Poster for the 2022 documentary *Homeopathy Unrefuted?*, featuring sugar reflected in a mirror as homeopathic globules.

• ... that using theSocratic method onhomeopaths, as done inHomeopathy Unrefuted?(poster pictured), can prove devastating for their claims?

• ALT1: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted?(poster pictured) never sets out to disprovehomeopathy—yet its practitioners often end up doing it themselves?Source: per source 1 in article: Thiam, Boussa (February 14, 2022). "Die Widersprüche der Koryphäen". Deutschlandfunk Kultur (in German).
• ALT2: ... that inHomeopathy Unrefuted?(poster pictured), whenhomeopaths finish explaining their therapy, few consistent principles remain?Source: per source 1 in article: Thiam, Boussa (February 14, 2022). "Die Widersprüche der Koryphäen". Deutschlandfunk Kultur (in German).
• Reviewed:
• Comment: Image is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 on Commons, free use confirmed.

KAMfakten (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

• Comment: I bolded the article you are nominating, please make sure to bold them next time. ThanksWarm Regards,Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think this is interesting or neutral in any way. Should be rejected.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKingsacrificer (talk •contribs) 19:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Need a full review, my two cents one that explains why it's not "interesting or neutral in any way".ミラP@Miraclepine 01:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral: - n
• Free ofcopyright violations,plagiarism, andclose paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• Interesting: - ?

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - n

Overall: The article has sentences that are non-neutral. For example,The topic was perfectly suited to the medium of non-confrontational Socratic dialogues expresses in wikivoice what thesource presents as the views of the filmmaker. Unsourced sentences likeEven though Homeopathy Unrefuted? is certainly conceived as a niche product, it's unclear whether it's of more interest to homeopathy's proponents or opponents appear to be original research. Meanwhile, none of the hooks work. ALT0 is not explicitly stated in the article, and the only discussion of the Socratic method is cited to other sources, not the source provided in the nom. Meanwhile, ALT1 and ALT2 are sourced to a Q&A interview with the filmmaker, which is not independent, and thus the hook should be attributed to the filmmaker. However, attributing a rather banal observation about how the film is constructed to the filmmaker makes mostly uninteresting hooks even less interesting. At any rate, the article and the hooks need some work. I'd suggest some new alternatives where the hook matches claims in the article and is sourced to a suitable reliable source.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this was helpful! I clarified the source of the first statement and deleted the second one without source. I also checked the article about other non-neutral sentences. If you find more, I will correct them. I refrased the first hook in a way, that it reproduces exactly the wording of the journalist inDie Tageszeitung and offer a second hook that is less literal, but would be more poignated:

• ALT4: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted?(poster pictured) only features people who believe in and practice homeopathy, yet the film ends up being more damaging for them than if critics had been included?

• ALT5: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted?(poster pictured) interviews only homeopathy believers, yet this alone makes the film more damaging for them than including skeptics?

KAMfakten (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neither of these new alternative hooks is neutrally worded. They present the opinion of a single interviewer in wikivoice as a fact. For all I know, not having seen the movie, the film is more damaging to homeopathy than if critics had been included, but that is the opinion of Wilfried Hippen, not something we can state on the Wikipedia homepage as a fact. Normally we'd want to attribute the opinion to the person expressing it, but Hippen appears to benon-notable and has no Wikipedia page, so I'm not sure that saying...did you know that Wilfried Hippen thought this about a movie works at all as a hook. Also, neither of these hooks appears in the article. P.S. Upon second thought, the text in the poster image is not legible, so I've updated the review to account for that. If this is eventually promoted, the image should not be used.Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I see what you mean. So what about hooks based on the films content itself, like:

• ALT6: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted? featureshomeopaths naming remedies made from cancer tissue to magnets — and even theBerlin Wall?
• ALT7: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted? lets onlyhomeopathy advocates speak — yet hardly seems to flatter the method?
• ALT8: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted? gives the floor solely tohomeopaths — with unexpected results?
• ALT9: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted? featuring only defenders ofhomeopathy ends up questioning the method’s credibility?
• Comment: A statement like "ends up questioning the method’s credibility" is no interpretation of mine or of a journalist or the filmmaker, but this is, what actually goes on in the film itself.--KAMfakten (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

First, to establish mybona fides on this topic: did you hear the one about the homeopath who forgot to take his medication and died of an overdose? Second: too many of these are formulated as Your Opinion.ALT6 will work.DS (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@KAMfakten: I agree withDragonflySixtyseven that ALTS7-9 do express personal opinions (or present personal opinions in wikivoice). ALT6 is in the article, but it does not comply withWP:DYKHFC's requirement thatThe facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. Plot summaries are not required to sourced in articles that appear in DYK, but thehook fact is, without any exception for hook facts that appear in plot summaries. The hook would also need to be rephrased as something like thisALT6a: ... thatHomeopathy Unrefuted? featureshomeopaths naming remedies derived from cancer tissue, magnets and even theBerlin Wall? But before anything else can be done, theWP:DYKHFC issue must be addressed.Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

In order not to rely solely on the film itself with a time stamp as a source, I have modified the hook to reflect facts that are mentioned in secondary sources:

• ALT6b: ... that the documentaryHomeopathy Unrefuted? showshomeopaths suggesting that even a fridge, a camera, or theBerlin Wall could be made into a homeopathic remedy?

• Pending DYK nominations