Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

Some ground rules (please do not delete from top of the page)

Here are some brief comments that I hope will help reinforce our ground rules. I'm sorry I don't have time for more detailed engagement right now. Some Citizens have complained to me that homeopathy's advocates on this page are tending to purge criticisms. On this I will absolutely put my foot down. You may not do so. You may maintain that (and say in the article how) homeopaths reject the criticisms, but you may not simply delete points, and source material, simply because you disagree with them or you think they are misinformed. If you have a strong disagreement about a published criticism, you should voice it in the article, rather than removing the criticism. There may be exceptions to this rule, but (I understand) not in several recent cases in the present article. Of course, the "reply, don't delete" rule assumes that a source and criticism are important enough from the point of view of homeopathy's critics to be included. While they can have input of course, this is not ultimately a matter that homeopathy's defenders are best placed to decide. The word "skeptic" should not be used, pejoratively, to identify those who reject homeopathy in the article. If there is a need repeatedly to identify the skeptics of homeopathy, you may not use a term that the skeptics themselves reject. You must find a mutually agreeable term. I suggest "mainstream physicians." "Allopaths" won't do, either, although it certainly can be introduced, and it should be. It should not be necessary for me to point out that the article can neither endorse nor roundly condemn homeopathy. The article does not take a stand; it presents both (or all) sides on all controversial issues it presents, and leaves it up to the reader to decide for himself. The article does not endorse a position. Precisely because homeopathy happens to be a minority viewpoint when it comes to the health issues it discusses, criticism of homeopathy does not belong in a separate "criticisms" section of the article. I have my doubts whether there is any need for a "criticisms" section at all, but I can't say so until I've read the current version, which I haven't done. Selective and uncritical reporting of references is contrary to CZ's neutrality policy: this makes it appear that we officially think the literature says such-and-such, when there is legitimate disagreement about whether it does say that. When, therefore, a "skeptic" raises a question about a statistic such as 18% of Americans, we must absolutely deal with this question. I am very uncomfortable publishing information about the percentage of Americans who accept homeopathy, when it has not been made clear what "acceptance" amounts to in the survey that was performed. Therefore, either this essential interpretive information must be included in the article, or the information about the statistic must be excluded. Anything else would be, quite simply, misleading and unscientific. More generally, on a topic with this much disagreement, we simply cannot add heaps of studies and statistics to the article without adequate explanation and without critical responses where such may exist or be possible. Uncritical reportage of the results of disputed studies has an inherently biasing effect. Finally, I want to underscore that if anyone repeatedly reverts significant parts of the text without explaining and defending his actions here on the talk page, I will consider banning that person. I would ask those who are following the article more closely to make a list of such unexplained reversions, and provide it to me privately. On the basis of such information I will either issue a warning or, if the problem is very serious, a temporary ban. Let me finish on a positive note. Despite the amount of struggle over this article, or perhaps because of it, this article has grown and in many ways improved, and other articles have spun off. This is a good thing. As I like to say, if everybody is equally frustrated, that means that work is getting done and the article isn't too biased one way or the other. Still, if we can all follow the above ground rules, I think we'll get along quite a bit better. --Larry Sanger 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I want to add another point. While I do not endorse Wikipedia's inane and abusable rule "assume good faith," I do want to suggest that we need something a little like that. I might say, instead, "Assume your opponent is reasonable enough to be open to compromise." If you make that assumption, you will yourself be much more likely to propose a compromise, and to be open to one. Then, if the other person shows himself to be completely closed to any compromise, whether yours or any that he might propose, the matter suddenly becomes much clearer. Then you can contact me, saying, "Look, I proposed a compromise, so-and-so did not accept it or propose any compromise in response. What do we do?" --Larry Sanger 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a break?

I believe we all need a longish cool-down period on this article. I think that a break of two weeks would give all of the participants enough time to get some much-needed perspective. Moreover, you can use your wonderful energy on an article other than this one--how great would that be? So, unless there are any objections, I would like to ask, not require, that the participants here just drop things as they are now and return on November 16. --Larry Sanger 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I certainly have a few other articles, here and there, to which I might contribute.Howard C. Berkowitz 03:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramanand, I'm hoping you read this--did you see the above? Do you not agree to a time out/cooling off period? --Larry Sanger 02:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Larry, I agree completely. I was making some minor edits, but if that is not O.K. with you, I'll lay off till the 17th. I'm sorry if I offended you.—Ramanand Jhingade 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How about a compliment? This article looks great. It's very readable! When will it get finished & approved?

I can't understand the Homeopathy article at Wikipedia. WP's article starts by confusing me with a lengthy parenthesis about Greek stuffs (sounds Greek to me) & then it completely stops the reader & pierces him/her in the eyes with "A central thesis of homeopathy is that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness." I'm trying real hard to understand what that sentence means. Can anyone else, honestly?

(Chunbum Park 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Absolutely no offense whatsoever. Let's do take a break. I agree with Chunbum that one positive outcome of all the wrangling is a much longer and better article than it would have been if everyone had been nodding their heads in unison! --Larry Sanger 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article balance and strategy

The Encyclopedia Brittanica is exhaustive and accurate. Wikipedia has been taken over by the theorizing, skeptical, critics of Homeopathy who ban anyone who has anything positive to say about Homeopathy (99% of the people on Wikipedia are anti-alternative medicine, but due to the efforts of Eubulides, Naturstud and Bryan Hopping, the articles on Chiropractic, Naturopathy and Osteopathy, respectively, are readable). There are lots of other articles (like the ones on Climate Change & Intelligent Design) which have gone hay wire because people want only their views in the article. Citizendium may be going the Wikipedia way with the negative statements and allegations (like the ones by Dr.Sagar, Jack Kilenn etc.) being incorporated here. I think we need to tone down the negative statements and allegations, as well as the no. of them.—Ramanand Jhingade 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anything from the following section from Wikipedia factually untrue, yes or no?

Regulation and prevalence: Homeopathy is fairly common in some countries while being uncommon in others; is highly regulated in some countries and mostly unregulated in others. Regulations vary in Europe depending on the country. In some countries, there are no specific legal regulations concerning the use of homeopathy, while in others, licenses or degrees in conventional medicine from accredited universities are required. In Germany, no specific regulations exist, while France, Austria and Denmark mandate licenses to diagnose any illness or dispense of any product whose purpose is to treat any illness. Some homeopathic treatment is covered by the public health service of several European countries, including France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Luxembourg. In other countries, such as Belgium, homeopathy is not covered. In Austria, the public health service requires scientific proof of effectiveness in order to reimburse medical treatments, but exceptions are made for homeopathy. Two countries which formerly offered homeopathy under their public health services have withdrawn this privilege. At the start of 2004, homeopathic medications, with some exceptions, were no longer covered by the German public health service, and in June 2005, the Swiss Government, after a 5-year trial, withdrew homeopathy and four other complementary treatments, stating that they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria, though insurance can be bought to cover such treatments provided by a medical doctor.

Hayford Peirce 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it appears that Ramanand and Hayford couldn't resist. (Ramanand, please don't answer Hayford--he's just being clever and making a point, but I don't think that answering him will help to come to a resolution.) I think we are due for a straight-forward discussion of the general, not specific, question Ramanand raises. Is this article not balanced? Why do you think it is unbalanced, Ramanand? I don't want many specific examples now, because that's endless (but see below). I want some more general discussion.

I've seen some of your edits, in which you make the article, and thus CZ, endorse a homeopathic position. That's simply not permitted here. We can report what homeopaths say, but we must make it absolutely clear that we aren't endorsing it. Also, when a homeopath position is taken, with which there are some important disagreements from the side of mainstream medicine, balance requires that we report, without asserting, the point of disagreement. As far as I can tell, Howard and Chris have been trying to move the article back in the direction of balance. As it stands, the parts I've been able to read are remarkably charitable and sympathetic to homeopathy.

Are there large sections that you disagree with? Which? Can you more generally or helpfully characterize why you think the article is unbalanced? If you simply say there's too much negative stuff about homeopathy, that doesn't help me because I don't know how much too much is. I'm sure you don't have time, but I'd love to see a version of the page marked up with everything you object to in red. Actually, I'd love to see a version marked up by "the other side" with everything they object to. --Larry Sanger 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I hope that we all realized how blessed we are to have Larry's input here...and I hope that we all understand what he has written.

Hayford's insertion above has way too many factual errors. Most of all, it is confusing because it is mixing up regulations about the practice of homeopathy with regulations on what is and isn't covered by government health plans. Also, virtually every country in the world recognizes and regulates the sale of homeopathic medicines. Because homeopathic medicines are legally recognized as "drugs," doctors are allowed to prescribe them, and in all countries that recognize homeopathic medicines, the general public is allowed to purchase them, except for a small number of low-potency homeopathics that can be dangerous in their crude form. Dana Ullman 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of anti-Homeopathy statements on the internet. I'm only against insertion of negative statements and allegations (like the ones by Dr.Sagar, Jack Killen etc.) being incorporated here.—Ramanand Jhingade 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Killen represent an opinion of some weight? Chris Day 03:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Killen's opinion is of significant weight specifically because he said it while a government official specifically concerned with complementary and alternative medicine. When the senior British general in 1914, said "the machine gun is a much overrated weapon", it was a significant statement.

In any event, it is specifically against the ground rules to object to factual statements merely because they are negative, and it is factual that Killen made the statement. The United States just went through a political process where, surprising as it may be, candidates made negative statements about one another. Should they not be reported?

A cooling-off period was requested, but the article was not locked. It can be. It is no more likely that there will be agreement on homeopathy than any of a wide range of subjects where the different viewpoints have different standards of evidence and proof. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try to understand. Sagar simply mocks homeopathy, and homepaths don't want to be mocked, of course. And the Killen quote undercuts the credibility of homeopathy because he is an official with an organization that does careful scientific studies of homeopathy, and he simply says it has no basis.

Like it or not, alternative medicine is in fact mocked, and such mockery is a common reaction to alternative medicine among health professionals, just as it is a common reaction to "pseudoscience" among scientists generally. Right now the article says that homeopaths don't find the joke funny. What more do you want? To remove the mockery; I don't know but I don't see that as being justified. But it could be part of a reasonable compromise.

As to Killen, I'm not sure what the objection is. Is the quotation taken out of context? (Is it?) Or is the problem, perhaps, that Killen is just expressing his own idiosyncratic opinion and does not speak for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine? Is it that that organization is not the best organization to represent mainstream medical opinion of homeopathy?

Why are you, as you say, "against insertion of negative statements and allegations (like the ones by Dr.Sagar, Jack Killen etc.)"? Is it merely because such statements are, in fact, negative? Is it because you disagree with them, because you think they are false? Is it because you think they somehow misrepresent what non-homeopathic physicians believe? Or do you have some more specific reason? Please do clarify the latter confusion for me.

If the problem is not about any specific negative statements, after all--although that is what you just said--but instead about the sheer quantity of negative statements, then let's talk about that. Can you characterize in any useful way why the current proportion of negative statement strikes you as excessive? Also, can you motivate or argue for the reasonableness of any particular cuts or consolidations? I do notice that there are several sections that might be a little redundant, at least... --Larry Sanger 14:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Larry makes several important and good points. I am not against "negative" statements as long as they are notable and have some degree of legitamacy and accuracy. I do, however, have some problems with Jack Killen's statement where he says, "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment." My problem is that this statement is simply wrong...and because this article makes references to numerous positive studies showing beneficial results from homeopathic treatment, this statement creates confusion. In the 1997 meta-analysis by Linde et al, they assert that although there is evidence that the results from homeopathic medicine are different from that of placebo, there is no one condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be effective. The difference HERE is that this study defined "proven to be effective" if there are at least THREE trials showing efficacy. As it turns out, the next year (1998), the third trial showing efficacy of homeopathic Oscillococcinum was published. The problems, however, with Killen's quote is that it gives no specific definitions of "proven efficacy" and as such, it is vague and inaccurate in its vagueness. Dana Ullman 16:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You, sir, are changing the subject. I have repeatedly written that Killen's statement is significant because it was said by a U.S. official in the context of a widely distributed news magazine (Newsweek), and the statement was not rejected by any higher official of the U.S. government. Whether or not it is vague or not, it gives insight into U.S. government thinking on homeopathy. Are you saying that statements by government officials, which might be confusing, do not belong in Citizendium? If so, that would have a chilling effect on political articles.

Were I not respecting the moratorium, sir, I would restore the legislative history of Senator Copeland, a homeopathic physician, successfully inserting an amendment into the FDA establishing legislation, which banned the FDA from requiring safety and efficacy testing of homeopathic remedies. You also removed that saying it was irrelevant, but I believe, and I would submit to the Editor-in-Chief, that political aspects of regulation are quite relevant. Politicians of many countries frequently do controversial things with respect to health policy; they are noteworthy because they did them although they can be criticized for conflict of interest or for vague inaccuracy.

A general news magazine is simply not going to get into definitions. We have no way of knowing whether, in fact, Killen gave specific definitions or not to the interviewer, but that's not really relevant to the fact that the acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine said it. Killen could have said "homeopathy is ineffective because it involves dancing deasil around the cauldron, which any person well-versed in neodruidic ritual would know should be danced widdershins." That such a statement would be completely wrong is irrelevant to the context in which the quote is being used. For the article, the significant point is that a U.S. government official said it.

If, at the time, a homeopath had countered it in public with the reference to Lunde, that would be noteworthy. If it can be demonstrated that a letter to the editor of Newsweek had been sent at that time, and not published, that would be noteworthy. Arguing with the specifics of a news quote simply is irrelevant to the point, and, in my opinion, again an attempt to attack any criticism of homeopathy rather than report that the criticism was made and move on.

Larry, this is an example why I see hope for this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

All that confusion is why you see hope for the article? I don't understand.  :-)

After this exchange, it seems obvious to me what a compromise solution would look like, and I'm surprised that neither you, Howard, nor Dana proposed it. If the point of the quotation is to express what a government official said about homeopathy (and I think we still need to investigate if that was the view of the agency or just one person in the agency), then say that. In other words, make it absolutely clear that the point of our using the quotation is to establish...well, whatever the point is. Moreover, I personally would like to know if the "National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine" is the leading serious research organization about alternative medicine in the U.S. Without any context, the article suggests it is. If it isn't one of the top organizations in the field, then why are the first two paragraphs about it in a section titled "Medical organizations' attitudes towards homeopathy"?

Moreover, if homeopaths very strongly reject what Killen says, even if the point of our quoting it is to show how the medical establishment feels about homeopathy (is that it?), then why not let them say it? Something like: "Homeopaths, for their part, reject Killen's view, claiming--as is explained in other parts of the present article--that there is significant clinical evidence for the effectiveness of some homeopathic remedies."

Come on--is this really that hard? --Larry Sanger 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been no hope for the article. I would have been happy to observe the moratorium on the talk page as well as the article, but I have not made changes on the talk page. Let's be specific: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is the part of the National Institutes of Health concerned with complementary and alternative health, including homeopathy. In other words, it is the central U.S. government organization that funds research into CAM, again including homeopathy, and does synthesis in the field. Killen, at the time of the statement, and as far as I know, still is, acting deputy director. What additional information did you need to have that it is influential?

Larry, I spent 40 years or so in Washington. When someone at a deputy director level or above says something in a national newsmagazine, and there is no repudiation, one has to assume that either the upper echelons don't disagree or may support it. If homeopaths, as a group, felt so strongly about it, surely there must be authoritative sources about immediate responses to Killen's statement. I'd be delighted to see such material. Your example of "Homeopaths, for their part, reject Killen's view, claiming--as is explained in other parts of the present article--that there is significant clinical evidence for the effectiveness of some homeopathic remedies" is something that should be sourced by more than individual opinion. Believe me, when someone at Killen's level in NIH said something that was offensive to any of a number of activist groups (e.g., AIDS, breast cancer), there was huge response. Forget activists and deal with professional groups, on something like the controversy over Robert Gallo's work (originally at NIH) on AIDS, and this year's Nobel going to Luc Montagnier.

I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask for sourced responses to Killen. Call it changing the subject, but I'd like to bring in, again, the homeopathic exception in the FDA enabling legislation, which was sponsored by a Senator who was a homeopathic physician. There's just been a bit of controversy over blocking of tobacco oversight by Senators from good Suth'rn tobaccy states. Dana removed that factual legislative history, and, if one reads the article, one might assume the FDA approves of homeopathy. If they are still there, I cited current FDA web publications that the law differs with the current professional opinion of the FDA. I'd like to put the Copeland amendment his

Do you really mean that a rational compromise is to have a generic "homeopaths disagree" with every sourced criticism? If so, yes, I do consider that very hard.Howard C. Berkowitz 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Killen quote appears to be aimed, through the use of exactly one quotation by one scientist, at proving that the whole U.S. medical establishment blanket-rejects the effectiveness homeopathy. I know something about the NIH and I'm sure any deputy director that might be interviewed by Newsweek is highly-placed. None of this establishes that Killen actually does speak for the NIH as a whole. Besides, in the previous paragraph our article says "in others, more benefits were seen than expected from a placebo"; either Killen doesn't know about those above-placebo "benefits" or he denies that they really prove that the "benefits" constitute "effective treatment."

Look, I don't care about the details here. What I am trying to establish is that it is reasonable to edit the text in a way that will be more acceptable to the people you are (or were) trying to collaborate with. Look at it this way, Howard. You aren't trying to be neutral here if you simply deny that the other side has a legitimate complaint. I think their complaint can be given a very reasonable interpretation: Killen's view seems to contradict what we said the NCCAM says, and he is, after all, only one government scientist. For CZ to publish an article that does not properly contextualize this quotation is essentially for CZ to endorse the sentiment in the quotation as the mainstream medical attitude toward homeopathy. From a homeopath's point of view, Howard, you ought to be able to see that that is an important piece of information, and that it is very important that we get it right. So, again--why is it so hard? Why not just edit it? Something like this (I've added the parts in red:

On the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, the attitudes of mainstream medical organizations within the U.S. are ambivalent at best. One major research institution, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, funds research into homeopathy. It states that controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have produced mixed results; in some, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo, but in others, more benefits were seen than expected from a placebo.

While that statement might appear rather noncommittal, one of the NCCAM's scientists, acting deputy director Jack Killen, has been more forthright. Killen said in a Newsweek article that homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics." He added, "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment." Perhaps needless to say, homeopathic researchers believe they have demonstrated positive effects in clinical trials.

More indication of mainstream U.S. medical opinion about homeopathy's effectiveness can be found in the stance taken by the American Medical Association. ...

I might try to illustrate my point with the rest of the section, but I hope that won't be necessary. Such relatively minor edits are harmless. You ask for a "sourced reply" to the Killen quote--I'm sorry, but I don't see why. The point is that, when in an encyclopedia article on an evidently controversial subject, we cite a statement that is that definite, we want to make it very clear to our readers that we, CZ, do not endorse this view ourselves. Not all criticisms of homeopathy are this definite, Howard. The very fact that Dana and Ramanand are objecting so strenuously ought to be enough of a clue that the text at present looks biased, at least to them, to give you serious pause. That is, if your purpose, Howard, is not merely to give voice to your own views about the subject, or the mainstream attitudes toward it, but instead to sympathetically portray the range of views that exist, then the fact that Dana and Ramanand are objecting should indicate that they don't find homeopathy sympathetically portrayed. The reaction I would hope you would have, in that case, is: "Aha, they are really objecting to this hard. There could be something wrong here. Perhaps I can recast it in a way that still does full justice to the underlying criticism, but does not have any unnecessary implications that I did not intend, or that the evidence does not support." That, I think, is what the red additions I made above do.

Again, I don't see why this has to be so hard. Once you are committed not to defending The Truth as you see it, but instead to fairly laying out the dialectical landscape, it becomes a fairly straightforward matter of problem-solving.

Still, after all this, I am still inclined to agree with Hayford--that both sides here are so set against such reasonable and obvious compromises that it is best if we just mothball the article until we can find some people who can treat the subject in the way I've described, and will then roll up their sleeves get to work. I would do this myself but I'm very busy these days...maybe in a few months. --Larry Sanger 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be mothballed. Why do I ask for a sourced response? I'd like to know that more than two homeopaths have been upset by Killen's quote. With something of the circulation of Newsweek, it strikes me as unlikely that if it is so broadly objectionable, there aren't more than two individuals on Citizendium that have said so in a public forum. Actually, I'm rather surprised, given U.S. politics, that Killen's comment seems not to have generated any protests, at the time.

The Bush Administration has not exactly been tolerant of public statements by "one scientist". I invite you to look at former Surgeon General Carmona's sworn testimony, to Congress, of the pressure put on him to have his statements meet with their approval -- he found he couldn't stay in the job. Vint Cerf, who has been one of my mentors, cataloged quite a few examples of comments by "one scientist" getting slammed if it wasn't supported.

Further, there is a difference between accurate and "sympathetic" writing, which perhaps could use some discussion in a broader forum. Interest has been expressed in improving the Holocaust article. I'm sure that some things might be proper contributions to that article, reporting positions that were grounds for death sentences at Nuremberg. Are you saying that CZ needs to report "sympathetically" on what Julius Streicher said, from his perspective? Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts, not "my vision of the Truth", but accurate representation of expert, mainstream positions. I really don't care to put everything in a Seinfeld-style "but that's all right."

I have, Dr. Sanger, examined my objectivity about what you have put in red, and, if I start having "The reaction I would hope you would have", I don't belong here. I believe that, in fact, quite a number of Citizens would not have that reaction; perhaps you might examine whether you are attempting to enforce your view of The Truth. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Conditions of compromise?

What are the necessary and sufficient aspects of a compromise that can meet the integrity requirements of CZ, as opposed to both proponents and opponents of a given discipline?

While I recognize that some homeopaths disagree, I find an overemphasis on history centuries and millenia old, even given the existence of history of homeopathy. Looking at virtual any health sciences article, there may be basic history, there may be subarticles on particularly significant historical events, but the emphasis is on current synthesis. I believe that the article has an overemphasis on history, and, in the talk page, insistence that homeopathy has passed the test of time, so it is appropriate to speak of 18th, 19th, and 20th century homeopathic criticism of then-contemporary medicine. This presentation comes across as aggressive and angry; the political history by which some countries avoid homeopathic remedy regulation has been removed by advocates of homeopathy.

There is so much insistence on the uniqueness of every encounter that basic approaches are still not clear. Note that articles on other complementary and alternative techniques, such as acupuncture, as well as mainstream history and physical examination, seem to have little difficulty in articulating these concepts -- and some, such as acupuncture or pain medicine -- are highly individualized.

I regret that I believe there remains a pattern of editing out material unfavorable to homeopathy, which does not seem to be corrected by the existing process. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard, you're asking one question and making three points, and it is all at best loosely connected. Why not tell us which of these is most important so we can focus on it? We can't discuss and adjudicate all of these at once. --Larry Sanger 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the points are especially relevant without an active, neutral editor being involved. There is a point to what I see as continuing editing to "improve", with specific violations of ground rules. Larry, you as EIC have said there is no right to remove statements merely because they are negative, if they are factual. Ramanand had repeatedly said there should not be negativity. Those are fundamentally incompatible assumptions, and since one set is basic CZ policy, I do not see a satisfactory outcome. Subjectively, I believe there are issues of conflict of interest that will not resolve. The main reason I involve myself in this article is to be able to represent, to potential and new contributors, that partisan positions are not acceptable.

If there is one specific point, it is a firm ruling that a reasonably sourced statement, perceived as negative, cannot be removed. A three-sentence, carefully worded quote from a meta-analysis cannot be "simplified" such that all that remains seems at least a limited endorsement of homeopathy. Other points are not appropriate for a public talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need such rules, frankly; I don't think they will help anything. I agree that it is never an adequate justification to remove a quote just because it is negative. Also, I can't believe that Ramanand wanted all negative statements about homeopathy removed. I really think it comes down not to debates over specific quotes but to a perception of unfairness or imbalance in larger parts of the text like paragraphs and sections. You don't always seem to explain homeopathy's attitudes sympathetically, and I suspect that is what the homeopaths are ultimately upset about here. They, on the other hand, are indeed removing your perfectly legitimate critical text, which also seems unfair and unjustified. What we need is someone who will attempt at the same time to express the homeopathic positions sympathetically, while casting the criticisms of homeopathy in a straightforward way, that is makes us come across as respectful and not dismissive of homeopathy. Probably, Howard, you need to point out the sections and a few choice more specific items that bother you, and then see if someone else can even things out, so to speak. --Larry Sanger 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A diagnosis of the ongoing controversy?

As I look over the article this afternoon, I have to say that I think that most of the complaints that people have can be explained in a simple, if not obviously helpful way: they think their positions are unfairly treated. Yes, so what does that tell us? Well, the sense of injustice is not usually so much due to any particular line in the article as it is patterns or narratives that appear largely on the level of paragraphs and sections. That is, a paragraph or section seems to be "aiming at" a certain conclusion with which somebody disagrees. When we complain here on the talk page about particular criticisms, or deletions of criticisms, those are merely the epiphenomena, the side-effects of the underlying lack of fairness of larger groupings of text.

If that's the case, then we might be going about this all wrong. If perceived semi-broad patterns of bias are the problem, then talking more about specific texts on the talk page will not solve anything. Instead, judicious editing of the article by a good, fair-minded editor or two will do the trick. Such an editor must not only understand what neutrality requires and be committed to it, he must know enough about the subject not to introduce factual errors in adjusting various positions. Moreover, he must be creative and sensitive enough to foresee objections than different combatants will likely have--so they don't have to object in the first place.

Basically, then, if we skillfully edit the text in way that tries to make the various complainants happy, their complaints will evaporate.

This is in line with what Gareth Leng has said in the past. I think he was onto something. --Larry Sanger 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A diagnosis and way forward

As I look over the article this afternoon, I have to say that I think that most of the complaints that people have can be explained in a simple, if not obviously helpful way: they think their positions are unfairly treated. Yes, so what does that tell us? Well, the sense of injustice is not usually so much due to any particular line in the article as it is patterns or narratives that appear largely on the level of paragraphs and sections. That is, a paragraph or section seems to be "aiming at" a certain conclusion with which somebody disagrees. When we complain here on the talk page about particular criticisms, or deletions of criticisms, those are merely the epiphenomena, the side-effects of the underlying lack of fairness of larger groupings of text.

If that's the case, then we might be going about this all wrong. If perceived semi-broad patterns of bias are the problem, then talking more about specific texts on the talk page will not solve anything. Instead, judicious editing of the article by a good, fair-minded editor or two will do the trick. Such an editor must not only understand what neutrality requires and be committed to it, he must know enough about the subject not to introduce factual errors in adjusting various positions. Moreover, he must be creative and sensitive enough to foresee objections than different combatants will likely have--so they don't have to object in the first place.

Basically, then, if we skillfully edit the text in way that tries to make the various complainants happy, their complaints will evaporate.

This is in line with what Gareth Leng has said in the past. I think he was onto something. --Larry Sanger 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here, I have an idea for how to proceed after the moritorium is lifted: why doesn't everybody list the five sections or subsections that bother you most? Also, if there are particular texts that really bother you, then yes--quote them here on this page and we'll look at them. Please do this!

Just for example, I'll bet the "Questions about homeopathic theory" bothers the homeopaths considerably because they come off looking like fools, and the other side comes off looking too clever by half--they're a little sly, aren't they? That's unnecessary. It can be fixed, in a way that is more respectful but gets across the same skeptical points, and that encapsulates the homeopath's attitude more sympathetically--even if they don't have any answers to the skeptical questions.

Once we have these lists of complaints, the lists of offensive sections and paragraphs and quotations, then, Howard, Ramanand, and everyone else who is inclined to defend their own view, just lay off--do nothing. Let others, like me or Gareth or some others, weigh in and make a few additions and cuts and rearrange things so that they are more likely to be to everyone's liking. Basically, I think you'll stop fighting and we'll be able to make progress if more fair-minded people just roll up their sleeves and do what has to be done. --Larry Sanger 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with negative comments

Respectfully, Larry, I don't think that is going to work. It's not a "list", but basic structure: what is it that homeopaths actually do? The area that I find most frustrating is not how homeopathic remedies do or do not work, or whether there are vital energies, but that I constantly get the answer that the basics of an interaction are so individualized that they cannot be described to a non-homeopath. I cannot think of a general or specialized area of medicine, for example, where it is impossible to describe the basics of patient-clinician encounter and preliminary planning. While it started out as a joke, I did get a start on rocket science; I'm stuck because I don't know how to format some of the equations. Brain surgery? Sure; I'm not Harvey Cushing but I can explain the basics of central or peripheral neurosurgery.

Now, believe it or not, I happen to think that there are aspects of shamanic healing that can be complementary. One of Michael Harner's contribution was the cross-cultural comparison of shamanic journeys in cultures that could not have had contact. As long as I can't seem to get basic answers in homeopathy that I can get in any other field that isn't experiential and faith-based, I see no way to progress. Sometimes, all that can be done has been done; sometimes, it's a question of whether the resources are better spent elsewhere. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard, you're changing the subject. The subject you're now speaking about is well worth discussing, I'm sure, but what I was talking about was how to get everyone to stop complaining about why this article is so biased, how to stop me getting mail from people complaining about how their stuff was deleted, or how the article is so biased against homeopathy. So, after looking over the article again, especially with Ramanand's complaints about those very critical quotations in mind (and your defense of them), it occurred to me that what ultimately seems offensive about those quotations is not the quotations themselves but the fact that they are part of allegedly biased narratives, with which Ramanand disagrees. And the narratives are more or less on the section or paragraph level. Then I looked over the whole article and it occurred to me that the article is often biased one way or the other in different sections. The best way forward is for both you and Ramanand, and probably Dana too, to just lay off, list the problem sections of the article and what you find biased about them, and then let somebody else go to work fixing them. --Larry Sanger 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Larry. I hear you trying to defend a complaint against what seemed a very basic violation of ground rules: you don't get to delete things simply because they are negative, if they are verifiable. No, I'm not going to list sections. I am concerned now about the process, not the article. If one political candidate calls another a terrorist sympathizer, the fact that the candidate said it, biased or not, is significant. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to list sections or paragraphs that give you problems, that's fine. Maybe the other side will; they can reply in the above section if they are game. I don't know what you mean by "trying to defend a complaint." I'm not defending Ramanand's complaint about negative quotations, if that's what you mean; I just have trouble believing that he is objecting to all negative quotations just because they're negative. So I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he replies clearly to me that he simply doesn't want to see any negative quotations in the article, then matters will be much clearer. But I do doubt that he will say that. As to your proposed rule, it seems too broad. It's easy to imagine situations in which a perfectly authoritative but negative quotation turns out to be inappropriate for reasons other than that it is negative. Your rule would require that we retain any "reasonably sourced statement, perceived as negative." I would rather say that we cannot remove any reasonably sourced statements merely on grounds of its being negative. --Larry Sanger 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can live with your wording about a rule for negativity, but I do not have your trouble believing that objection is being made to any negativism about homeopathy. Certainly, in writing about virtually any recent U.S. political campaign, one has to accept a great many acknowledged but generic attack ads as "a tale of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing." When, however, one of the quotes cited for negativity is from Dr. Killen, a senior official in the U.S. government organization with current responsibility for complementary and alternative medicine, that isn't mere negativity, but the opinion of a policy-level official. To the best of my knowledge, his statement was not disavowed by any higher-level U.S. government official or mainstream organization.

My material about the legislative history of how homeopathy gained a unique exemption from Food and Drug Administration regulation, in 1938, was earlier removed as negative, and claimed to be irrelevant. In how many other discussions of regulatory law would it be considered irrelevant that the author of an exemption benefited from the exemption?Howard C. Berkowitz 03:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard, your previous statement about the FDA's exemption of homeopathic medicine was deleted because it was not accurate, not because it wasn't relevant. First, the FDA has strict regulations on homeopathic doses that they define as either OTC dosage or Rx dosage. The difference here is completely around SAFETY issues. Although Belladonna is a homeopathic medicine, it is only available in OTC dosage at a dose in which the FDA recognizes it as "safe." Belladonna tincture is an Rx drug, while a dose of Belladonna 6X is an accepted OTC homeopathic dosage. As for "efficacy," homeopathy is not simply a different system of drugs, it is a different paradigm of medicine. According to the system of homeopathy, medicines are individually selected to people based on their overall syndrome of disease, not just a localized pathology. Although there are a small number of controlled clinical trials using a "this for that" conventional medical paradigm (one drug for one specific disease), homeopathy (like acupuncture) represents a different and more complex model of treatment that is more systemic in nature and practice and less reductionistic. You will be an even better editor of this article once you understand and respect the different paradigm that homeopathy represents. Dana Ullman 17:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you will be a better editor when you stop patronizing me about what will make me a better editor.

Second, you have yet to explain the different paradigm of homeopathy in understandable terms. Now, perhaps it helped my attention level in discussing Traditional Chinese Medicine that I happened to date the TCM student (and later doctor), but she was able to give me a quite good idea of the model of treatment, not just acupuncture but the various diagnostic techniques. How am I supposed to respect a paradigm of which I cannot get a specific explanation? Indeed, I've had acupuncture treatment from two MDs that were absolutely delighted to find interest in their paradigm -- although both looked at it as complementary medicine. One, born in Vietnam and having gotten MD and OMD degrees in Asia, was also the dean of gynecological ultrasonography in the Washington DC area; I mourned him as an incredibly wise man who did not insist you must understand the different paradigm. Luckily, he was so respected in the community that we could spend hours taking up restaurant tables, with meridian and neuroanatomy charts spread out before us, and some of the latest complementary studies from China. Paradigm understanding, I have found, was enhanced both by hormones in Tina's case and Vietnamese food with Dr. Tran. We explored knowledge together; I cannot imagine them telling me "once I understand and respect the different paradigm." Instead, they talked about the paradigm, made connections when there were some, and did not expect obeisance based on authority. Perhaps the most difficult paradigm acceptance was on the part of the restaurant, but Dr. Tran eventually convinced them that there were Westerners that thought nuoc mam was a perfectly reasonable condiment, and could appreciate properly cooked shrimp shells and heads. Yum.Howard C. Berkowitz 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposed solution -- and I'm serious

Delete the entire article AND the talk pages for one entire year. Make it impossible for anyone to start another article about the subject.

A year passes quickly: I've been here for a year and a half now and it seems to me as if I only started yesterday....

In a year's time, we will hopefully have a quiver of expert doctors or medical historians or some such or a combination of all of them who are working here as active and expert editors. Then, if such people are on board, restore the article, and let them get out their scalpels and suggestions.

But until there is a cadre of competent editors to take this in hand, vanish it! Hayford Peirce 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth thinking about really. In the last couple of weeks, while the moratorium has gone on, I think the project has actually benefitted from our not having Recent Changes filled up with endless back-and-forth between partisans writing on Talk:Homeopathy, who chronically refuse to compromise or to hear the other side sympathetically. With the lack of anything like a neutral moderator who might try to rewrite the article in a way that will keep both sides happy, and none seems forthcoming (I can't make the commitment myself), it does look like we're stuck with endless debate or taking your advice, Hayford.

Here is what I would like us to think about, if we want to go down this path: what is the principle involved? How about this: "If (1) there is a dispute about whether an article is biased or not, (2) the dispute concerns the article from top to bottom (cannot be solved by tackling just one or two sections), (3) there is no neutral moderator who is willing and able to go through the whole article and essentially mediate the dispute, (4) no one side is at fault for being unreasonable, ignorant of rules, etc., and (5) the dispute seems intractable, i.e., after weeks (or months) of back-and-forth, no agreement seems reachable, then we move the article to a talk page for one year (or some similar lengthy period of time), protect it, and protect the talk page, where an ending date for the moratorium is announced. A Constable is contacted to unprotect the page after the prescribed moratorium.

Here's another question: what exactly is the primary purpose of moratoria? Is it to save the community from the wrenching process of an intractable and frustrating debate? Or is it to prevent one side from wearing the other side out, "winning" by default? The latter would be a very bad situation--it is de facto the way many Wikipedia disputes are handled, I think. If I were to support the rule, it would be primarily for the latter reason, rather than the former, but they are connected. This is not obvious, and is very interesting, I think, so I'll try to explain. I think the reason that Ramanand and Howard are going at it for so long is that our rules require debate about significant changes to articles--and therefore, if they stop debating, they in fact relinquish the authority to impose their edits on the other side. What small authority we have to make edits, in our more or less egalitarian system, is secured by the outcome of a rational debate rather than by expertise (although expertise can be used to make an end run around debate, in the right circumstances--and that's a CZ advantage, I think). If edit wars are to be decided by exhausting one side, then evidently, like it or not, we have the same "rule of the most persistent" that Wikipedia has. Now notice that if there were not the threat of losing through exhaustion, then there would not be intractable edit wars. Since matters in dispute are more or less informally decided by who wrote on the talk page last, to stop debating is to lose authority just by keeping silent--which is not only a little humiliating perhaps, it actually feels like you're being unjust to your own cause. That's why these debates are wrenching and heated; they are really power plays.

Hayford's notion of extending moritoria for a long time basically cuts the Gordian knot. Does it look like a dispute is intractable? Then (given the other conditions are met) we just take the article down. This would have the effect of making the disputants think twice about their (to me) very frustrating failure to compromise or think in terms of neutrality. They and their work will be penalized by not being displayed, if they fail to cooperate with each other. Moreover, I note that right now there is no such incentive to cooperate; our incentives are, rather, to disagree persistently with anyone who it seems cannot be expected to arrive at an agreement with us. A game theoretical analysis is probably in the offing here.

Well, that's my first reaction anyway. I'm not instantly in favor of the proposal, I'm just intrigued. Probably, we should carry on in the forums!

What, I idly wonder, would be the homeopathic cure of the current problem? Perhaps just a very tepid debate... ;-) --Larry Sanger 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support Hayward's proposal. Here and there, over the years, I've had a bit of exposure to game theory and strategic thought, and I submit that this is not the place to have the discussion about whether, in a specific context with real people involved, if it is always possible to have neutral compromise. You have your opinions on that, and I really don't disagree with neutral presentation being an ideal. It may be worth assessing the larger community experience on what is, and is not, possible with regard to neutrality.

That larger experience has to look, as well, at the not completely related question of whether every controversial topic must be covered, especially when there may not be a broad consensus of notability, and the best use of the precious resource of neutral editing. You can believe it or not as you will, but I have done my level best to phrase things here neutrally, including substantial effort to provide sources that support theories with which I personally disagree. Respectfully, there is an issue of the integrity of the entire process, when the appearance can exist that the main thrust for the very existence of an article is to advocate a partisan view. There is often a very narrow line between the appearance of conflict of interest and the certainty of conflict of interests. I would far rather fight other battles than this one, but I spend time at this because I believe it is a matter of integrity. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What Dr. Sanger said about the "winning" in Wikipedia is accurate. I was thinking of taking the initiative of reviewing all the edits & giving a "3rd opinion," but probably I shouldn't. What I didn't like about that option in Wikipedia was that a bunch of people (or sock puppets) who didn't know anything about the dispute would take sides with terribly light understanding of the problem & with too much apparent bias & without the effort to really try to learn the subject first. (Chunbum Park 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

As someone who has previously edited on wikipedia, I think that talking and editing on CZ is so much sophisticated and diplomatic. The frequency of UNDOing edits is so much less common here. Yes, I have done some deletes and some UNDOs, but these have been quite infrequent...and I have not seen much serious edit fights (as are common on wikipedia). Despite our differences of opinion here, I think that we listen to each other. I do not consider the situation "broken." I do not see the same degree of problems here that some others do, though that said, I too have some concerns. But I do not think that the problems warrant a year-long moratorium, and I certainly do not believe that we should delete the entire article. I think that we can and should follow Larry's ideas for balance.

To clarify, although I feel that Killen's remarks are incorrect and confusing, I would support their inclusion if some people here feel strongly enough about it (and it seems that they do). I would simply recommend that we also then acknowledge that some homeopaths have responded to it. For example, see: http://theintegratorblog.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=441&Itemid=1. Dana Ullman 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want to add that I suggest that Hayford and Howard (and anyone else) who has some disagreement with this article provide specific suggestions on the Talk page for their recommended changes. Even though we may have different ideas, I think that we can be all reasonable people and collaborate on this. Dana Ullman 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And to respond to the blog response, while I'm not certain if there is an actual rule, blogs tend not to be the best of sources. I did find it interesting, however, that "some homeopaths" on that blog included:

"The ill-informed media and selected ill-informed representatives of the CAM community (including Dr. Jack Killen, in this case) have echoed the 'junk science' reports and turned this information into 'junk journalism.'" (signed Dana Ullman, MPH)

When I cite even peer-reviewed work that contains my own contributions, I am quite careful to make clear my name appears in the citation, and I frequently, although I agree not universally, add a disclaimer on the talk page. I do consider that my books, from major publishers, with a review process, do deserve a disclaimer as well as a proper citation. In other words, I do work very hard to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest; I have done a couple of signed articles, which were meant to be both illustrative examples but also funny; humor has a place in making seemingly inaccessible subjects accessible. Accessibility to the ideas, incidentally, remain one of my major concerns with this article. Trust me -- one never really understands what it's like to be in a military maximum security vault, until the door gets jammed and you are stuck, for two hours, next to a man with a cigar.

Subarticles, as for many subjects, may be a way of resolving some of the conflict. Dana, will you please believe that I am being sincere that while Hahnemann's work certainly is main-article relevant, bringing up 1905 immunologists, analogies to Jenner, etc., does not add to the credibility of the artice — it raises suspicion on the part of someone with a more current biomedical orientation? Osler's observations about the drugs of his time were quite correct at the time he wrote them, although Osler's comment that he wanted to replace both allopathy and homeopathy (his terminology), which he called medical sects) with a synthesis do not seem to have stayed in the article. He considered allopathy quite different than scientifically-based medicine.

For anyone who has not read it, I highly recommend The Youngest Science: Notes of a Medicine Watcher by Lewis Thomas. I am the first to say that until well into the twentieth century, medicine had no particular idea why drugs worked. The ideas of Hahnemann's medical contemporaries indeed have not stood the test of time, but I do not agree with your statement that homeopathic ideas have met the test of time. 1905-1910 medical quotes don't do it.

I need to know more about the cognitive process of a routine homeopathic encounter. Believe me, I have, 20 minutes or so into a first meeting with a new physician, concluded that said board-certified physician was an arrogant fool and not just walked out, but formally denied that person access to my records. I will not have a physician that is unwilling, in a nonemergent situation, not to explain why they want to do something -- and I don't insist on a lay explanation. If I could get a basic understanding of how homeopathic practice takes place from this article, I would feel much better about it.

There is much presentation of arguments for and against homeopathy, there are various trials, but a clear understanding of how modern homeopaths approach patients remains, to me, a fundamental lack that seems unique to homeopathy. I can't write that section because I freely admit it baffles me, but I also reject the concept that there can be no reasonable tutorial. Without that, I believe the article is not encyclopedic.

I continue to endorse Hayford's proposal, as I have seen no evidence, as yet, that meaningful collaboration is possible, certainly on the talk page. To me, the comment "Hayford and Howard (and anyone else) who has some disagreement with this article provide specific suggestions on the Talk page for their recommended changes" demonstrates that. There are 6 or so archive pages that contain a great many phrase pre-deleted because it would have violated the family-friendliness policy recommended changes. Very few were accepted by you or Ramanand. Unfortunately, CZ does not yet have in placed the desired dispute resolution and judicial mechanisms that might be needed here. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)