Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward

I think we bit off more than we could chew when we tried to make some needed adjustments to the current approved version of Homeopathy by making too many changes at once. Ideally, I think the process should take it one step at a time. I've looked at the history of changes and have reverted to the first group of changes that were made mostly to the science sections by our science editors. This was the version number 100486956 dated 12:27, 12 May, 2009I then replace the intro with the intro from tha already approved article, because that seemed to be something that was agreeable to we three editors that approved the article initially. I then added a slightly stronger statement about why science finds it hard to support. Hopefully, that would lead to a more likely chance of getting the incremental changes that would be improvements rather than total rewrites. I thought this might be a rational place to start.

From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt, but that introduction is far too weak. There isn't any mention of disagreement by physicians until the third paragraph, and the issues about the danger of such things as homeopathic treatment of asthma remain buried. It's exactly that burial that brought the most outside criticism, which I think was justified. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason to be sorry, a perfectly good point. All I am saying is that I might be able to endorse this version. You can make whatever changes you want and I might like them, too, but I can't speak for others. This is just my starting place, because the older version was in a state of stalemate that has left us with that version that you don't like so much. Besides, the new introduction wasn't anything I could endorse, not because of content, but because it was a mesh of wishywashy baloney. Sorry, but you have to agree it's true.D. Matt Innis 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added back some detail on the proving of bamboo. While provings sometimes include placebos, it is unclear what use is made of this, as there seems to be no practice involving any rigorous comparison of placebo effects vs remedy effects. In this case, which I chose because it had been cited as an example of a well conducted proving, the placebo had effects that were explained away. I think it shows that provings, whatever their merits, do not conform to the conventional scientific method. As you will know, my preferred style is to state the facts and let them speak for themselves without editorial comment, so I don't feel it necessary to point out the divergence from scientific practice, but do feel it's appropriate to describe accurately what seems to be regarded as acceptable practice in homeopathy.Gareth Leng

Thanks Gareth, looks accurate to me. D. Matt Innis 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for Re-approval

Okay, I've nominated this version for re-approval as a baby step that addresses some of the issues that Paul, Daniel and Howard had with the current article. I believe it to still be essentially accurate and neutral, but will consider arguments to the contrary. D. Matt Innis 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In some correspondence with certain other Citizens I was given to believe that the article cannot be changed without the approval of Dana Ullman. Is this still the case? Raymond Arritt 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it just needs three editors from any of the workgroups. D. Matt Innis 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)