Talk:Water memory/Archive2

Citation needed

The following introduction passage appears to contradict the main body of the article text.

However, while some double-blind studies, including Benveniste's, have claimed such an effect

Contrast with

However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same, reportedly including the Maddox-led team, the effect immediately disappeared.

Please reconcile these contrasting assertions with appropriate citation. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When Maddox and his "Nature" team came to the French lab, the Nature team insisted that the first 3 studies NOT be blinded. Benveniste initially objected because they always did their experiments blinded, but he relented. The 4th experiment was blinded (the person reading the basophil counts) AND it had a positive outcome (this fact is commonly ignored), but if you read the experiment, it is clear that this happened. Then, during the next 3 experiments, the person who pipetted the placebo and the homeopathic dilutions AND the person reading the basophils wereboth blinded, and these 3 experiments had negative outcomes. It should be noted that it is very common for allergy and immunology experiments to have a high percentage of negative outcomes (this is why they do a large number of experiments). Ultimately, of the 4 blinded experiments, 1 had a positive outcome. For some reason, skeptics and the media have only focused on the last 3 blinded trials, not all 4. Is that more clear? Everything that I said above is a part of the Nature rebuttal to the initial Benveniste experiments. DanaUllman^Talk 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So, to distill all of that, the 2nd part which Durova noted is actually true. The experimenters were aware of which test tubes contained the antibodies and which did not. That is why people ignore the experiment that only had the basophil reader blinded, as it was not really a quality experiment. The trial with the positive response barely would pass as a blinded study. The first part probably stems from a misunderstanding of what a double-blind study entails. A failure to repeat the results on 3 actual double blinded tries indicates a problem. The whole water memory idea is rife with such claims of success on "double-blinded studies" but with no verification of said results upon further inquiry, ie Benveniste/Nature, Ennis/BBC. Baegis (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The original Dayenas et al 1988 paper in Nature states 'We can affirm that (1) this activity was established under stringent experimental conditions, such as blind double-coded procedures involving six laboratories from four countries'. I do not see that Maddox's view of one laboratory's procedure during a day or two of disrupted procedures should be sufficient to counter this clear statement. Argue about other factors but not this. The Tutor (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they couldn't replicate their studies while under the supervision of a third party is quite important to note. If you make a fantastic claim, but can't prove it consistently (and you throw away results?), someone has to ask, where's the beef? Baegis (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, you are on the money, it is important to note. But that has nothing to do with the claim concerning blinded trials. The Tutor (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Charges of attempted fraud and of poor lab practices

What about the evidence of fraud charges of attempted fraud and of poor lab practices in Benveniste's procedures that is reported in several V & RS, that should be mentioned in the article? Here's one more describing the role of Davenas and workers paid by Boiron. This ís only hinted at in the Jacques Benveniste article. -- Fyslee / talk 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no evidence of fraud; only evidence of poor laboratory practice. Randi 'found that the sealed flap of the envelope had detached itself at a surprisingly straight angle when the scotch tape attaching the code to the ceiling was pulled away, but inspection of the aluminium foil allowed him to pronounce himself satisfied that the code had not been read.' This is proof only of a suspicious mind. Maddox made no mention of fraud in his Nature paper. The Tutor (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct and I have refactored my comments and the heading accordingly. The poor lab practices are very damning for everything Benveniste was doing at the time, basically invalidating the research he had been doing, and the involvement of Boiron as a significantly involved party is also suspicious. -- Fyslee / talk 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead#3

The Lead is now a complete mess with much repetition. The Tutor (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now improved but reference to dilution is repeated. Is that necessary? The Tutor (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war attack

I have noted that a number of reversions of my edit have occurred recently by anonymous editors. The text is now completely misleading and shows no recognition of the information in the references referred to. Is this is what you want for WP? The Tutor (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC) It is clear that those responsible have not read the papers concerned as the reasons for reversions were false and they were not prepared to bring any counter-evidence here. Their plan was clearly to avoid the 3RR rule by force of numbers, if indeed there was more than one of them. The papers in question include many instances where the memory of water effects last for periods of at least weeks, but then I do not suppose that they are interested in facts just in the sport of 'Homeopathy (and all things related) bashing'. I consider their behavior bullying, pure and simple. The Tutor (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this has a place in the article? --Area69 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3817-icy-claim-that-water-has-memory.html

No, it doesn't really. While it's a secondary source and much better than the Physica A link someone was pushing on another page, the experiment in question is of too poor quality to be included. There were already two detractors in the article plus the study was not blinded. Even the famed Martin Chaplin said he thought that the analysis was off base and he has published other thoughts on water memory. Baegis (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very few studies in chemistry or physics are blinded. so that comment is out of place. The Tutor (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone else, in the article, points it out, then blinding is an issue. Especially if you are trying to prove that water has memory. Baegis (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And note who it was that was asking about blinding the study! Also I do not agree that such secondary sources are necessarily better than the primary paper, but perhaps you think it was much improved by the commentators expertise. The Tutor (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are nearly always better than a primary source. Primary sources are too open to interpretation by others and too close to the project/experiment/event at hand to critique objectively, especially in these areas. Baegis (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Tutor that it seems that editors have not read that special issue of the peer-review journal, HOMEOPATHY. This issue does present both experimental data and theoretical expositions on the memory of water issue (the research by Elia is of particular significance, and the "silica hypothesis" article provides a physicality to how homeopathic high potencies work...this is of interest to advocates and skeptics). Further, Rey's article was published was a highly RS journal, and the New Scientist article provides secondary source. As for the blinding issue, it is OR for someone to say that it is an "issue." We (editors) cannot make judgments one way or another. We have to rely upon where the study was published, and it was published in one of the most respected physics journals (end of story!). DanaUllman^Talk 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it was not published in "one of the most respected physics journals". Quite spreading these outright lies. I am getting fed up with you claiming that every single journal that has ever published an article that supports your views on homeopathy is somehow a highly respected journal and worthy of inclusion. Most of these journals exist in the middle of the pack or, more often than not, are at the very bottom of their field! Stop blowing smoke up our collective behinds regarding your opinion of these journals. Secondly, it is not OR for me to say blinding is an issue, especially considering Benveniste himself mentions it in the article. Even your normal go-to guy, Martin Chaplin, questions the results. Baegis (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular article or any other journals under discussion, the journal Physica A is well above WP:RS. "Respected" would not be a misnomer - probably it is shy of Physical Review or Journal of Physics, but by no means is it down in the unciteable doldrums. I would like to point out, however, that the Verifiability policy explicitly includes as criteria the work itself and its creator, not just the publisher. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my understanding above that the statement 'no firm conclusions as to any cause, or indeed any effects loosely termed "memory of water" that could persist for the time required for homeopathy' is not borne out by the literature. I added a well-founded reference to the page with the explanatory text 'Light scattering studies have shown that simple electrolytes and non-electrolytes, such as sodium chloride, glucose and ethanol, can form large-scale supramolecular structures over periods of up to a year.(Marián Sedlák, Large-Scale Supramolecular Structure in Solutions of Low Molar Mass Compounds and Mixtures of Liquids: II. Kinetics of the Formation and Long-Time Stability, J. Phys. Chem. B, 110 (2006)4339-4345)' to refute this but his has now been reverted by ScienceApologist. It is wrong to revert good science support for a view just because the opposite view is held and without any RS. Clearly a good V & RS that makes a case for simple aqueous solutions changing over a period of a year is of relevance to this point and balances the revert statement, referred to. The Tutor (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We can only continue to entertain the inclusions of the synthetic original research of Martin Chaplin for so long. Either publish your ideas in a mainstream journal or stop bothering us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This reference describes a clear long-term memory of water effect in a mainstream V & RS. The Tutor (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the abstract, that J Chem Phys B has absolutely nothing to do with water memory, as the study dealt with actual solutions, containing actual solvents molecules. Yilloslime (t) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not misrepresenting the paper. The memory of water clearly involves actual solutions containing actual solute molecules. This page is not about imaginary solutions. Also your reference link was not to the paper I gave. Here is the correct one. The Tutor (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had the wrong abstract, thanks for correcting me. Still, my point stands: water memory is about "solutions" which don't contain any actual solutes, but instead contain a small amount of water molecules that were once in contact with an even smaller number of water molecules, which were once in contact with an yet smaller number of water molecules, etc....which were once in contact with some solute molecules. In contrast, the paper you cite is a study of solutions of water that contain solute molecules. Yilloslime (t) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the reference to this paper as well: Ohmura R, Ogawa M, Yasuoka K, Mori YH (2003). "Statistical study of clathrate–hydrate nucleation in a water/hydrochlorofluorocarbon system: search for the nature of the ‘‘memory effect’’." J. Phys. Chem. B 107: 5289-5293.  That this paper has any bearing on water memory is, at best, WP:SYN. Furthermore, the samples in the described experiments are not claimed to be without dissolved solutes, and the time-scale for the clathrate "memory" effect appears to be much short than that required to explain "water memory" in the context of homeopathy. Yilloslime (t) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear memory' effect, but in that case you must also remove the paragraph 'Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water measured that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within 50 femtoseconds. This 'memory loss' was actually the loss of the OH stretching excitation of individual water molecules due to "relaxation channels and configurational-averaging mechanisms that are absent in other liquids".[21]' At this rate there will be nothing left on this page and we can all go home. The Tutor (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You have hit one of the problems with this page and therefore a major problem for us editors. It has a split personality and does not know whether it is just to do with Benveniste or is it to discuss a wider range of rather strange phenomena of water (including the Benveniste stuff) whereby the history of a sample of water determines its properties (i.e. water memory). At the moment there is quite a lot of the more general stuff, which is where I hope to contribute this paper. The Tutor (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, "Water memory is a scientifically unsupported theory which holds that water is capable of retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it, even after being diluted so much that the chance of even one molecule remaining in the quantity being used is minuscule.[1][2]". While I agree that "a wider range of rather strange phenomena of water" exist (e.g. Mpemba effect), only material materially related to whether or not "water is capable of retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it" should be included in this article. Thus, the work of the like of Benveniste, Ennis, and Rey is all fair game, as is work demonstrating the implausibility of the effect, e.g. the "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" paper. Papers discussing the behavior of water with dissolved solutes (sorry about the redundant language, sorry), or clathrates formation seem off topic unless the the papers themselves or reliable secondary sources argue that the have bearing on water memory. Yilloslime (t) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that certainly gives the POV of the article. The Tutor (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) In fact the very paper that indisputably proves that "water is capable of retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it" is the one you have just deleted because you made a POV on timescales. What timescale do you believe is important? And is there any V & RS to back it up? The Tutor (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What paper are you talking about? Yilloslime (t) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohmura's. The Tutor (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That paper is about clathrates and makes no claim about solute-free systems remembering former solutes. I think the confusion is over Ohmura et al's use of the term "memory." They're not using it mean "memory" in the sense of "water...retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it." Yilloslime (t) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clathrates are crystalline particles. They are using it in exactly that sense. The Tutor (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time explaining chemistry to you, but the paper is definitely not claiming that solute-free systems can remember former solutes. Yilloslime (t) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I actually provisionally agree with The Tutor on the inclusion of the observation that clathrate hydrate microcrystals influence recrystallization time/temperature/host-guest structure. This is generally referred to in the literature as a "memory effect", and I do not know of anywhere better on WP for such a discussion. However, as this effect has no intersection with dilution and succussion or homeopathy, the article would need to be rewritten to reflect a revised focus. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about a different kind of hypothetical "memory effect," one dealing the retention of information about or properties of solutes that have been diluted out of the final "solution" in question. Its a different beast than the clathrate memory effect, and to discuss them side by side in the same article will only muddle, rather than clarify, people's understanding of these distinct, and unrelated, though similarly named, concepts. If anything, this article needs a disclaimer warning people that the concept known as "water memory" that is invoked as a mechanistic explanation for homeopathy should not be confused with the phenomena known as "memory effects" sometimes observed in clathrate (re)crystallization. Yilloslime (t) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good way forward; there could be a number of similar phenomena excluded with the right phrasing. The Tutor (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, including clathrate hydrate formation "memory effect" would not only be way off base for this article in its present form, it would be irrelevant to any form. There is not really even necessarily enough linguistic similarity to justify even a disambiguation notice, and physically the reported observations are completely independent. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

textbooks

To drive home the point that water memory isn't real, would it be overkill or violate WP:OR to point out that no chemistry or physics textbooks mention it? Yilloslime (t) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think its a very valid point, but it is more than likely bordering on OR. The article should make clear how "out there" this whole concept is. Baegis (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it borders on OR, but is also an easily falsifiable statement. Anyone should be able to debunk it by providing a source. -- Fyslee / talk 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's impossible to prove a negative, because there might be a textbook that does. There are textbooks that state Evolution is an unproven theory. I'll bet there's some chemistry textbook that states magical homeopathic potions work. So unless there is a reliable and verified source that says "I've looked at almost every textbook out there, and none mention water memory" it is absolutely OR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, thats kinda what I figured....Yilloslime (t) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

statistical significance

Under Water memory#More recent experiments there are (off and on) words describing statistical significance (e.g. "highly significant", "marginal"). Would it be possible for someone with access to the relevant papers to label these experiments with proper p values instead of less precise and potentially loaded adjectives? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, I forgot to look at that article today (I have a copy at my office). Although my memory is that the p-value was 0.0001, though I may have put an extra "0" into it, but in ANY case, it is not "marginal" and it is "highly significant." My memory is that this p-value was in the "Oooooh my god" significant level. When I get this info substantiated, I will make the change and hope for your support in whatever I find. DanaUllman^Talk 05:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I think that fair and precise treatment of any article we decide to include is a point on which we both can agree. Either of those p values would support saying "highly significant", and I support reporting whatever value the authors obtained. There were actually three articles whose statistical significance I noticed being described (as I said - off and on since as of this writing only one of them is) without numeric validation - Belon (1999), Ennis (2001), and Belon (2004), currently references 14-16, respectively. If you happen to have any of the others, those would be great to include too. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have them all. The 1999 study had four labs reporting a total of 772 data points were evaluated testing various potencies of histamine (15, 16, 17, 18, 19), with a P value < 0.0001. The 2001 tested for inhibitation of CD63 expression after incubation with histamine at 2X, 4X, 6X, 14X, 18X, 20X, and 26X. P=0.005. The 2X, 4X, 26X doses had a P value of 0.01; the 20X dose had a P value of 0.001. It should be noted that heating of the potencies of 2X, 30X, and 36X caused a significant decreate in the inhibitory effects of these histamine dilutions on basophil activiation, with P=0.039, P=0.018, P=0.0064 respectively. The 2004 study was also a multi-center study (4 labs) that evaluated a total of 2,706 data points, testing potencies from 28X, 30X, 32X, 34X, and 36X, all of which had a P=0.001. It should be noted that 1 of the 4 laboratories didn't obtain significant results. Taken together, it would certainly seem that these results should be described as "highly significant." The additional evidence of the results inhibited by heat is of special interest, and several researchers have found this effect from heat and/or from certain electromagnetic fields (microwaves and even cell phones). If you have any additional questions, please just ask. I would prefer if you wrote this up since some editors tend to have an "allergy" to my contributions. DanaUllman^Talk 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose clarifying what is meant by the words "highly significant", "marginal", etc, in the article, but I would suggest that we leave the actual P-values out. Going into gory details about p-values is not WP is all about. Instead, instead of "highly significant" why don't we just say "highly statistically significant," wording which won't confuse or distract readers who don't know or care about statistics, but will clear imply to mathematically inclined readers that the p-values are pretty small. Yilloslime (t) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. By the way, I love collaboration. DanaUllman^Talk 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman, thank you for looking this up, it is appreciated. I quite understand your point about emphasizing that consensus has been reached, and will be happy to write this up as soon as the present discussion has been resolved. One more quick question - could you confirm for me that all of those values are given as p equals, not p less than? It might also be that the nice round numbers come from rounding, but sometimes significance is reported as a maximum (the results were of at least such-and-such significance).

Yilloslime, I really think that the p-values (or other measure of statistical significance) should be included in the article, along with some indication of effect size, especially for articles not freely available on the web. I can, however, see the point to not cluttering the article to the extent that it interferes with the flow of presentation (cannot see the forest for the trees).

This, as I see it, leaves us with three options: leave the plain language in the body and add the results of more detailed analysis to the footnotes; dramatically expand Water memory#More recent experiments to include both an overview and a detailed treatment and comparison of the relevant papers; or drop it all in a summary table of evidence. I am at the moment leaning towards the third option, as it is easy to ignore or peruse depending on level of interest and is easily extensible; besides, Wikipedia has some nice table functionality that I have not had a chance to play with yet. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my concerns about understandability and readability, I'm a little concerned about about WP:WEIGHT as well. By going into the statistical details of these papers, I fear we're giving them more WP:WEIGHT than they deserve. I still favor simply noting that these studies have yielded statistically significant or marginal results, over going into the details, either in prose or in a table. Yilloslime (t) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, first, to clarify the P value info: My understanding P values are that when there is the < (less than) sign, it means that the P value was rounded off to that value and that it was less than that. As such, it is reasonable, at the values listed above, to write them as = or <. I like your 3rd option too. It sounds more visually appealing and will provide useful detail for the reader. As for Yilloslime's comment, I am confused why he would say (or even suggest) that these values are somehow "marginal." I assume that if you are not going to put the P values, you would have to describe the research results as "highly significant." DanaUllman^Talk 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous comment wasn't clear. I was not saying that the P-values quoted by Dana are marginal. I was referring to Eldereft's original question that started this thread, where s/he said "Under Water memory#More recent experiments there are (off and on) words describing statistical significance (e.g. "highly significant", "marginal")". Yilloslime (t) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for that clarification Yilloslime. I'm glad that I AGF...and that you showed it back. Communication sometimes takes effort, but it is worth it. For further clarification, does anyone know at what level something becomes "highly significant"? Is it .01 or .001? DanaUllman^Talk 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the journal Homeopathy

This journal looks to be a fringe publication. At the moment the article cites a number of articles from it in a paragraph in the "recent experiments" section. I think the amount of space given is undue weight given the this journals absence of scientific weight. I think the conclusion they report can be summarised in a much more concise manner, so as the report the beliefs of homeopaths on the subject. Jefffire (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is fringe, and we should be careful to not give it undue weight. However, the way it is currently being used in the article is fine, I think, because it is clearly identified as a journal that aims to promote homeopathy. Yilloslime (t) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular issue of Homeopathy is written by a number of scientists from different backgrounds, including a sceptic and several who are not connected with the homeopathic community. It gives a good overview of current thoughts concerning the 'memory of water' phenomena. Leaving it out would certainly be ill-advised, if WP wishes to present an encyclopedia. One must also consider the difficulties involved in publishing in this area in other journals, the fact that it is a peer reviewed journal and the particular articles it contains. It is certainly not a fringe publication for this area of science. The Tutor (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jefffire and Yilloslime. It is only really a good source for the opinions of homeopaths. Anyone commenting here about this journal should declare a conflict of interest, if they have any. As examples, having contributed to issues in question or being the editor of the issue, &c, would count as a conflict of interest that should be declared.__91.121.64.135 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic? You mean a skeptic of real science writes in a journal that promotes homeopathy? I'm not shocked, but that confirms to me it's a fringe publication. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any call for it to be entirely excluded as a source, unless it's marginal in the world of homeopathy as well as science. Jefffire (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to assume good faith, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that some (maybe many) of the above editors are neither subscribers or readers of this journal. This is a peer-review journal, and its editorial board includes an international group of physicians, scientists, professors, and even skeptics (Ernst, amongst others). This journal is not fringe. It may be consider "cutting edge" of medicine and pharmacology. DanaUllman^Talk 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

None of that make it mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again this skeptic word. I can't see how bragging about editors that are skeptical of science are going to convince individuals who prefer and accept scientific reasoning for medicine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sceptics mentioned are sceptics of the 'homeopathy' area not sceptics of the science area. The Tutor (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They may very well be, but adding "sceptics" to an editorial board does not automatically make a journal a respected and authoritative source. It takes many years of reputation building through impeccable standards. Jefffire (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Elia's Important Research

In the light of the important research published by Elia, I recommend that we significantly change the statement at present, "However, the concepts discussed in this issue are very different to those proposed by Benveniste, and the issue came to no firm conclusions as to any cause, or any effects loosely termed "memory of water" that could persist for the time required for homeopathy or for experiments like Benveniste's." I recommend that editors read his work at [1] and at [doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.007]. Elia and his chemist colleagues have shown that the thermodynamics of water is changed when a substance is placed in double-distilled water and when that water undergoes the typical homeopathic pharmaceutical process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). Further, using well-established physicochemical techniques: flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential, they have unexpectedly found that the physicochemical parameters evolve in time. Please note that Elia has published numerous studies in leading scientific journals and that he has summarized these various studies in the July 2007 article in Homeopathy (the journal published by Elsevier). DanaUllman^Talk 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having some of your papers published in "leading scientific journals" by no means gives credibility to everything you publish. Regardless, what are your actual proposed changes? I just see a redirect for us to read some dubious research. Plus, you need a subscription to access the first article. Baegis (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, just because you do not have access to a leading scientific journal should not be an impediment to changes in this article. What is also interesting and notable is that the special issue on the "memory of water" published in HOMEOPATHY (July 2007) published a long series of "letters to the editor" that sought to question various experimental results and theoretical articles in this issue. However, no one has yet to question the results by Elia and his team. Because he has found that homeopathic infused water maintained long-term effects, we can no longer say the above quoted part of the article. I recommend that we now say: "However, the concepts discussed in this issue are very different to those proposed by Benveniste, and the issue came to no firm conclusions as to any cause for memory of water effects, though research from a group of Italian chemists have repeated found that the thermodynamics of water is changed when a substance is placed in double-distilled water and when that water undergoes the typical homeopathic pharmaceutical process of serial dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). These long-term changes in water have been confirmed using well-established physicochemical techniques, including flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential." The reference to the thermodynamics would be the study published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, and the last statement would reference the article in HOMEOPATHY, which itself references numerous respected chemistry journals. DanaUllman^Talk 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dana, if not everyone can easily find a copy of the article, it won't be used. After the debacle over at the Arsenicum album article, where you wouldn't even answer any questions about a study that you insisted on including even though you were the only one with a copy of the article for an extended period of time, articles that only you possess are not going to pass the merit for inclusion. Also, letters to the editor from a notably fringe journal do not constitute any important information for the article. The coverage this issue has in the article is fine and probably much more than necessary. Since you appear to be the one who understands how "these long-term changes in water have been confirmed using well-established physicochemical techniques, including flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential", you should explain them for the rest of us who obviously do not share your level of scholarly aptitude. Specifically, how these well-established methods are carried out and why this groundbreaking work has not seen a wider audience. Baegis (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

When such clearly groundbreaking work gets published in Nature, and receives the Nobel prize for revolutionizing all of science, then we can mention it in the article. Jefffire (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuuuuuuse me, Jefffire, but there is no wiki-rule that says or even suggests that Nature mag is the be-all and/or end-all for "groundbreaking" work or anything else. If it were, then, we would have to delete the vast majority of information in science articles (and because they only cover a very small number of medical subjects, we would have to delete a lot of info from most medical subjects too. And if you only want randomized double-blind studies on medical subjects, please let me know which of the articles on the vast array of surgical subjects you have recommended for deletion. I'm quite serious here. Which surgery articles have you sought to have deleted due to the absence of placebo-controlled research? As for Baegis' lack of access to medical or scientific libraries, I will file that away with sympathy. Perhaps you can encourage various editors to help you access them, but please follow wiki-rules and provide verification for whatever info you have. If you don't have it, then find someone who does. And if you cannot rebut or verify other info, sometimes silence is the only option. DanaUllman^Talk 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, Dana. Editors have already expressed serious concern about you pushing for the inclusion of an article that no one else can review. On occasion, such articles can be allowed for inclusion iff the editor asking for inclusion can be trusted to be 100% objective in the inclusion of the article. However, considering your obvious attempts to portray homeopathy in a more sympathetic light, the rest of the editors here would be hard pressed to extend that amount of good faith. Baegis (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, please know that other editors have access to the journals that I've cited above. Because you don't, please do your best to watch the dialogue. I assume that you know that wikipedia has rules against stonewalling. If I provide verification that is notable and/or from a reliable source, it is your job to prove me wrong or right or get out of the way. Ignorance is not always bliss. As for my credibility, I am a widely published author, including 3 chapters in medical textbooks. Please AGF, as will I. DanaUllman^Talk 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It frankly doesn't matter how many books you've written or who has published them. You have an obvious COI regarding homeopathy articles and you have, in the past, attempted to portray them in a much more favorable light than our policies allow. Given those facts, it is difficult to extend AGF in this particular case. And PLEASE stop trying to wiki-lawyer me into silence. It's getting tiresome for you, a person who has already had 1 extended vacation, to lecture me about the policies. I will take note of your statement that it is my job to "prove (you) wrong or get out of the way". Interesting choice of words there as it almost seems like you are explicitly declaring your intent to edit war to get your way. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Baegis (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got grave reservations about the weighting of the existing studies from Homeopathy already written about in the article. I fully expect to be trimming them down shortly. The notion of adding even more from such a weak source strikes me as unwise. Jefffire (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire, is Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences a "weak source"? As for Elia's article in Homeopathy, he reviews his half-dozen or so studies in respected chemistry journals. Have you read any of these articles or are you simply against them on some sort of principle?

Baegis, I do NOT want to edit war. That is not my intent. Nor am I interested in "advocacy". If you follow my editing, I work hard to provide reliable source information that is notable. Because this information seems to verify the biological activity and/or clinical efficacy of homeopathy, some editors take offense. I simply ask that editors try to maintain a NPOV and if you can prove me wrong, do it, but if not, please avoid edit warring. Please note that I do have some expert knowledge on the subjects on which I edit, while it seems that some editors here seem to be simply against homeopathy and seek to undo information that may be perceived as positive towards this subject. Let's work to build a high quality encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana: I'm not very comfortable with your barely-veiled-at-all threat to edit-war this article, against consensus, if you don't get your way. Your treatment of Baegis here (and elsewhere) is also going too far. Please cool it, and try to be more polite. The "important work" by Elia, published in the low-ranking and low-prestige journal "Homeopathy" can be found online here: [2] as part of the BadScience.net journal club. Note the comments especially. I'm pretty sure Dana was aware of this. I fully endorse the views put forward above by Baegis and Jefffire. As it stands this journal is getting far too much "weight" that it does not deserve, and the information should be trimmed. >>Partyoffive (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Water memory of temperature

Not covered by this article is the water memory for temperature - something often discussed in relation to the mpemba effect --rxnd (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd probably just get confusing if we included real, accepted effects and homeopathic theorising in the same article, so let's move actual science to a disambiguation at the top. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The "mpemba effect" isn't what I would call "water memory", and there is already an article on it. Jefffire (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and inclusion of this "memory effect" has been rejected. >>Partyoffive (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Journal homeopathy

Do not include such sources here. They are completely unreliable for anything but certain homeopath's opinions. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But what is this article on, if not homeopath's opinions? It's certainly not accepted science. If we are clear it is a fringe topic, we can and should describe the opinions, perhaps pointing out that there is no consensus whatsoever on what it even might mean. 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

That said, User:Martin Chaplin's reviews of research in the journal Homeopathy by... Martin Chaplin are probably best gone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We can source the page to ideas from places other than the journal Homeopathy which has an obvious axe to grind. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just a brief mention of the existence of the "special issue" that covers water memory? A very, very brief mention. For the purpose of this article, it might be important to note. Of course, if consensus is against this mention, that is also fine. Baegis (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean giving an attributed mention so to at least mention that point of view? Well, WP:NPOV does say something to cite all points of view except the more minoritary. "will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minorit". On science, belief that this effect exists is probably so fringe that it could be dropped from article is necessary. We lack good RS sources to prove that it's more than a tiny percent of scientists, me thinks? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would bet a bottle of homeopathic potion (read: water) that there isn't a single real scientist who thinks that homeopathy has any effect outside of the placebo one (which I don't consider a real effect, but then again I'm not a shrink). It's like the Discovery Institute claiming that a "scientist" with a Ph.D. from Bill's Garage and School of Microbiology believes that Intelligent design really is science. It still amazes me that Homeopathy and Creationism both require magic to support their non-science. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, as I see it, given the topic, the bar's set pretty low already. We may as well use Homeopathy, but allow ourselves to use critical articles like [3] which have, after all, better reputations for reliability and accuracy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, this whole idea is so fringe that it shouldn't even exist in article form. Or frankly be mentioned anywhere. Not that it would be such a bad idea. Baegis (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion has gone so downhill that Shoemaker makes a suggestion that a blog is somehow as reliable as the journal, Homeopathy, which is a peer-review journal published by Elsevier...and no one burped!? As for Martin Chaplin, here's a leading expert on water. He is not a "homeopath." He is a NPOV scientist...just the type that wikipedia should have loved to have edit, but he left in disgust. The above editors have shown a strong POV. DanaUllman^Talk 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't want to give a blanket endorsement to everything Reed Elsevier do, though[4]. Brunton (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear up a few things. Peer-review by no means grants instant credibility. Martin Chaplin is not a leading expert on water. He is a professor at a university in England who appears to have quite a range of interests. But as for expert status, let's not kid ourselves. His interest in homeopathy has not led him to publish any papers on the topic in any journal other than one devoted solely to the topic. And as for him "leaving in disgust", recent events appear to lead to other conclusions. Baegis (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Ennis and the Three Replications

Four university laboratories conducted the same experiment using various potencies of histamine and found a highly significant effect on basophils. I provided the specific P-value to provide evidence of this significance, and yet, Shoemaker chose to delete the words "highly significant" and left the word "effect." I then simply chose to edit to "a significant effect," and Shoemaker again edited it down to "an effect." He claimed that this study was "cherry-picked." First, this study was replicated at FOUR university laboratories. If there were multiple efforts of multiple labs who sought to replicate this study and yet only one set of studies is mentioned here, THAT would be cherry-picking. However, such is not the case. Is there a NPOV editor here to stop this nonsense? Please make reference to other 4 (or more) university labs that has disproved this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, unfortunately the extreme anti-homeopathy POV editors on these pages (and their rather oft-seen supporting socks that are still popping up) ensure that any NPOV that comes along is hounded out. The Tutor (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not help that the Ennis Study was reported in a supplement, apparently edited by Ennis herself. Other articles in the Supplement include a chatty report about how much fun the conference was, for instance. The extreme brevity, cut-off data, and other such things make analysis almost impossible, and conference reports are not normally peer-reviewed to any extent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana's pushing of this study looks like a probation breach and has been reported here --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you actually read the paper, it gives the lab results at the bottom. Two of them did not find a statistically significant effect, as I read it [The statistics used are a little odd, but she says P=.01 was a cutoff used to eliminate some of the data (?), so the approximately .06 and .02 results are not statistically significant], while two others claimed to find an extremely strong effect. One must wonder what's going on there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shoe...on what page are you getting those P-values. On page 183 of the 2004 study (which was NOT published in a "supplement" nor was it "edited" by Professor Ennis, nor am I clear on where you got that info), it shows that the combined P-value for the four laboratories was P<0.0001. This isn't just significant, but substantially significant. Unless you or someone can verify otherwise, an edit of the article to acknowledge this will be necessary. If you want me to fax this article to you, please convey your fax # to me. I'm trying to help provide accurate info here. DanaUllman^Talk 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see the problem: The article cites the wrong study. It cites:

Belon, P., Cumps, J., Ennis, M., Mannaioni, P. F., Roberfroid, M., Ste-Laudy, J., and Wiegant, F. A. C. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity, Inflammation Research, 2004, 53:181–188.[2]

This is a much later study than the one that's actually being discussed - Ennis' first study, and the one discussed in the article, was the similarly-named 1999 study:

P. Belon, J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P. F. Mannaioni, J. Sainte-Laudy, M. Roberfroid, F. A. C. Wiegant, " Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial", Inflammation Research, Volume 48, Supplement 1 / April, 1999 doi:10.1007/s000110050376

This is the one I was discussing, and, obviously, was published in a supplement, and this supplement appears to be edited by Ennis herslef. The other paper from roughly that time (if two years later counts...) is:

Brown V, Ennis M.; [This is incorrectly reported in the article as Ennis M, Brown V] (April 2001). "Flow-cytometric analysis of basophil activation: inhibition by histamine at conventional and homeopathic concentrations". Inflammation Research 50 (Supplement 2): 47-48.

Both are, of course, from supplements.

The BBC test of Ennis' claims happened in 2002, and so has no relation to the 2004 study mistakenly quoted in the article, nor, as far as I can tell from a quick look, do any of the other secondary sources reference the 2004 study.

In short, the wrong study is cited, and I'll fix that now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ullman, if you're adding references, they need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The 2004 study is not relevant to the events of 1998-2002 (or thereabouts) that is being discussed in that paragraph. Hence, it does not seem particularly relevant for this article as it currently stands, and only serves to confuse the reader as to what study is under discussion. As, as far as I can tell, the 2004 study is not discussed in any secondary sources - feel free to point out any that do discuss it - why should we include a link to it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Was there consensus that scientific investigations are required to stop after 2002 or that we can only discuss research prior to 2002 here? Nah..didn't think so. You asked for a secondary reference to the multi-center study published in 2004. See the New Scientist, March 19, 2005. I found some info about it here: [5]. What is interesting is that even though the New Scientist article is called "13 Things That Do Not Make Sense”, they are still objective and truly scientific enough to acknowledge the results of this study. Should I undo you, or better, consider showing good faith and undo yourself. DanaUllman^Talk 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, New Scientist is the top o' the heap in matters like this. Dana, if the National Enquirer published something positive about homeopathy, how long do you think it would take you to try to push it for inclusion in some article? Few days? A week? Baegis (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, THAT is an offensive remark. Please provide a secondary reference for your equating the New Scientist with the National Enquirer or simply retract it. This is an exaggeration of extraordinary proportions. The New Scientist is RS. The fact that they report on research that was replicated, especially from Ennis who was previously a skeptic herself, provides additional notability. DanaUllman^Talk 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF Dana. I did not mean the National Enquirer, I meant the another journal that satisfies NPOV and RS. I simply confused the two journal titles. Please AGF my contributions because we all make mistakes occasionally. I merely want to provide quality RS for these articles. Please AGF. Baegis (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, AGF is good, though I am still unclear about which other journal with a similar name as the National Enquirer to which you are referring. In any case, there are already many references to the New Scientist articles on wikipedia that is still stonewalling to deny it in this one case. DanaUllman^Talk 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single rational reason to deny the use of New Scientist as a reference source. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course there is not a single rational reason to deny the use of New Scientist as a reference source. Please provide one if it exists.--Area69 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF, remember that disagreeing is not, AGF, stonewalling. Sometimes we all disagree with things. That's why it is important to AGF. There are a lot of reasons for NS not being good for this instance. Remember to AGF. Dana you should make your case for why this reference is needed, but remember to AGF. Baegis (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that we both AGF. The 2004 study is the largest evaluation of homeopathic doses of histamine on basophils, and this is significant for several reasons: the leader of this group was a skeptic of homeopathy, and a secondary source of this research is from the Mar. 19, 2005 issue of New Scientist entitled "13 Things That Do Not Make Sense: "Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum."

"In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These 'basophils' release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions — so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule — worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out."

The original research citation for the article above is "P. Belon, J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P. F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, F. A. C. Wiegant, Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation, Inflammation Research, Volume 53, Issue 5, Apr 2004, Pages 181 - 188."

One more notable fact is that the combined P-value from the 4 labs was 0.0001. I sincerely hope that editors will not stonewall, not undo appropriate edits, and will continue to AGF. DanaUllman^Talk 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Scientist article referenced appears to be a collection of speculative pieces intended to provoke discussion and, perhaps, controversy. I would certainly regard it as a RS for whether the Ennis work had been done and what results it had reported, but we don't need to establish that as we already have reference to the original paper. It doesn't add anything here. It isn't a source that says anything about the quality of the original paper or the reproducibility of the results (note the phrase "If the results turn out to be real...", suggesting that Ennis herself was not convinced of this). Brunton (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, the 2004 set of studies is new research and deserves reference, as does the New Scientist's reference to Ennis as a former skeptic. DanaUllman^Talk 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A "former" skeptic who is quoted as saying "if the results turn out to be real..."? Brunton (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's NOT PART OF THE RESEARCH BY ENNIS THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED in that part of the article, which is talking about the events leading up to the BBC and 20/20 repetions. Is it so hard to understand that you don't randomly insert references where the only connection to the events being described in the sentence they follow is that they were written by the same author? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoe, did you read the New Scientist article here?[6] It IS in direct response to the 2004 multi-center study headed by Ennis. Ennis shows that the beyond-Avogadro's number doses that she tested had an effect. She is skeptical of the clinical effects...and like a good scientist, she wants more research. In ANY case, the 2004 study is notable, has a good secondary source, and has a P-value that is substantial. As for the Horizon "study," that was never published and it wasn't even a replication (according to the experimenter, Wayne Turnbull), and the 20/20 study also was never published, and they never mentioned that their study was a replication (because they KNEW that it wasn't). DanaUllman^Talk 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We could additionally describe the 2004 study, but should not be using it as a reference in the section on the controversy surrounding her *original* study. Of course, if we did, we would be required to include Ennis' own skeptical views on the matter, and could use New Scientist as a source for that as well. However, that would mean adding an additional paragraph or sentences, not acting as if the 2004 study was the original Ennis study. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Ennis' findings continue to be cited in the article as 'claims', even though Ennis herself didn't like what she found - ie that there was something in the Memory of Water theiry. To me, this demonstrates how loaded this article is (another is the only link attached being 'Pseudoscience') . Ennis' findings are 'claims' while other tests confirming the anti-homeopathic agenda are taken as proof. A properly NPOV article would not have this bias.

The guy above who says HOMEOPATHY magazine should be discounted because it is by Homeopathists is a case in point. 'Real science' as another poster calls it operates from the premise that Homeopathy is rubbish and therefore anything said by a Homeopathist must be rubbish. Ergo all results based evidence from Homeopathists can be discounted. This shows how loaded and political the allopathic vs holistic or homeopathic medicine debate is. Each system has a different paradigm and operates on different premises, but allopathic medicine claims Absolute Truth. But so-called 'alternative therapies' are presumably as results-based as any other remedy. Just because they don't 'fit' with conventional scientific paradigms doesn't mean they don't 'work'. Surely results are, ultimately, what matters?

The argument that that is not the case because people might not go to conventional medicine because of alternative medicine ignores the fact that NO alternative therapist would EVER advise a patient NOT to take conventional medicine. Acupuncturists, homeopaths etc are serious people who are interested in making people better as much as conventional medicine practitioners are, they just have different 'maps' of how the body works. Conventional medicine misdiagnoses and gets it wrong as much as anyone else. If one is to argue that alternative medicine is a money-making excersise aimed at exploiting people for financial gain, well the reality is that there is more money in the drugs companies than in all the alternative remedies put together and we KNOW how the drugs companies use political leverage to make ENORMOUS gain!

I came to this article to find out what the Memory of Water theory was. Instead I got an opening line which says it has been 'invalidated' even though, judging by this Discussion section alone, it hasn't been at all. I am very diasappointed not to have had a more objective account of this phenomena presented. ThePeg (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

References section

What the @!#$ is up with the references section of this article? WHY are dozens of references being shoehorned in just before the reflist? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So that you don't need a degree in combinational algorithmics to edit the article. The problems that inline CITEs cause for editors are constantly commented on. In fact, I only noticed this was rolled back when I came here for an example of how it can be improved. So much for that! Maury (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Please don't do that again =) Might not be as attractively inline as it could be, but I was resorting a dozen references into their proper place from a section of hidden text, and I trust you'll forgive me if I didn't try to do reformatting atop an already somewhat difficult rearrangement. =). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's appreciated btw. Sorting out referencing is an unglamarous job that often gets ofterlooked. Cudos. Jefffire (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure all the references are formatted as nicely as they could be, but at least they are no longer all located in hidden text in the last section. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the references. I agree it is a job that can be overlooked but still needs to get done.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman

Source?

Per WP:PSCI and WP:BURDEN (and specifically Wikipedia:RS#Claims_of_consensus), edits like this (categorizing a topic as pseudoscience) need a source. The threshold of a sci-consensus source has indeed been met for homeopathy, thus allowing us to use category:pseudoscience there, but it doesn't follow that every topic or hypothesis associated with homeopathy should likewise be so categorized, does it? --Jim Butler (t) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an assumption that does not need a source. Much like on the ID articles, not every single thing involving ID must have a link to it being deemed pseudoscience. Baegis (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

@Baegis: Yes, I guess that's the logic. But not all pseudosciences are "created" equal. In the case of ID we have lots of scientific societies calling it pseudoscience. For homeopathy we didn't have anything like that for a long time until an editor (Schmucky The Cat? at Talk:Homeopathy a few months ago) dug up the link above. (See WP:NOTTRUTH.) So by what metric do we make the call? If not all topics are equally PS, do we cast the net equally widely in determining whether associated topics are PS? Is the Ennis experiment PS? --Jim Butler (t) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the scant amount of evidence present, its a call that I feel comfortable that we can make. Considering both of the two major experiments ran on this topic (Benveniste and Ennis) did not hold up upon further study and knowing full well that this is a major concept only relevant to homeopathy, we can make that leap. I do agree with you that not all PS is created equal and it is a difficult call. The idea of water memory, is without a doubt PS. Much of what applies to homeopathy applies to this concept. It is a concept that implies a serious rewriting of known physical laws in order to exist. That is grounds to be deemed PS. The Ennis study should not be considered PS on it's own. It was just a study that failed to be replicated. However, with the Ennis study AND the Benveniste study, we can safely make a call. Baegis (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not uptight about the label in this case, and agree that although there are shades of grey this is dark grey enough to make the call. cheers,Jim Butler (t) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Science Apologist says, it's generally considered as pseudoscience It's absolutely pseudoscience without any kind of doubt, with one only one positive study ever which was called pseudoscience by a guy that was editor of Nature for 22 years, see fantastic theories such as "water memory" (in violation of the second law of thermodynamics), Water memory claims violate several deeply held physical principles that are backed by a great deal of evidence, on an Ars Technica article (Jacques Benveniste's results published on Nature) were subsequently denounced as "pseudoscience", article on Medical News Today, specially the Skeptic Dictionary cites water memory as an example of an ad hoc hypothese]. The Bad Science website has an extract from a special issue of Homeopathy Journal about water memory about how Benveniste's experiment on water memory was denounced as pseudoscience by John Maddox and how its results couldn't be reproduced. It goes on to talk about the side difficulties on measuring the effect and about several studies that show certain effects, including effects that increase with time. I'd say it qualifies with honors for being called pseudoscience, and should be kept as such until/if someone finds the mechanism for the effect and show a reproducible clear effect, and it gets published on a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

@Enric: Not for WP's purposes (and I do understand the chemistry involved). A number of self-selected individuals calling something pseudoscience doesn't meet NPOV (see: WP:PSCI) or VER (see: WP:BURDEN and Wikipedia:RS#Claims_of_consensus). We have to document that something is generally considered PS, even if we think it's obvious. WP is not without grave flaws, but I think they got it right with WP:NOTTRUTH (of course, this can be overridden by wikiality consensus at any time). --Jim Butler (t) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added your comments to the arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#always_placing_the_burden_of_proof_on_the_other_side_for_negative_statements_on_their_POV_.28many_editors.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure they'll be grateful for yet another example of just how silly this debate can get. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jim_Butler (diff) --Jim Butler (t) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that they will be grateful for more evidence for the case. I was worried that we were only getting evidence from one side of the debate --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(below section "pseudoscience infobox" was previously a subsection of this section) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

pseudoscience infobox

(this section has been upgraded from being a subsection of "Source?" section) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

proposals

Water memory

Claims	Proponents claim some unknown process allows water to retain "memory" of a substance diluted beyond the point of any solute molecules being left in the solution.
Related scientific disciplines	Homeopathy
Year proposed	1988
Original proponents	Jacques Benveniste
Subsequent proponents	Madeleine Ennis, Brian Josephson, various homeopaths
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

I propose that the "pseudoscience" infobox is restored to the article, seeing that John Maddox has clearly labelled the study that laid the scientific basis for water memory as pseudoscience, and that attempts to reproduce the original study have failed, and that this is reported as a fact on reliable source Homepathy journal which is clearly not biased against homeopathy (see my comment on section above). The infobox was removed on 1 February by Whig at this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By my comment above about Maddox and the non-reproducibility of studies which also seems supported by the article itself on the Water_memory#More_recent_experiments section, I think that we can say that water memory is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" and adscribe it to "Generally considered pseudoscience" under Wikipedia:PSCI.

There is a relevant discussion on Talk:Water_memory/Archive1#Pseudoscience_Info_box, but I noticed that the participants are:

• User:Whig (who is topic banned for 6 months from homeopathy and science articles)
• User:DrEightyEight a blocked sock from a user that has been harassing Dana
• a vanished user

So I see a lot of problems on the removal of this infobox and on the consensus for it.

I do agree with Whig, however, in that the "Core tenets" part needs a source, and that "current proponents" needs to be sourced for the support of each proponent, and that we need to make mention of wheter the proponents are backing the original proposal by Benveniste, or another version of the same theory. (maybe this is not necessary for Enis, since she claimed to have reproduced Benveniste's study, so she must be supporting his theory, maybe I would like to confirm if her position has not changed or not since then) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this infobox on any other articles (admittedly, I've only checked out a few articles on pseudoscientific topics) so I'm slightly hesitant to put it in here. Note: this trepidation comes purely out of my lack of familiarity I with the infobox—I have no doubt about the scientific standing of water memory: it is clearly pseudoscience. So I could support putting the infobox back in, but I think it's even more important to incorporate the references you dug up into the body of the article. Yilloslime (talk)15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see here what pages use the template. I can try to incorporate some of the sources, but I would prefer editors more familiar with the article to do so. Homeopathy used to have this infobox, but it got replaced by {{Alternative medical systems}} (which is a way better infobox for that article, imho, but wouldn't apply here since water memory not an actual medical system.... right?) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the "Core tenets" part (It's not necessarily clear that this is purely the proponent's view), and the "Disciplines" section seems rather arbitrary: The main discipline is Homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm convinced. But still think it's more important to incorporate the refs into the article than to get this infobox up. And I agree that the box is kinda and could use some work. But if you want to restore it, that's cool with me... Yilloslime (t) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some editing to it - if people are happy with my changes, I think this could be a reasonable addition. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Water memory

Claims	Under appropriate circumstances, some unknown process allows water to retain "memory" of substances that have been in contact with it this memory happens many 1:100 dilution stages beyond the point where no solute molecules of the substance are left in the solution water may later transmit this memory to biosystems.
Related scientific disciplines	Homeopathy
Year proposed	1988
Original proponents	Jacques Benveniste
Subsequent proponents	Madeleine Ennis, Brian Josephson, Martin Chaplin, various homeopaths
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

Points before addition:

• source for Brian_David_Josephson's support [7], he also reviewed this article critical with Nature's report.
• Martin Chaplin is cited as supporter of the effects at a simple level, on Homeopathy journal's issue on water memory. He should be added to the list of supporters.
• I reworded core tenet to fit this, specially biosystems mention:

• Benveniste's discovery described as[8]: "aqueous dilutions of a protein retained the essential properties of that protein many 1:100 dilution stages after it had been diluted out. The water diluent ‘remembered’ the anti-IgE long after it was gone."
• Homeopathy journal (same source as above) defines underlying hyphotesis "Under appropriate circumstances, water retains information about substances with which it has previously been in contact and may then transmit that information to presensitised biosystems"

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Water memory

Claims	Under certain circumstances, water can retain a "memory" of particles once dissolved in it.
Related scientific disciplines	Homeopathy
Year proposed	1988
Original proponents	Jacques Benveniste
Subsequent proponents	Madeleine Ennis, Brian Josephson, Martin Chaplin, various homeopaths
(Overview of pseudoscientific concepts)

How about this? Simply, sweet. I still think that from a design standpoint the box itself, regardless of what the text is says, is ugly--perhaps even fugly--but I guess that a discussion that would be best for Template:Infobox_Pseudoscience. Yilloslime (t) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with using your version. Let's wait a pair of days for other editor's comments. I agree that the box is fugly, and that the discussion on how to improve it should be done there. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

tweakings, objections and stuff

(breaking the section to separate proposals from tweaking and objections, please try to add proposals above) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Three comments:

• Maddox is obviously a well-respected scientist, but I'm not sure his designation suffices to show what scientific consensus is. See Wikipedia:RS#Claims_of_consensus. It's my understanding that usually we require statements from mainstream scientific bodies to establish consensus, which is what I believe we need to say a topic is "generally considered" something by the sci community.
• Are we sure Ennis is a proponent of the idea of water memory, as opposed to simply a scientist who got an unexplained result that others have used to support the water memory hypothesis?
• I have reservations, per NPOV, about using infoboxes (or series boxes) for designations that are disputed by significant minority views. Hopefully the RfArb on homeopathy will address that issue.

--Jim Butler (t) 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For Ennis, no, I'm not sure at all. It appears that she is, at most, a supporter of the possible existance of water memory, but not a direct supporter of the theory as formulated by Benviste. I guess that we should leave her out of the list until/if a source for her direct support is found. For reference, see "(Ennis said that) the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings"[9] and "Professor Ennis emphasised that the research does not prove that homoeopathy works, nor does it even show that Dr Benveniste was right because he had used a different test for a high-dilution effect."[10].

Jim, even the Homeopathy Journal says "(the bad memory of the Nature incident with water memory) is just about all that many scientists recall about the scientific investigation of homeopathy, equating it with poor or even fraudulent science"[11]. The inspection team nominated by John Maddox said on his report that the study laying the bases for water memory is "pseudoscience", and I'm using the editorial of the Homeopathy journal special issue on water memory to source it. We have zero studies that have reproduced Benveniste's results. I think that this is one of those cases that the clause "usually" is talking about. These sources ought to be more than enough, unless you provide a source claiming that the conclusion reached by Nature is not shared by a majority of scientists. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric -- agree re Ennis. I don't agree that the burden is on me to disprove the assumption that homeopathy is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". I think WP:BURDEN is pretty clear where the burden lies. I agree your evidence is highly suggestive, but I think we need sci-consensus type sources -- statements of consensus from scientific academies -- to be certain. To rely too heavily on petitions and statements from individual scientists as indicators is to fall into the same error that creationists attempt to exploit (see parody here). As I and others have argued, BBC report re the Royal College of Pathologsts is an example of a sci-consensus source. What is the practical upshot here, in any case? Just the category, nothing more, so it's not that big a deal.

Regarding the infobox: we do need community agreement (or an ArbCom ruling) on whether WP:PSCI criteria are sufficient and necessary for infoboxes as well as categories. Because infoboxes are so much more prominent, it seems to me that we should use them sparingly. See Wikipedia:CLS#Navigational_templates, including the disadvantages section. --Jim Butler (t) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so, we remove Ennis from the list for lack of sources for support. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, an infobox is not a navigational template, the relevant MoS page is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes), I quote "commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject (...) Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format (...) These boxes are designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area, and are usually associated with on-going WikiProjects.".

I think that this infobox is perfectly adequate, complies with MoS, and serves the purpose of presenting summaries on all articles on the "pseudoscience" category with a common look and format. That means that there is no need for more consensus than what the category requires. -Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, you are mistaken that infoboxes are not navigational templates. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "They are a broad class of templates commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." (Same thing with series boxes [12]. That's why the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes was moved[13] to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates.) The guideline I cited, and the disadvantages section, is therefore relevant. Perhaps you might consider addressing those concerns rather than running to the ArbCom accusing me of tendentious editing every time I say something you disagree with. You're free to do that, but it's not very good wikiquette, wastes my time and ArbCom's, and I don't think it's helping your cause. --Jim Butler (t)

Notice that Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates does not link or even refer to infoboxes. However Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories says "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help readers find information". I think it's clear that if we have an article on the "pseudoscience" category, then it's ok to use a "pseudoscience" infobox.

Also, we were talking about the MoS. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) does mentions navigational templates. It lists them under "These pages describe other types of templates: (...) navigational templates are article footers designed to provide links to several related articles", and the MoS page on navigational page doesn't mention infoboxes, so the MoS is very very clearly treating and defining them as different entities with different rules. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are templates so the same issues of size, layout etc. apply. See just below. --Jim Butler (t) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

About ArbCom case, I answer on your talk page

Please answer my question below on wheter you consider the PDF to be enough evidence to stop opposing the category and/or the infobox --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I already stated in my reply to Baegis that I was fine with the category[14]. I still object to the infobox because of the same disadvantages (size, layout and POV issues) that apply to other templates. --Jim Butler (t) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we are making some advancement. Let's talk about exact matters. If you are saying that the size and layout are incorrect, then the solution is not removing the template, but changing it. I personally think that the template is fugly, so I'll be willing to help to introduce improvements that you suggest.

If you are saying that it has POV issues, then it's introducing POV issues on all articles it's included into and not just this one. On the page you link to, it says "Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion if they appear to push POV". If you really think that the template has POV issues, then you should put it up for deletion instead of objecting to inclusion on one article while not objecting to it still being used on 15 different articles and listed on Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Sciences (see the template's what links here link). Notice that there was already a TfD whose result was "no consensus" You are perfectly aware that there was a TfD whose result was "no consensus" because you !voted to delete it and, I fucking kid you not, you said on your comment: "If kept, use strictly according to WP:PSCI criteria for category:pseudoscience". Well, will you look at this, you putting as a condition for keeping it that the same criteria for the category should be used for the template. See why I was complaining about moving the goalposts? And, yes, this goes directly to the evidence for the ArbCom, and, yes, I think that they will find it interesting. I think that you should explain why you decided on this article that the bar for usage ought to be raised up. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_3#Template:Infobox_Pseudoscience

If you think that water memory is not psedoscientific enough to warrant this infobox, then I refer you to the PDF mentioned below --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the most appropiate infobox of existing infoboxes for providing a summary to the article. If you think there is a better one, them point us to it. If it's fugly, then make suggestions to make the template look better. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the infobox, I would say that it is splitting hairs but legitimate to say that aforementioned scientific consensus type statement does not apply to water memory. That article does not make clear whether the lack of basic scientific justification being referred to is the physics of "water memory" and "provings" or solely homeopathy's poor performance in clinical trials. Conveniently, the Biosciences Federation, an umbrella organization for British biomedical societies, is signatory to this statement (PDF), which explicitly describes water memory as a theory which has found no evidence in 30 years of testing and is contrary to the laws of science. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find on that PDF. For Enric, I hope I've been clear that my concerns have been about verifiability, not truth. To the extent that I have not been clear, maybe it appeared I was POV-pushing. I have no POV on homeopathy other than mildly interested skepticism -- if it were real, wouldn't that be something, eh, but I'm not holding my breath. --Jim Butler (t) 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

comment on wording of core tenets (that was replying originally here before a long thread got in the middle) has been moved to its own subsection "verb on core tenets" --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you no longer oppose to saying water memory is a pseudoscience? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't object as of five days ago[15]. For someone who loves to bring my diffs to the ArbCom, it would be helpful if you'd occasionally read them. See WP:KETTLE re wasting editors' time. --Jim Butler (t) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see that I was confusing opposition to using an infobox with opposition to use the category. You only oppose the infobox now. My mistake. Apologies for wasting your time for not noticing the difference. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Waaaaaaait a minute. Two days ago you were still saying that there was not enough proof of scientific consensus for calling water memory a pseudoscience [16], that's why I made this post and used it as evidence on the ArbCom[17], that's why you say that we need " I agree your evidence is highly suggestive, but I think we need sci-consensus type sources -- statements of consensus from scientific academies -- to be certain"[18], that's why you felt the need to make a *separate* post for the infobox[19], that's why eldereft felt the need to make a post about scientific consensus where he explicitely says that he doesn't comment on the infobox[20], and you didn't accept that there was enough evidence until 17 hours ago (not 5 days)[21] and that's why I wanted to make sure that this time you wouldn't raise objections *again* after you appeared to agree 5 days ago. You just keeping moving the goalposts and changing opinion after appearing to agree, that's why I wanted you to clarify. I'm feeling cheated. You just keep raising the same objection after appearing to agree days ago. And you dare to say that I was wasting your time for asking for a clarification. Seriously, I'm pissed off for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric - as part of a cooling-off exercise, before I address the specific issues you raise, please consider this question: should every topic that has category:X also have infobox:X? Why or why not? I'd tend to say no, and fugliness weighs heavily. --Jim Butler (t) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered questions above so it's replying to the list of matters with the infobox. Please address here what made you change your opinion since 5 of February. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jim, would you be open to requesting a clarification on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration about whether the same or different standard should be held for a category and for its associated infobox? That's it, asking if, when an article has been categorized pseudoscience because it fulfills WP:PSCI, then the requirements for an infobox called "Pseudoscience" have been fulfilled too (barring considerations on fuglyness or on the need of an infobox summary for a specific article), or if this introduces extra POV issues. This would probably be way better than arguing about what the ArbCom really meant. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good question to ask ArbCom, and I've in fact done so here. I have to sign off after this post, and will address the rest within the next day. In a nutshell, per my exchange with Baegis, I have already accepted that the Royal Society source[22] meets WP:PSCI for both homeopathy and this page, because it is a sci-consensus type source. Where we disagree is whether other sources, like Maddox, are "overwhelming evidence" for scientific consensus, as you assert, or "highly suggestive but not sufficient", as I assert. It's a moot point here, since we agree Royal Society suffices, but the principle will be relevant with other topics in the future. Therefore, I have asked ArbCom to clarify whether a sci-consensus source is in fact necessary, and if so, whether a single one suffices (here), but in the meantime I am not pressing the point, and am accepting category:pseudoscience here based on Maddox Royal Society alone, as well as Eldereft's PDF. If you read this exchange with Whig on my talk page, you will see that my position has been realistic (cf. WP:SNOWBALL), not POV-pushing.

Re infoboxes, my position has always been that if we use them, we should follow WP:PSCI, but I'm still not convinced we should use them. The reason is simple: if for every category we also had a corresponding infobox, articles with multiple categories would get cluttered with infoboxes. No matter how non-fugly we make them, the net effect of 6-10 infoboxes on an article is definitely fugly. That's why I think my questions "should every topic that has category:X also have infobox:X? Why or why not?" are relevant. I hope this shows that I haven't "moved the bar" at all, but rather pointed to bars that already exist in established WP guidelines (WP:CLS).

More tomorrow regarding your specific questions, but I hope my comments clarify the basic issues I'm concerned with, and dispel any misunderstandings of what my views have been over time. I apologize if I have offended you or appeared uncivil. I hope you can see things from my point of view as well, and see why your rapid-fire posting of my diffs, without fully understanding my position, is something I'd find disturbing. Most editors (including several who have posted to the ArbCom case, both pro- and anti-homeopathy) think I am a pretty reasonable guy, so if something I say appears grossly unreasonable, please ask for clarification; there's a good chance (as with your not realizing that I had already accepted category:pseudoscience here) that I've been misunderstood. --Jim Butler (t) 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I meant a request to clarify the meaning of the ruling on the Pseudoscience arbitration case. That post on the homeopathy case is just going to get lost on the noise. Isn't there some way to make a request to clarify a ruling for an already closed case? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a way to do that, I think at AN somewhere. I'll post if I find it. --Jim Butler (t) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's done here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment on "moving goal posts" was on you saying that the infobox requires more evidence of consensus to be included than its associated category, it has nothing to do with what you commented on. If the category is not POV, then using its associated infobox is not POV, I think that this should be clear. You are still using WP:CLS when you should know by now that only the general points to templates apply. We are talking about an infobox, not about a navigational template, start using Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes).

Talking about "grossly unreasonable". Your point on multiple categories is moot for this article because it has only two categories, and only one of them has an associated infobox. Even if were using your point on an article that had 6-10 categories with associated infoboxes, you should know that most articles have only *one* infobox, and that nobody is asking to use multiple infoboxes. You are getting confused again with navigational templates, since many articles have several of them at the bottom of the page. I also notice that you are not commenting on how this infobox does not break Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, Enric? I agree, the infobox is OK. I just needed some time to think and talk about it. Please AGF in the future and don't go running to the ArbCom the next time someone has the temerity to disagree with you. At least first try and work out the dispute, and then if the problem remains, follow WP:DR.

I've never been crazy about the pseudoscience infobox, but since it looks like the community doesn't want to get rid of it, I agree it should be used according to WP:PSCI as well as the common-sense caveats at WP:CLS (i.e., don't use 10 infoboxes if there are 10 categories -- yes, the same common-sense cautions as for other templates. That's along the same lines as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "Is the field of value?"). So.... seems like it should be fine here. The only other infobox I could think of would be "homeopathy" itself, and there should be ample room for both. Thanks. Goodbye. --Jim Butler (t) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>OK, then we'll just tweak "core tenets" a bit more and include it on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I answer about "homeopathy" template on section below --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

verb on core tenets on infobox

Separating one topic from long thread above, it was going to get confused with it as soon as it started getting unindented --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the Core tenets needs prefixed by "According to proponents" or "Proponents say" or even "Proponents claim" if you want an active verb. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's pseudoscience and not science, I think that it's clear that we are talking about what the proponents claim --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that simply saying "Pseudoscience" at the top is enough - the Infobox layout gives a scertain amount of "appearance-of-neutrality". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's use a verb on the core tenets. It was just a stylistic issue for me, and not a big one. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy navigational template

continues a thread from section "tweakings, objections and stuff" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim, if you mean {{Homoeopathy}}, I'd actually not only agree on using it, but I would advice to use it, since it's a navigational template that goes on the bottom of the page and wouldn't conflict with the infobox because the article is too long for them to touch each other, and it would help navigation between homeopathy articles. Please try to take a look at the template and at the articles that use it. Samuel_Hahnemann is a good example of how it can be used on an article that has a ton of stuff floating on the right, like infoboxes do. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nature source?

Is that Nature source in the first paragraph what it looks like? It looks like an anon letter to the editor. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the opening editorial comment on an issue (as you may know, Nature, like many journals, numbers pages continuously through the entire volume) Nature editorials are traditionally unsigned, for whatever reason. (I always presumed because they were written by consensus of the editorial staff, but that may be wrong.) It's apparently by Maddox, if this sentence of the article: "but it was accompanied with an editorial by Maddox that noted 'There are good and particular reasons why prudent people should, for the time being, suspend judgment.'" is correct. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, that's a lot better, IMHO. Not peer-reviewed, but at least not just a letter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's the letter that pretty much anyone talking about Water memory will mention in connection with Benveniste's study: That's the [relatively] famous letter which Nature insisted on being included in the same issue as Benveniste's study if they were going to publish it, right at the foundation of this... um.. what's the right word, pseudoscientific concept? Also, it's not being used to cite much: that Benveniste's study used dilutions past the Avorgado limit is not exactly a contentious fact... =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, it seems fine. This article looks much better than some in this kind of subject in terms of citation, and a neutral tone. Editorilizing like calling the Nature article "damning" could be improved a bit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I took that out completely. It added nothing to the text except for adding an unsourced opinion on the effect of the editorial --Enric Naval (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen Bond Life Time

Currently, this wiki doesn't have much depth. And in my view, it serves as a general introduction to the issue of water memory. What do you say about creating a sub-topic of hydrogen bonds kinetics in water? Should water exhibit strong features attributed to memory, an intial guess would be that the the average lifetime of a hydrogen bond is an important data for interpreting these features. (on the other side, the lifetime of a single bond might have little impact on a lifetime of a water cluster). My point is that this topic requires more science about water kinetics. There are many papers about plain water, experments & models. What do you say? {username: omermar, @ 5/5/08 }. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omermar (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortening of the experiments section?

I notice that the later experiments section has been significantly shortened from previous versions. The items were all referenced and struck me as highly relevant, notably the seemingly direct indication of experimenter effect. Why was this material removed? Maury (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a report on an issue of the journal Homeopathy, that had the slight problem of being written by User:Martin Chaplin, the editor of said issue. It might be reasonable to include material from same, but noone has cared to wade back into that swamp again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, ok. Well I'm going to re-add the other material if no one objects. Specifically the concerns about Benvenists' later experiments, which I believe are illustrative. Maury (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The other section you mention appears to be the longer form of the U.S. Department of Defense experiment description:

“ Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several "positive" results were noted, however, but only when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers was running the equipment. Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself, and offered a variety of reasons to explain away what appeared to be another example of experimenter effect. ”

This is not actually what it says, though: It says that they only occured when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers ran the experiment and interrupted the machine's action in order to do a manual plating followed by the automatic.Page 25, second column, here and see also commentary in the summary, page 28, which, er, basically says they can't rule out the possibility of fraud by him, though it was not observed directly. (and also contains the information about Benveniste noticing the experimenter effect.

I have no objection to a partial restore, but it might be worth checking the sources before doing so. Many of them are available onlineShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see the issue here. As it was originally worded it sounds like it was Benveniste who was the "culprit" (sorry, can't think of a better term). As you note, this is not the issue here. However, I do believe it is relevant that Maddox's original guess, that someone was "pulling the leg", turns out to be at least partially true. I realize this is a somewhat negative characterization, but I do believe that it is an important point. YMMV, and I'm open to your comments on this. Maury (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection to a restore, so long as we double-check the sources. Also, a quick warning: For a long time, the article by Ennis that set of the BBC and ABC retries was completely mis-cited - the correct article is the one in the article, from 1999. A 2004 experiment by the same group, many years after the BBC and ABC retries was instead cited. Be careful not to restore that error =)

As for discussing the 2004 experiment: It's a repeat of the 1999 one, with the same team, and it's heavily influenced by homeopathic manufacturer Boiron, including a lot of people employed by them as its chief researchers (though not, I should point out, Ennis herself). The 1999 results were all over the map, two centres showing pure placebo, and two centres very, very strong effects, which makes it pretty dodgy already. Suddenly, in 2004, all of the centres are showing strong results. Frankly, I think Ennis is getting led up the primrose path a bit, but, you know. WP:NOR Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

unsupported / dubious

Is the use of the word "unsupported" on the first sentence of the lead a direct quote from the Nature source? If that is so, it shouldn't be replaced by "dubious". Can someone check the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for wanting to replace unsupported as given in the edit summary, but "dubious" seems like a, well, dubious replacement. If it is in the source then maybe it should go in, or maybe we can come up with a better word/rephrase. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Would invalidated, disproven, controverted, or discredited be too strong (in order of my preference)? This is not exactly one of those cases where the evidence base is weak or equivocal - reality simply does not work that way. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All work for me, except controverted - what an odd word :) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I went with invalidated, then. We can continue discussing if anyone wishes, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "discredited"? I can live with "invalidated" but I'm not loving it, since I feel like it's usually used to mean "disqualified", e.g. the lotto ticket was invalidated because..." or in a legal context to mean "cancelled", e.g. the court invalidated the patent since... Yilloslime (t) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "discredited" seems a little off to me as it would seem to indicate that the idea was "credited" in the first place. It wasn't, the concept of water memory is pure quackery and has never been given credence by anyone with any knowledge of science, physics, or how the real world works. It would seem to me that a stronger word is needed, "nonsensical" maybe or "fraudulent". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discredited" sounds fine to me.

"nonsensical" and "fraudulent" are too strong. 218.186.65.34 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input User:Yasis, now please stop stalking me and using IPs to evade your block. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Connotations and common usage can be important, so how about refuted? Nonsense is pretty well covered by the infobox, and the possibility of deliberate and purposeful fraud only applies to part of the discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"refuted" sounds fine as well.

I like it. 218.186.65.34 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Refuted is good for me. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

More detail on theories

There is little information on the theories of the mechanisms of water memory. I think some discussion is worth including. I could only see "Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within fifty millionths of a nanosecond", as well as reference to the idea that water memory could be transmitted digitally (!!!). The Bad Science homeopathy journal club has links to a lot of (free) articles on mechanisms of homeopathy, including water memory. Fences and windows (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be careful of undue weight on any "theory". Basically in my mind there is no theory - it's pseudoscience with no rational reason why it should work. Try it out, were I doing it I'd keep it short, but otherwise why not be bold? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)