→Vaccinations: rsp |
|||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
:::[EC]Thanks. In the future, if you can't check the actual sourcing of a statement for its validity due to journal availability, please post on the talk page prior to making such a change so that those of us with ready access can verify the attribution and prevent unnecessary edit war fodder... — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::[EC]Thanks. In the future, if you can't check the actual sourcing of a statement for its validity due to journal availability, please post on the talk page prior to making such a change so that those of us with ready access can verify the attribution and prevent unnecessary edit war fodder... — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: Well, that is what I initially did on Feb 1st. I stated that I didn't have the article and the abstract didn't support ''many.'' I did not edit the text initially, but waited for other editors to respond. You responded with new citations and a change in text. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: No I didn't read the articles because I don't have access to the full text at this time. Isn't there a way to place pertinent text in the citation at the bottom of the page. The text you quoted isn't in the abstract. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
:: No I didn't read the articles because I don't have access to the full text at this time. Isn't there a way to place pertinent text in the citation at the bottom of the page. The text you quoted isn't in the abstract. [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::It's a rather large block...the citation is enough. We don't have to spoon-feed readers the info, just responsibly offer it. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::It's a rather large block...the citation is enough. We don't have to spoon-feed readers the info, just responsibly offer it. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: How about just a small part of the block? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps we should clarify non-physician homoeopaths? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
::Perhaps we should clarify non-physician homoeopaths? [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:50, 14 February 2008
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Strong disagreement with the above section
- I don't see a reason to stray from the normal style of word first, etymology second, and then basic definition (and then elucidation of the definition). Doing so makes it hard for the reader, who's used to these conventions, to follow it.
- Again, as I stated above, the social dialogue (controversy, popularity) does not belong in the beginning of the first paragraph -- the basic definition. We are stating science's qualms and thus showing there is a controversy -- WP is neither a specifically scientific nor a specifically sociological encyclopedia, but a general one.
- Responding to the homeopathic concerns about characterization of the process involved in creating the remedies, I propose the following, which retains much Eighty-eight's changes and adds some new details....
Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy and homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a method of treating disease based on the idea of like treating like -- that a substance which causes the symptoms of a given disease can be used to formulate a remedy for that disease. The chosen substance is dissolved, and the solution is potentized by undergoing a progression of further dilution and shaking, or succussion, in order, it is believed, to imprint qualities of the substance onto the solvent, which is then used as the active ingredient in the remedy. Homeopathy was first defined by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th century, and has retained a certain popularity as a form of alternative medicine. It lacks, however, any apparent basis in scientific theory, and no clear experimental evidence has emerged supporting its usefulness beyond the placebo effect.
Note: I defend the use of "however", in the last sentence. The two facts -- of its current use/popularity, and its lack of scientific confirmation, are contrasting facts, and using the word is therefore called for stylistically as an element that makes the writing easier to follow. I personally do not feel that this slants the paragraph's neutrality or takes a liberty (I didn't like linking the two thoughts with "despite", above -- for me that does go too far). Friarslantern (talk)
Saying it is a method of treatinf sounds like you are saying it works, whilst the article states the lack of proof. Also the same thing is implied by the word "potenized". Even thought you state this at the end, first impressions will stick. Also the 'apparent basis' sounds like a re-wording of "It apparently lacks any basis is scientific theory". This implies, to me, that there is some bias in the section, and I wouldnt believe the article upon further reading. I do think the opening is too long, but I dont agree with the above alternative.86.40.240.104 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Lead was blanked
The lead was blanked of everything but the intro paragraph during that edit war. I simply restored to three hours ago. If there were valid consensual changes in that time frame, please restore them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
British spelling
since we are impperatively using the British spelling, should this article be renamed "homoeopathy"? Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Since our spelling agrees with THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHY, I think we should keep the name as is. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Commonwealth spelling would be homœopathy. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- as long as we have a consisent spelling pattern, then I'm okay. I was just concerned because in all the research I have done homoeopathy was (or homœopathy) was used in Britain and its former empires and homeopathy used elsewhere. Smith Jones (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is homœopathy (and homoeopathy) in Australia.[1] The Brits must have changed the name, as there are old references to "The British Institute of Homoeopathy" in the The British Journal of Homoeopathy. [2] --David Broadfoot (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That double letter is no longer used in English, commonly. Certain people use it, but I would say it is now defunkt.86.40.240.104 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funkadelic took it over? Ligatures (the erroneously named "double letters") are still extant in English. •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Article degradation
This article over the last few weeks has progressed toward being more and more accommodating of pseudoscientific rationalizations and convoluted wording to get around inconvenient facts. It is clear that probation has had the effect of passing over editorial control to ignoring content guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct I fear. I have tried to engage 2 or 3 of those who are strong homeopathy advocates about what NPOV is, and they either would not answer at all, or flew into a rage and attacked me, or just answered completely incorrectly. The problem is, they cannot reconcile their vision for the article with NPOV and they know it. And they think that Wikipedia should just bend on this issue for them.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not make such blanket statements. It would be much better to cite 2 or 3 incidents of the problem you see, so that other editors can either work with you to improve the article, or try to convince you that the edits were in fact an improvement. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just look at the current lead. It goes into great depth describing how homeopaths make their snake oil and then says that it is "sometimes" characterized as pseudoscience. Give me a break. Homeopaths dilute their shit to such an extent that most homeopathic solutions contain no molecules of solute (notice how this fails to be clearly explained in the lead). Everyone who isn't a homeopath and considers this basically admits that this is classic pseudoscience. The lead is a joke. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides not making blanket statements, it is also best not to mischaracterize the efforts of other editors who are sincerely interested in finally getting this article to NPOV. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints (WP:YESPOV). The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The current lead is sympathetic to homeopathy and uses the pseudoscientific explanations provided by homeopaths to describe this pseudoscience on its own terms rather than from an objective stance. Thus the current lead is not NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop battling. I have provided a list of improvements needed to get this article to featured article review. Rest assured that the FAR process will result in a very NPOV article. Can we please focus on the large, non-contentious, sylistic changes that are necessary for improving this article? Issues of tone will be addressed later. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is the list? Anthon01 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. Want a brilliant idea? Take a few of the long sections, and break them out into daughter articles. Just copy the content into a new article, such as Homeopathic remedies then place a summary of the moved content into the main article with a link to the new daughter article. See Gamma ray burst and Gamma ray burst progenitors as examples. The new daughter article may even qualify for WP:DYK. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added what I think is perfectly fair balance in the lead. I am not an advocate of homeopathy, I just think that the article can at least be as neutral as the NIH and FDA are (who if anything are often considered industry apologists). They tend not to rail about "quackery" , "pesudoscience" and other scare terms to their audiences. In the likely event my sourced info is deleted, please explain here why. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pretty typical. Any reasonable person who wants to change the article in any way to reflect the views of level-headed rationality is told he has to fight with you for two weeks on the discussion page and build a "consensus." But homeopaths can make enormous changes of their own initiative to promote magical thinking. This double standard and its enforcement by sympathetic admins is exactly why the article has become worthless. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I support your other changes, but, IMO, the positive findings shouldn't be mentioned without the appropriate caveats. The current opening misleads the reader into believing that homeopathy has been confirmed to work in certain situations. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reported positive results are summarized here; as well as mentioned in the other references provided. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- And...? NIH warns of the insignificance of these results shortly after first mentioning them (in q8[3]: "Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.") We do not. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reported positive results are summarized here; as well as mentioned in the other references provided. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No the NIH does not warn of the insignificance" of the studies, it refers to issues identified by some authors doing metaanlyses. Nowhere is "insignificance" warned about, much less mentioned. Again this is a tendency of this article to take criticisms well beyond what is actually in the sources. What the NIH review does say is this:
- The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo. I am simply saying that the fact that some studies found benefits is relevant and should be included, and that the general view is that results have been contradictory, not conclusively in favor of the "quackery" position being promulgated by this article. Science has nothing to fear from reporting accurately. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"[I]t is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition" is "present findings are inconclusive" in so many words. NIH was being used as a tertiary source for this conclusion. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the NIH can equally be used as a tertiary source for the fact that some studies have shown benefit; yet you choose the negative version. In any case, I'm stepping away from this can of worms , preferring as I do to chase mice. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- is it NOT the purpose of Wikipedia?? to draw conclusions about anything. it is a supporsitory of information sourced, verifiable, and demeed reliable by the community. Perhaps the only way we'll get to anything approaching a FA status is to recognize that this article does not determine the reality of truth but instead compiles current verifiable information and source sfo r it the Internet communit.y Smith Jones (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since this talk page is always in desperate need of levity, I do want to point out that I nearly shot soda out of my nose when I read
Smith Jones, I think you might mean repository? Maybe it's both? — Scientizzle 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia...is a supporsitory of information...
- Since this talk page is always in desperate need of levity, I do want to point out that I nearly shot soda out of my nose when I read
- Maybe "supporsitory" is a contraction for "supposed to be a repository?" IDK, cud b. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of the Wikipedia requirement that an article have a neutral tone, I recommend that this NIH wording be incorporated into the article:
- "The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo."
I do not want to add that without agreement from the other editors. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Government sources are a poor substitute for high-quality, peer-reviewed, academic journals. I suggest you not continue with the pro-homeopathy lobbying. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Jehochman Talk 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Government sources, Jehochman, can be quite useful in formulating wording (though, arguably, less useful for deciding facts!), and I believe this statement by Arion3x3 goes just as much to a neutral style as to facts. It appears to me that the scientific criticism goes far more to the implausibility of homeopathic theory than to any conclusive research, and I'd agree that the implausibility should be mentioned in the same breath as the conflicting research (frankly I like my wording presented above "no clear evidence has emerged supporting..." as a starting point)
- I would also disagree with the seeming singling-out of Arion3x3 for soapboxing; the way I see it that's going on amongst both sides here. Friarslantern (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support this change. The equal credence it gives positive and negative findings on efficacy isn't a reflection of the current balance of research. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A gum'mint source can be useful as a summary of the current status of research, rather than pre-selected individual studies out of the countless number available. The Lancet meta analysis is a decade old, yet studies on homeopathic remedies are still being conducted. And there are results that are still inconclusive. I really doubt that Wikipedia is going to ignite a major health crisis simply by describing the situation accurately. Of course, the US government could be deliberately misleading the public, because it really wants to destroy the power and influence of big Pharma...oh wait, I'm sorry, thats Bizarro World. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Except for one, which I've since replaced, the references for the "overall weight" statement were not individual studies. They're reviews. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A gum'mint source can be useful as a summary of the current status of research, rather than pre-selected individual studies out of the countless number available. The Lancet meta analysis is a decade old, yet studies on homeopathic remedies are still being conducted. And there are results that are still inconclusive. I really doubt that Wikipedia is going to ignite a major health crisis simply by describing the situation accurately. Of course, the US government could be deliberately misleading the public, because it really wants to destroy the power and influence of big Pharma...oh wait, I'm sorry, thats Bizarro World. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- (1) Regarding the comment that "Government sources are a poor substitute . . . " - both Friarslantern and Boodlesthecat, as well as admins SlimVirgin and Tim Vickers, agree that the National Institutes of Health website is a good reliable source (see comments: [4]). It offers third party summaries that bypass the need for us to go to individual research studies (which could get precariously close to original research).
- (2) I have been consistent in my support for the Wikipedia policy of NPOV and a "neutral point of view" in this (and every) article. I do not believe that I have engaged in "pro-homeopathy lobbying" - however if I have not made myself clear, then I will restate my position: this article should not be pro or anti homeopathy - but present all sides neutrally and fairly without bias.
- (3) As the article currently reads, it appears like a "hatchet-job" that is determined to demolish the premise of homeopathy. A number of uninvolved editors who have left comments on this page about the lead section (see Archives) have noted how "peculiar" it was that the lead has a substantial paragraph to push the POV of the medical and scientific establishment regarding homeopathy, even supporting broad conclusions by lists of refs. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Im afraid that I have ting to disagree with you ARion 3x3 on your last point. this lead is not perfect but it is the best it ahs been so far, and i see signs that it can only can better get in the future as we continue to work on it. Despite how much i might wish it Might not be so, I am afraid that Wikipeda must give higher weight to the Establishmetn due to its policy of verifiability. This does not make the article a "hatchet-job" and the lead is working a lot more fiarly with regards to homeopathy than it used to be. Smith Jones (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but where is the proportional representation in the lead as is? Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most research articles don't speak in absolutes. For instance where many pro-pseudo editors want, "Homeopathy is not plausible ...", most science articles say "No plausible explanation has been found ...," which is IMO, the NPOV. I think we can take the tone of research articles and learn how to present NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid equivocation. It is best to describe pseudoscience plainly and not on its own terms. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the suggestion was not to describe homeopathy "on its own terms" but in the terms used in mainstream research articles. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Scientists equivocate because they don't "believe" in anything, they are open to all possibilities, which is the whole premise of scientific analysis. For example, the true nature of science to falsify theories, that is test it to disprove the theory. However, speak to a scientist in person, and they may be fairly blunt in their rejection of pseudoscientific theories. I think we are equivocating in this article by giving some weight to the pseudoscientific claims both from a historic and from a science perspective. But it is not necessary to write the science in any equivocal terms, because so much weight is given to the pseudoscience. Even the dilutions are written equivocally, since there is some small minor probability (approaching improbability) that one molecule could, by random chance, end up in a liter of water. And I reject "mainstream" science as terminology. There is science, and there isn't. If science could test and confirm any pseudoscience, it would then be science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I think 'they don't "believe" in anything' is a succint statement of WP:NPOV. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindented)
We are not going for what you think "scientist in person" might say, but what is published via NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously peeps, let's not hide behind the alleged and much debunked mythology of the supposed NPOV of scientists and the scientific method, and the also much debunked notion that there is simply something called "science" against which all things in heaven and earth, my Wiki-Horatios, are weighed, and discuss issues. And let's try to fix up the article. Here's Boodles' (a non homeopathic feline) first complaint (all from the same short paragraph!):
- "implausible and "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge"
- "lack of convincing scientific evidence"
- "contradiction of basic scientific principles"
- "regarded as pseudoscience"
- "and quackery at worst"
- Methinks the Wiki-scientists protestesth too much! i mean come on, what respectable scientific journal, etc ever uses such a barrage of this, the language of the true believer, the acolyte, the devotee, striking down heresy wherever it rears its diluent head. Even the Lancet review, as vituperative as such reviews get, tells us "For some people, therefore, homeopathy could be another tool that complements conventional medicine, whereas others might see it as purposeful and antiscientific deception of patients, which has no place in modern health care." But our Wiki-Scientists, unlike those wishy-washy Brits, shall hold no truck for....horrors....equivocation! Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. Let's look at the way mainstream reference sources write about it -- for both style and NPOV. Friarslantern (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe all the editors here could get some helpful guidance on how to write a neutral tone article, that does not take sides and yet describes all sides without bias, by looking at the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education article titled: "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?" [5]. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't need to reinvent the wheel, nor do we need to redefined "neutral" as "in favor of crazy magical thinking" the way you want us to. We have been over this a million times: the fact that homeopathy doesn't work is true and verifiable, therefore there is nothing un-neutral about pointing it out. Neutrality requires adherence to verifiable facts, not an avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as an evaluation. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that I agree with in Randy's comments is "Neutrality requires adherence to verifiable facts". I think it would be helpful for all of us to re-read Wikipedia's policy on NPOV before proceeding with improving this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, and always has been for months on end, that there are a large group of editors here who do not know what NPOV is, or choose to ignore NPOV. And therefore, we have problems. It is that simple. --Filll (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm still getting "incivility warnings" and ban threats from an administrator-impersonator on my talk page for daring to participate in this article. The homeopaths haven't given up on their intimidation and dirty tricks. File that as another reason why the article is becoming impossible to save. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense
The third sentence says Subscript text-- "According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol)." ((My emphasis of the word diluent)). The general consensus of dictionaries seems to be that the word diluent means the substance used to dilute something, not the diluted result or end product. Anyone object if I change "diluent" to "end product"?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, homeopathy claims that the magic properties are retained by the diluent; that is, the substance doing the dilution. As with so-called water memory, the solvent (or diluent) is supposed to remember the properties of substances which had previously been dissolved in them. It is often the case that the "diluted result" actually contains no active ingredients, and the homeopaths do claim that it is the diluent which retains therapeutic properties. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hear what you are saying. I think. So, are homeopaths actually saying that the liquid they administer to patients has NO properties because they were "discarded" with the diluent? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) If that is not the case, then maybe I am correct in saying that what is administered to patients is NOT the diluent, but is the end product.Kaiwhakahaere (talk)
- The end product liquid they administer to patients is the diluent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Please read my opening comment in this thread. According to dictionaries, the word diluent means the substance used to to dilute something. You say the end product they administer to patients is the diluent, which of course does not gel with dictionary definitions of diluent. See my point? If something/method is used to dilute a liquid to make it a homeopathic product, that particular something/method is the diluent, NOT the leftover liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Homeopathic philosophy is that the substance passes its "essence" on into the diluent. The diluted result is thrown away in favor of the diluent. It is the goal to end up with the diluent as the end product. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Please read my opening comment in this thread. According to dictionaries, the word diluent means the substance used to to dilute something. You say the end product they administer to patients is the diluent, which of course does not gel with dictionary definitions of diluent. See my point? If something/method is used to dilute a liquid to make it a homeopathic product, that particular something/method is the diluent, NOT the leftover liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The end product liquid they administer to patients is the diluent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I hear what you are saying. I think. So, are homeopaths actually saying that the liquid they administer to patients has NO properties because they were "discarded" with the diluent? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) If that is not the case, then maybe I am correct in saying that what is administered to patients is NOT the diluent, but is the end product.Kaiwhakahaere (talk)
I think the idea is that if you take a pinch of sugar, put it in the Pacific ("solvent" or "diluent") and then take out a cup of seawater ("end product") science cannot differentiate between "diluent" and "end product" since they are technically identical. Nobody is capable of finding any sugar and as such the "end product" is "diluent" without sugar. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Vaccinations
I have edited
Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases.
to
In one survey 16 out 23 homeopathic practitioners advised their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases.
My edit is NPOV based on the references. On Feb 1st, I originally opposed the text Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination since the references clearly did not support the word Many in the text, and was in fact a violation of NPOV.[6] As a result Adam Cuerdan advised East718 that I was being disruptive.[7] Feb 2nd I was summarily banned from this article for 1 week by East718. The next day Adam Cuerdan changed the text to Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunization for diseases.[8] That text also clearly violated NPOV. I challenge any editor who wants to revert the text to either prove using the references that the reversion is justified, or provide other references that support the reversion. Although I suspect that many homeopaths advise against vaccinations, the references provided do not establish that and I have not been able to find references to support that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Challenge met.
- Did you read the references attached to that statement? Allow me to quote this one...
That info as updated in this one:Some homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. Several surveys demonstrate this quite clearly. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [31]. A similar but larger study was carried out in Austria [28]. All 230 Austrian homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. Our own group has recently conducted a survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area of the U.K. [11]. The response rate was 51%. Seven of the ten physician homoeopaths but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation.
Would you please restore the prior text? You can certainly replace "often" with "many". — Scientizzle 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Several surveys demonstrate that some (particularly non-physician) homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [22]. A larger representative study was carried out in Austria [23], where all 230 registered homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. A further survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area in UK [24] yielded a response rate of 51%. Seven of the 10 physicians are homoeopaths, but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation. Finally, 42 homoeopaths working in Massachusetts, USA were asked about their attitude towards immunisation. About 35% of them actively recommended immunisation while 9% openly opposed childhood immunisations [25].
- [EC]Thanks. In the future, if you can't check the actual sourcing of a statement for its validity due to journal availability, please post on the talk page prior to making such a change so that those of us with ready access can verify the attribution and prevent unnecessary edit war fodder... — Scientizzle 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that is what I initially did on Feb 1st. I stated that I didn't have the article and the abstract didn't support many. I did not edit the text initially, but waited for other editors to respond. You responded with new citations and a change in text. Anthon01 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Notes & references
References & Notes |
---|
|
What is wrong with the lead of this article - a highly personal opinion
- Paragraph 1 is written in such a dense prose that it is difficult to read. This could be addressed by simplifying the prose and also by splitting it into two paragraphs.
- The figure on the right adds little if any value. By making the paragraph narrower, it also makes it visually longer.
- Paragraphs 2 and 3 are difficult to read because of the large number of reference superscripts included. (Just to be clear, I do absolutely recognize the importance of references. I am just pointing out the detrimental effect that they have on the readability.)
- Wanderer57 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)