Talk:Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Homeopathy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy articles

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned references in Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "shang":

From Homeopathy: Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". The Lancet. 366 (9487): 726–32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589. S2CID 17939264.
From Society of Homeopaths: Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005), "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy", The Lancet, 366 (9487): 726–732, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2, PMID 16125589
From Alternative medicine: Shang, Aijing; Huwiler-Müntener, Karin; Nartey, Linda; Jüni, Peter; Dörig, Stephan; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Pewsner, Daniel; Egger, Matthias (2005), "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy", The Lancet, 366 (9487): 726–32, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2, PMID 16125589

Reference named "nhsdirect":

From Homeopathy: "Issues surrounding homeopathy". National Health Service. Archived from the original on May 13, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
From Society of Homeopaths: Homeopathy, National Health Service, retrieved 4 December 2014

Reference named "pmid17285788":

From Homeopathy: Altunc, U.; Pittler, M. H.; Ernst, E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 82 (1): 69–75. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.456.5352. doi:10.4065/82.1.69. PMID 17285788. However, homeopathy is not totally devoid of risks… it may delay effective treatment or diagnosis
From Society of Homeopaths: Altunc, U.; Pittler, M. H.; Ernst, E. (2007), "Homeopathy for Childhood and Adolescence Ailments: Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials", Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82 (1): 69–75, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.456.5352, doi:10.4065/82.1.69, PMID 17285788, However, homeopathy is not totally devoid of risks… it may delay effective treatment or diagnosis

Reference named "inquiry_cfm":

From Society of Homeopaths: Science and Technology Committee, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, UK Parliamentary
From British Homeopathic Association: UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Explanations of perceived effects' section

As part and parcel of the article's scepticism, this section seems, logically speaking, both contradictory and an example of 'over-egging the sceptical pudding.' If we accept the article's repeating main thesis that homeopathic treatment is proven to be ineffective, whyever do we need an additional section 'hedging its bets' by adding that, if homeopathy ever is effective, it may be because of X - where X = something other than the actual homeopathic remedies? Perhaps the need for this section arises from the failure of research studies, and the article itself, to distinguish between the efficacy of homeopathic remedies themselves, and the efficacy of the homeopathic treatment experience as a whole? One may reasonably vouch for one but not the other, and the article's apparent satisfaction with equating the difference between the latter two with 'the Placebo effect' seems an example of Reductionism, resulting from a failure to properly understand, estimate, enumerate or measure supplementary effects in the medication (or any comparable) process. Richard Comaish (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]