillain (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At face value adding this 2017 review[1] may seem reasonable, but what is "non-individualized homeopathy"? Upon closer inspection, the lead author is from the Homeopathy Research Institute and had previously garnered some attention for touting the efficacy of "individualized homeopathy" in a 2014 review in the same journal.[2] [Edit: this post is the more relevant one.] This earlier paper was also included in the Wikipedia article. I would argue that neither paper belongs. The 2017 paper assures us that the laws of physics are still the same in 2017 as they were before (hardly noteworthy), and 2014 paper has the issues mentioned in the Ernst post.

Indeed the whole paragraph starting "Some clinical trials have tested individualized homeopathy..." seems questionable, not least because it doesn't even explain what individualized homeopathy is. Manul ~ talk 16:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal, the article is junk. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor concerned has done this before. He seems to haver a CIR problem with regard to assessing the quality of his additions to this page. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]