Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 2 December 2021

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · 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, 65: 30 days

Template:Vital article

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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
June 11, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 29, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism GA‑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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-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 GA‑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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-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 GA‑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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The term pseudoscience has to be removed. Just because the investigations have not been done as in Allopathy, it cannot be called as a pseudoscience. Joecheriross (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy is absolutely pseudoscience. This is well-established so we cannot grant your request. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will not happen. The investigations have been done, again and again and again, and it is all referenced in the article. It is one of the prime examples of pseudoscience. VdSV9•♫ 13:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned as second citation for the pseudoscientific is still debatable.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x . There are many articles which says homoeopathy needs further research. Pream electronics (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ located at the top of this page. -- McSly (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not matter how many sources one would cite supporting the notion that homeopathy is not pseudoscience, the decision has been alsready made by the activistists who control this article.. ( and ..Im not a .....republican or climate change denier by the way) --Jay1938 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yes change PSEUDOSCIENCE to NANO MEDICINE

https://highdilution.org/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/764/803 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23277079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539158/ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nano-Pharmacological-Aspect-of-Homeopathic-Drugs-A-Rajendran/c32d4beb0f74f4a235a38770582e12edc7803ce4 https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0038-1669988 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15139095/ https://www.journalijdr.com/homeopathy-nanomedicine–-identification-and-characterization-nps-hypericumperforatum-6c-30c-200c-1m Christoaa (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. your sources do not support such a change. Roxy the dog. wooF 07:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility whatsoever of any 'consensus' for such a change, based on the sources cited: see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience term is misleading in the light of evidence pool

There is no dearth of evidence in favour of Homeopathy today. There could be shortcoming in this medical system, but a host of basic and clinical trials have come out in its favour. Let's have a look here, for example: https://www.ccrhindia.nic.in//admnis/admin/showimg.aspx?ID=15844. The book is a collection of scientific studies taken up for evaluating the effectiveness of Homoeopathy, and their outcomes.

By still calling it pseudoscience, we are also ignoring the fact that it is one of the leading alternative systems of medicine, and used in more than 80 countries, including much developed ones. This is reported by the world Health Organisation here: https://www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-medicine/WhoGlobalReportOnTraditionalAndComplementaryMedicine2019.pdf?ua=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Cannolis (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS for the type of source material necessary for this article. Your first source is a document from the 'Central Council for Research in Homeopathy', who clearly are going to claim it works. Actual science doesn't consist of assertions, and nor does it consist of compiling selective lists of 'research' for the purposes of confirming your own prior conclusions. As for the WHO report, it contains data on countries where homeopathy etc is practised. Which isn't a statement one way or another as to whether it has any scientific basis. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the effectiveness of homeopathy is unproven, that claims made in terms of its supposed mechanisms are incompatible with elementary scientific knowledge, and that accordingly, claims made about it's efficacy are pseudoscientific. Accordingly, that is what this article is going to continue to say, unless and until scientific consensus changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A document published by the Ministry of AYUSH is obviously not a reliable medical source (it's unsurprising that the claimed "clinical trials" are reported in the Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy), and a report showing that it is used widely in 80 countries doesn't have any relevance to its efficacy, or in this case the lack of it. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Jonas2008-1] Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID 18480136.

[1]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 The article mentioned as second citation for the pseudoscientific is still debatable.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x . There are many articles which says homoeopathy needs further research. [[User:Pream electronics|Pream electronics]] ([[User talk:Pream electronics|talk]]) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 :Please read the FAQ located at the top of this page. -- [[User:McSly|McSly]] ([[User talk:McSly|talk]]) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
+::Not matter how many sources one would cite supporting the notion that homeopathy is not pseudoscience,  the decision has been alsready  made by the activistists  who control this article.. ( and ..Im not a .....republican or climate change denier by the way) --[[User:Jay1938|Jay1938]] ([[User talk:Jay1938|talk]]) 15:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 == Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 ==

Revision as of 15:47, 2 December 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

*Pseudoscience* term is misleading in the light of evidence pool

Pseudoscience term is misleading in the light of evidence pool