Talk:Homeopathy

TODO

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care.

Birth of Homeopathy

Homeopathy was not the inception of some german in 1796, it was actually introduced to civilization in Ancient Egypt, and was first used by shamans to treat people with certain common ailments. Ex., Willow tree bark is a substitute for aspirin, and was used by the ancient Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.56.254 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But did the ancient Egyptians dilute the willow bark until not a molecule was left in the 'remedy'? I doubt it, since willow bark works! Perhaps you a referring to e.g. herbal or natural medicine. To be more accurate, willow bark is not a 'substitute' for aspirin; the drug derives from willow bark and is considered to be its "active ingredient".--TraceyR (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The crucial thing is the idea of "like cures like" rather than the dilutions. Although homoeopaths often claim that their therapy goes back several millennia, there does not seem to be any good evidence for this. The claim that it originated with Hippocrates (particularly ironic in view of Hahnemann's denigration of Hippocratic medicine as "allopathy"), for example, seems to have been a misunderstanding of Hippocrates's writings (he actually seems to have written that treatments need to be of a similar category to the injury - for example wounds treated with surgery, internal illness treated with drugs). There seems to be no good evidence that Hahnemann based his idea on earlier writers. We've discussed this here before - see the archives. Brunton (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this page worth linking to in external links

[1] It is a blog and probably not an authoritative source but provides a lucid explanation that suits the masses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.52.187 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased tone

While the very nature of this quackery is doomed to bias by anyone subconsciously rational, I'm removing the quote from remedies, rendered in the article as 'remedies,' as it places an emphasis on the word that can only lead to the reader believing as I do, albeit in a manner unbefitting Wikipedia. 98.87.71.186 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I found some evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy?

Dear Wikians,

I looked at the webpage of British Homeopathic Association (http://www.britishhomeopathic.org) and found the following information sources which claim to show that there is positive scientific evidence for the success of homeopathy.

You can read one document here: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/research/evidencesummary.pdf

And more from here: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/facts_about_homeopathy/the_evidence_base.html

Would you please inquire if that evidence is reliable and in case it is, would you include it in the article?

Best wishes, Andres —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplejoy (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before pretty much ad nauseam, most recently when the same material was referenced by users such as "Dr.Vittal" or "NootherIDAvailable". The list is cherry-picked and fails to take trial quality into account. It also does not accurately reflect the results of the comprehensive systematic reviews, since of the four that it claims were "broadly positive", in three the conclusions were so highly qualified by comments about the poor quality of the evidence that they cannot really be considered unequivocally positive, and the fourth actually effectively retracted the positive conclusion of one of the other three, stating that it was likely that it "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." Additionally, it is the result of unpublished research, and produced by an organisation that, according to its own website, exists to promote homoeopathy. The article uses sources that are published and peer-reviewed. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"treat" vs "claims to treat"

The word 'treat' just means to give something to somebody if certain conditions are met. So far as dealing with the illness, the treatment may be completely useless (as with homeopathy), but they're still being treated.

For example, in olden days, people were treated for all manner of indications with leeches. They didn't do a damn thing in many cases, but that was the treatment nevertheless.

The only way 'claims to treat' would be correct, is if there was some doubt that people take homeopathic treatments at all.- Wolfkeeper 01:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Claims to treat is the correct and neutral form. Also, as most preparations contain no solute, I'd say there is some doubt as to whether people are taking homeopathic treatments at all. Leeches are still used in medicine and did have an effect, though perhaps not the one intended. Verbal chat 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of back-and-forth on this. Can't we try to work towards a compromise, or at least a ceasefire?

Personally, I'd be happy with either version. No doubt there are other parts on this article that could benefit from the attention ;-)

bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy on how to treat unsubstantiated claims (if there isn't there probably should be)? The only body whose policy I'm familiar with on this is the (UK) Advertising Standards Authority, who interpret any claim to treat a condition as a claim of effective treatment. Brunton (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Verbal chat 09:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument; while "treat" technically also includes ineffective (and even harm inducing) treatments, colloquially I think the use of the term has an implication of effectiveness. The easiest way to solve this is to find a good RS that uses the wording one way or another and to cite it. Yobol (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The ASA gives a pretty good standard, which more than clinches it for me. Verbal chat 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Current opening sentence:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations.

Could we solve this by replacing claims to treat (or treat if the lead changes again ... which ideally it should not for a while) with uses? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not advertising anything, and we use the Wikipedia's policies in the Wikipedia, not the ASAs here. 'Claims to treat' is incorrect because they self-evidently do get treated, that's what 'treat' means. Either change it to something else entirely or leave it as 'treat'.- Wolfkeeper 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia's policies say about treatment of unsubstantiated claims? Brunton (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated claim that is being repeatedly edit warred into the article is that people only claim to take homeopathic stuff, but don't really. That's what this sentence means.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the claim is that it is an effective remedy. Verbal chat 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of "that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations." is the word 'effective' or 'remedy'? Hint: none. A remedy is something that actually remedies something. A treatment is something you use under a prescribed set of conditions. See the difference?- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, torture is a certain sort of treatment of prisoners in an attempt to extract information. Does that make it a remedy? No.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you keep using the word 'treat' but you don't seem to have a clue what it means.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• In my book treating a person stands for applying a therapy with the intended goal of curing a medical condition. In the absence of a cure one attempts to alleviate the symptoms. Ergo, since homeopathy has been proven to be indistinguisable from placebo any homeopathic treatment is no more than a "claim."--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, so what you're saying is, they try to cure something by giving them something. And that's what they do. You'll note that there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful, either always or ever, just that it's applied with that intention. So unless you think that homeopaths are always fraudulent, then the 'claim' bit is wrong.Wolfkeeper 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Trying implies you are doing something you expect has an effect on the desired outcome. Since homeopathy has been proven to have no effect, other than placebo, one cannot reasonably argue "they try to cure something." How can you cure anything when you are doing nothing? In short, doing something you know is ineffective by definition means you claim you are treating a patient. Or, so we are absolutely clear as to what this is about: a claim is an unproven assertion, ergo homeopathy claims to be a form of treatment for many diseases. Regarding "there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful" I disagree. Giving lemon juice to cure cancer is silly. We know it does not work. So it is not a treatment for cancer. At best we can say people claim it cures cancer. To be called a treatment it must be proven to be effective, although not necessarily a 100%.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is it written that a treatment has to be proven scientifically? It isn't. That's not the definition of treat. The definition of treat is something used with the intended goal of improving something.

However, many homeopaths and patients really are dumb enough to not believe the scientific evidence, and hence really do expect that homeopathy will have an effect on the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. It didn't matter that leeches didn't work, applying them, or homeopathy in a particular way was/is still a treatment.

(as an aside: Leeches can 'work' - perhaps it's their use in bloodletting that you refer to.)--TraceyR (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter. Leeches are still a treatment however they're used. That's the point isn't it?- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

English just isn't used the way it is in the article, you're using the wrong words for what you're trying to say.- Wolfkeeper 12:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't leave this as 'claims to treat' it's a deliberate slur on homeopaths, it's saying that they deliberately give homeopathic treatments, knowing they don't work, that they're only claiming that they do. That may be true in some cases, but in general they really do believe it.- Wolfkeeper 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a deliberate slur; it says that homeopaths claim to treat. They really do claim[2] to treat[3]. Although we are working on the basis that the treatment is ineffective, "claim" applies equally well regardless of whether the claimant is ignorant, lying, delusional, confused, or something else.

I am not aware of any reasonable definition of the work "claim" which requires the claimant to knowingly say something untrue; if you have a good source that defines "claim" this way, please share it with us.

Where does the article say that homeopaths deliberately give treatments knowing that they don't work?

bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's mainly bad writing. A homeopathic remedy is a treatment. The claim is that this will cure the ailment. The treatment is a simple fact. It is the likelihood of the cure which is doubted. The current language muddles up these issues and by phrasing it in a strange way, gives the opening a tendentious tone. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you claim that using the word 'claim' when referring to something that somebody else says doesn't cast doubt, or imply the existence of doubt, on the veracity of what is said? Uh huh.- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Our opening lead seems poorly constructed. Compare, for example, with the Encyclopedia Britannica which has:

"...a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated."

The word "prescribed" seems good in accurately describing what is done - the physician recommends a particular treatment according to his diagnosis and doctrine. The word "treatment" is used here without any special implication of success. Is it not well understood that, for all forms of medicine, treatments are no guarantee of a cure?

Also the phrase "astronomically diluted" seems quite misleading as it suggests that the matter has something to do with the stars or planets. The essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all. The Britannica version is far superior.

Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Treatments are generally understood imply a probability of success, see the ASA reference. While I generally disagree with your reasoning, I agree that "astronomically" is not a good word for the lead. See below. Verbal chat 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about "astronomically" (see below), but virtually every description of homoeopathy, even those from homoeopathic organisations, says that it uses highly diluted preparations. It is not true, by the way, that "the essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all" - the second sentence of the lead says "Based on an ipse dixit axiom formulated by Hahnemann which he called the law of similars, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given as the treatment for patients exhibiting similar symptoms." This mirrors, for example, the Society of Homeopaths' description of homoeopathy, which describes the medicines as "highly diluted" in its first sentence, and doesn't mention "like cures like" until the second paragraph. Having it this way round would not appear to be massively controversial. Brunton (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say, assumptions make an ass out of you, Verbal, and treatments do not imply a probability of success only an intent to have some kind of effect. The fact that you are incapable of understanding the distinction probably partly contributes to you repeatedly reverting to a version that is either nonsense or a deliberate bad faith attack on homeopaths; hey they are quacks, but they're not necessarily fraudulent quacks- they don't knowingly prescribe treatments that don't work.- Wolfkeeper 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made an assumptions, or used the word. What I did was give an opinion backed by references without personal attacks against other editors or homeopaths, despite what you have attributed to me. I suggest you take a break. Verbal chat 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Claims to treat" is an ambiguous wording. It could be interpreted as referring to a practice that does not actually occur, while its practitioners claim that it does. Moreover, this wording along with the use of "so-called" in the third sentence of the lede are examples of weasel wording (see WP:ALLEGED). Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "fails to treat"? Actually, I think the "practitioners use" option currently in place is better. Brunton (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On insanity

Why is this insanity periodically coming up? What's wrong with the following sentence?

The famous doctor always treats his patients with contempt.

Does it really have to be "corrected" to the following?

The famous doctor always claims [or attempts] to treat his patients with contempt.

The word "treat" does have connotations of efficacy, but they are rather weak, and certainly much weaker than the implication that people actually do something. Any formulation implying that someone doesn't actually "treat" a patient but only "claims" or "tries" to do so is a very clear statement about their actual actions, not about the potential efficacy of these actions. The following is absolutely ludicrous:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with highly diluted preparations. [4]

The plain meaning of this sentence is that homeopaths try to give highly diluted preparations to patients but for some reason fail. It doesn't get clear though whether the problem is that the preparations aren't actually diluted, whether they try to send them to their patients by mail and they never arrive, or whether the patients, possibly after reading the Skeptical Inquirer or discussing with pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia, decide no improvement at all is actually better than an improvement due to the placebo effect (which may well be better for homeopathy than "proper" medicine for susceptible persons), and so throw them away. Hans Adler 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the current wording which removes the bone of contention? Verbal chat 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the current wording comes from, it's very clumsy and needs fixing. But I still don't have time for such things, and it's way too hot anyway. Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans, while the wording does start to get a little cumbersome, the argument you have set up here is a bit of a straw man. The word "treat" has several meanings, among them ( from my dictionary) 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way; and 2. give medical care or attention to. In your "claims to treat his patients with contempt" example, it depends on which definition of "treats" we are referencing. If the doctor claims that he "behaves towards or deals with in a certain way", the sentence comes across as saying that this doctor, for some odd reason, is known to brag about how poorly he treats his patients. If the doctor claims that he "gives medical care" in the form of contempt, then the word "claims" is certainly of use; otherwise the reader is being told that this odd method of dealing with patients is a form of medical care. Simply because he is a doctor, everything he does in the presence of a patient does not necessarily constitute medical care. He breaths, he farts, he ties his shoes, and he may even show contempt; but If he claimed to be medically treating you by any of these actions, you'd say he was an ass.

In the article, the word "treat" is most certainly being employed in the sense of "giving medical care", which implies that homeopathy is actually a form of medical care. According to the best evidence available, there is no reason to believe that homeopathy is any more useful than contempt as a form of medical care. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that there is no reason to believe that homeopathy can be considered as a form of medical care, so why would we suggest it here? I, for one, think the qualification of the word "treat" is justifiedPuddin'head Wilson (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Were you under the impression that you were responding to my core argument? If so, you failed. I suggest a Google search for "placebo-treated" if you want to know what I mean. Even when "treat" is used in the medical sense, efficacy is not a necessary feature of a treatment (although there is of course a presumption of efficacy to some extent), and efficacy beyond placebo is definitely not a necessary feature. It's the same with most words in a natural language.

E.g. there is a presumption that a "city" is big in some sense (bigger than a town or village), and there is a presumption that an English "city" has a certain status granted by the king/queen. Both appear in dictionaries as if they were necessary features, but neither is really necessary. Whether we can call an English village with city status, or a large English settlement with no legal status at all, a "city", depends on context.

Here it's basically the same situation, a matter of context. The context in question is not "Is it possible/ethical to treat certain conditions with homeopathy?" Instead, the context is "Homeopaths treat patients with certain obviously ineffictive stuff." Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. But then again, I'm quite dim. How about:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy administer highly dilute preparations of substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease. The rationale for this approach was articulated by Hahnemann as the law of similars, an ipse dixit axiom which states "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

Sound any better?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Harmlessness of homeopathic globuli?

Should the introduction mention that, while homeopathic pills are in themselves harmless, the fact that they sometimes replace other medications can make the treatment harmful? --TraceyR (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea - maybe add a few words to the end of the sentence that begins "Homeopathic remedies are, with rare exceptions, considered safe..."?

However, (imho) the lede is already a bit too long; maybe some other details could be moved back down into the body of the article.

bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say leave it as it is. This (along with other concerns) is covered in the "Ethical and safety issues" section of the article. In an article this length the lead can't include details of every point raised in the article - it can only summarise the main points. Brunton (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable idea, TraceyR, but I think the lead is already longer than ideal. The major points from each section seem to be covered in broad outline, satisfying WP:LEAD. There might be something we could cut from the lead to make room, but nothing jumps out at me right now. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

luc montagnier's claim of radio waves

I added his claim to Water_memory#Subsequent_research, since it's more on-topic there. People claiming that it was a breakthrought discovery should read [this to see some of the reasons of why the scientific community has not taken the claim seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In particular, it doesn't belong here because once again Montagnier didn't actually mention homoeopathy. The Sunday Times of the day before the story cited has a slightly fuller account, which says that Montagnier "did not mention homeopathy by name in his presentation." (Leake, J. Nobel laureate gives hope to homeopaths, Sunday Times 4.7.2010, p. 10) Brunton (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Astronomically" in the lead

The word "astronomically" in the lead doesn't come across as very encyclopaedic to me. I'd like to discuss possible alternatives, one such is "implausible" (supported by the lack of a scientific basis). Astronomically also pertains to big, but what we're talking about here is beyond miniscule - in nearly all cases it is 0. Verbal chat 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't read as encyclopaedic. "Astronomically" is a fairly recent addition (21st June). It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. I think "highly" is probably better, and certainly uncontroversial (for example the (UK) Society of Homeopaths (the larges body for lay homeopaths in the UK) defines homoeopathy as being "based on treating the individual with highly diluted substances", and the Faculty of Homeopathy (the organisation for medically-qualified homeopaths in the UK) describes the dilutions used as "ultra-high". We have a third editor objecting to "astronomically" above, so I'll change it. Brunton (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly is ok with me. Verbal chat 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "astronomically" is not encyclopedic and would support a change to "highly".Yobol (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we don't include words based on how they sound, but on references. 'Astronomically' is literally and figuratively true, and furthermore after whole seconds with google, I can reference it to the British medical journal. See [5]- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally used the word 'astronomical' is pure hyperbole. In the sense that the word 'astronomical' is used here it refers to things that are related to or comparable to sizes found in astronomy. Some of the dilutions found in homeopathy are the same as one droplet dissolved in a sphere of water that is about the same as the orbital radius of the Earth from the Sun. We literally are talking about astronomical dilutions.- Wolfkeeper 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a figurative use of the word. The source cited above talks about substances being "diluted to astronomical levels", which is slightly different. I suppose "astronomical" is the sort of word "The Sun" (how appropriate!) would also use,, although the above comment is on the BMJ website; I'd be happier with a different word too. --TraceyR (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states that homeopathy "really is impossible", but I doubt that a TV review is an appropriate source for that statement. Brunton (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. Ugh. This is the kind of thing that has caused me to lose some enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I'm not talking about the content, so much: I haven't read the sentence yet. Simply how changes can be fixed-remade-fixed-... As far as I can tell, there's really no solution in the Wikipedia system for this? Dogweather (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the three revert rule and the possibility of sanctions being taken against editors who persistently make edits against consensus, not much. Brunton (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And what about the lack of decent forum software? So that, e.g., one can get notified of replies. Is there a reason why a wiki page is the tool of choice for all communications? I'm actually very interested in these issues --- I've even started writing software for wikipedia editors to better communicate, but the solutions to some problems seem so obvious. Dogweather (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and Amy Lansky on the bias of this article

"The moral of this tale: a single individual or a small set of individuals, if they have dedication and plenty of time to burn, can overtake a Wikipedia page with misinformation. Unless the “other side” is willing to devote a full time effort to combat this, there is very little that can be done. Any change they make will be undone the next day. Of course, in general, most credible sources of information have lives and careers and cannot devote all of their time in a never-ending Wikipedia war. This is what has happened to the Wikipedia page on homeopathy. "http://www.homeopathic.org/content/quackbuster-operations-target-homeopathy-article-on-wikipedia-0

As many people know that on many search terms, Wikipedia comes up number 1 in Google. They are almost definitely in the top 10. So when the search term is Homeopathy, how accurate are they? I was looking at following wikipedia page on Homeopathy. The general definitions and information on Homeopathy seem to be for the most part correct. The part where all of the information that is incorrect seems to be in the research side of Homeopathy. ...http://blog.hmedicine.com/homeopathy-and-homeopathic-medicine-blog/bid/4844/Homeopathy-Misinformation-on-Wikipedia......

Should these opinions be included in the article? It seems reasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't do self-referential naval gazing. Dana Ullman isn't a prominent homeopath (he doesn't practice, I think) and isn't an expert - he is a "leading proselytizer of homeopathy". Also, he has been banned from contributing to homeopathy on wikipedia due to his excessively self-promotional and pro-homeopathy editing. Homeopathic.org is also not a reliable source. There may be some meat here for his own article, but I doubt it. Lansky's opinion also seems at odds with the RS which our article is based on, and is not published in a RS. Lansky is free to bring their concerns here for discussion. Verbal chat 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed, with the consenus being that the template is not needed. Brunton (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can take over a Wikipedia article, as long as they can produce reliable sources to substantiate what they write. 'Prominent homeopaths' will also need to supply reliable sources supporting their claims, just like anyone else. "Ipse dixit" is not proof, even from Hahnemann. If they can provide reliable sources for the effectiveness of potentization, 'remedies' etc, they can 'take over' this article (and be applauded for doing so). If they can find genuine 'misinformation' in the article, they should identify it here on the talk page and provide the proof that it is wrong. That's how Wikipedia works. --TraceyR (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With so many peer reviewed sources to draw upon, there's no reason to cite the webpage of a non-notable homeopath. The page should be based on reliable sources and that ain't it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)