User talk:Filll/homeopathyFAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents homeopathy in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of homeopathy is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Homeopathy FAQ.

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of homeopathy. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at google groups or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.




FAQ for homeopathy:

1. Why is there material critical of homeopathy in an article about homeopathy?

The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from WP:NPOV.

2. Can we get the negative material out of the LEAD? It is unfair to put negative material in the first few sentences of the article before anyone knows what homeopathy is.

No the LEAD must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in WP:LEAD.

3. I thought NPOV meant "neutral point of view." Negative material does not seem very neutral.

Actually NPOV is not really neutral, but includes all points of view in rough proportion to their prominence, including negative views, critical views, mainstream views etc.

4. This article is terribly biased.

The article must include both positive and negative views according to the rules of Wikipedia.

5. Can all the discussion that is critical of homeopathy be put in one section in the article?

This is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia. See Template:Criticism-section.

6. Can another article called Criticism of homeopathy be created?

This is called a "POV fork" and is normally frowned upon.

7. How is this allowed on Wikipedia?

This article strives to conform to Wikipedia policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in WP:FRINGE areas be devoted to mainstream views of the FRINGE topics.

8. I have proof that homeopathy works. Why can we not include it in the article?

We do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence.

Whether homeopathy works or not, there are a lot of people who do not believe it works. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why.

9. All the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased. They should not go in the article.

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

10. Maybe homeopathy works by quantum electrodynamics, or some unknown mechanism. Can't we report that?

Wikipedia is not a place for original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.