Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics


 * back to main talk page

The policy states ''Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.'' My question is what does this really mean in particular the appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint? What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise. Anthon01 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is written vaguely, but we can get a clue from reading the other NPOV policies. I have explained this to you hundreds of times but you keep asking the same question since you do not like the answer. Why do I have to answer this again here? Let me paraphrase what I wrote before on the homeopathy talk page. We need to describe in detail with references the academic viewpoint. We need to describe in detail the scientific viewpoint. We need to describe in detail the allopathic viewpoint. Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. I have no problem with the 40% critical 60% descriptive/positive ratio that we used to get the article to GA status. And neither did Peter Morrell.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you get it? I don't believe you . I think your interpretation is incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 98%? I find your reading of the text comical . I don't think so. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is helpful Anthon01. Please AGF. I do not agree with Filll that we have the right to make an article 98% critical of homeopathy. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am not assuming bad faith. I think his interpretation is incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whig:I've refactored as per your comment. Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion: a link may be too little, but an exhaustive treatise is not necessary when that exists elsewhere already: in that case, a summary will do. Arguing a case in detail would be inappropriate because it makes the article on the "minority view" hard to read. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation here is that this is the main Homeopathy article, and therefore should include all significant views. If the article consequently becomes too long it can be split into multiple articles and summaries of them kept. The "exhaustive treatise" may not exist elsewhere at present. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Appropriate reference" is, simply, appropriate reference. If a person reading the article cannot clearly tell what the mainstream view is, and what relationship the fringe view has to the mainstream view, then the article does not make appropriate reference. What exact form that takes is highly article-specific, and best discussed on the article talk page rather than in generalities on policy pages. MastCell Talk 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So let be more specific and discuss NPOV in relation to the homeopathy article. I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that's the subject. Under NPOV: Undue weight these articles must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Homeopathy has been subjected to scientific testing, and the spin on the inconclusive results is clearly regarded by many scientists as pseudoscience. NPOV: Pseudoscience requires such articles to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" makes it clear that we don't have to "give equal validity" to minority views. What Wikipedia is not policy emphasises that Wikipedia is not the place to promote treatments, and the guidance in Fringe theories is relevant. As always, enough of each significant verifiable viewpoint should be shown to represent it fairly, and as far as possible without bias. Sometimes a simple assertion can take a great deal of explaining from the majority viewpoint, so we provide what's needed. Is that clearer for you? . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01 has raised an important issue. However, it seems that only the regular pro and con homeopathy editors are responding here.  I too would like some others input who do not normally contribute to the homeopathy article.  DanaUllmanTalk 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The best way to get uninvolved input for a question relating to a specific article is via WP:RfC. This page is most useful for general questions about the wording of the policy, while this appears to be about a specific issue with homeopathy. Asking a generally worded question here with a specific content dispute in mind tends to generate responses that are at best vague and at worst counterproductive. MastCell Talk 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what was said above. We need enough material to explain what the majority view is. Our articles do not exist to whitewash some FRINGE view, to promote some FRINGE view, to right some great wrong. And I think there was nothing wrong with 40% mainstream content in a FRINGE topic like homeopathy. And neither did Peter Morrell. I do not understand why people persist in frantically trying to change the rules of Wikipedia to suit their private agendas. Wikipedia has some rules; you might not like them, but they are what they are. There are other alternatives. And all the fighting and screaming and tantrums and page spamming and harassment and ranting and raving in the world are not going to change the Wikipedia rules. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill is by and large correct here. Homeopathy is an extreme minority position. In that context, WP:UNDUE necessitate that's we give little weight to its claims. This has nothing to do with whether or not homeopathy is correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! JoshuaZ: A ultra-molecular dose of uninvolved input.;-) The key text is Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Nowhere does it say that the article must or should be 60%-40% ratio between homeopathy/majority view. Appropriate reference means text that reflects the majority viewpoint and nothing about the percentage of the text (word count) that should be used to make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect, as a matter of fact. Homeopathy is used by a large percentage of people in India and in some other countries, and is commonplace in California. &mdash;Whig (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But still an extreme minority in both cases. Shot info (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to claim that homeopathy is not the minority position, then provide reliable sources so that we can verify it. I have given plenty of evidence for months now that it is an extreme minority position. Others have as well. All I hear is unsubstantiated assertions which count for nothing. Put up, or...--Filll (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Numbers needed. Prevalence of homeopathy use: Roughly 20% in India . But only 30% of 37% = 11% of pediatrics in multiethnic London  (naturally including an East India population). 36% of 16% = 6% in asthmatics in southern Israel.  In the US for kids undergoing surgery, 7.5% to 2% from East to West Coast (yes, more in California), but that includes herbs. If the other studies are indications, the actual homeopathic use is less than half of that. . So, it various greatly all over the world. It probably is 20% in India. But probably less than 4% in California, and maybe 1% in the Eastern US. At a guess. But after looking at available recent literature, at least!  S  B Harris 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, if homeopathy is not a minority in the US, why are homeopathic products in the US not clearly labeled as homeopathic and promoted as such? I suggest that it is probably because homeopathy is so little known at best, and at worst homeopathy is a horrendous embarassment in the US, so that it is viewed as very negative for the success of a product to label it clearly as homeopathic or promote it as homeopathic in the US. If it were mainstream, do you think this would happen? If it were mainstream, I would be able to find more than 4 part-time practioners in this metropolitan area of about 10 million people where I live. How many thousands or tens of thousands of allopaths live and work in this area do you think? If we compare by research dollars or income or any other measure you can think of, it is minor...very minor... a teeny tiny FRINGE activity in this area, and I live in the capital of the country.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, you need to get out more. Homeopathic products are not "promoted" in your standard media, because advertising is expensive, and these things have little money behind them (yeah, they're just water, but they have no patent protection and they have a small niche market that doesn't support much advertising). As example of even what can happen when a zillion dollar drug goes off patent, have you seen old whatziface Jarvik with the artificial clot-producing heart, hawking Lipitor? Even though he's never writen a prescription since he's never had a medical license (he's an MD who didn't do an internship, so has never actually treated a patient personally...). And those he did help treat surely didn't near cholesterol treatment-- they had no coronaries to treat. Anyway, there's money in Lipitor. Never mind that simvastatin is better tested-- simvastatin is now also generic. So you won't see much about it. That's not due to shame. And you won't see Jarvik selling his credibility (what there was of it) for the old Zocor. Anyway, just because you don't homeopathics on TV when you watch the superbowl, doesn't mean you won't find a rack of clearly labeled homeopathics in any good large healthfood store (not the GNC, but a store not affiliated with an outlet which caters to many tastes). If you live in a large city, you're near such a place. Go explore. I've been through many a health store: I need to know what the patients are eating. And I've drunk whole bottles of many a homeopathic to see what would happen (I'm a curious sort). This horrifies homeopathic practioners, who think maybe I'll get sick. But nothing happens. I'm not susceptable to placebo effects, either. Or homeopathic effects, apparently. Skeptism must provide a shield from the wrong dose of the wrong stuff. (P.S. Washington doesn't seem too likely a city for this. Inside the beltway the prices are too high for healthfood stores, and outside it, your health may be affected by highspeed lead poisoning (if you know what I mean) long before you need vitamins). S B Harris 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went to the Walgreen's on the corner and found multiple homeopathic remedies for sale, albeit not of the classical type, more of the combined low potency things. My doctor suggested I try Calms Fort&eacute;, and it was there on the shelf, clearly labeled as Homeopathic. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Most people walk right by them without noticing them, for their whole lives. That's what lack of advertising does. Interestingly, I know of one medicine, Zycam, which is advertized as homeopathic even when it's makers know it's not, and is not intended to be. It has enough zinc in it for a direct antiviral effect. But by labeling it a "homeopathic" the makers were able to make certain health claims that they couldn't for a simple mineral, even under DHSEA. S  B Harris 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are a bit geographically challenged when it comes to our nation's capital, but that is neither here nor there. There is one homeopathic pharamacy in the area, about 25 miles or more from me. What I mean is, Zicam was not clearly labelled as homeopathic. Oscilloccocinum is not clearly labelled as homeopathic. Head-on is not clearly labelled as homeopathic. All three are widely available. All three are heavily advertised at least in some venues. And all three are NOT advertised as homeopathic in the media, or clearly labelled as such on their packaging. Why is that, if homeopathy is a major medical treatment in the United States that most people are familiar with and most people use and are proud to use and if the word "homeopathic" is so well known and respected that it is valuable for marketing purposes?--Filll (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be a bit more scarce in your area. The reason homeopathy isn't used in marketing much is that most people don't know what that means. Most people don't know what diphenhydramine is either. I fail to see the relevance. There isn't a grocery store or pharmacy that I cannot buy homeopathics at around here. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No one says it is a major. You are clearly missing the point. You don't get homeopathics (H) only in H pharmacies. Re: nation's capital - Are you talking US? Anthon01 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You win. Go ahead and do what you want. It is not permitted to discuss or disagree here.--Filll (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who says? Why aren't we allowed to discuss and disagree? Are you talking Washington D.C? Anthon01 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Too dangerous. Do what you want.--Filll (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, how can you say Oscillococcinum is not clearly labeled as homeopathic? image of package &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Was going to say the same, since Oscillococcinum is the quintissential homeopathic (one dead duck literally supplies several a year worth of product making). So if somebody says they've seen a bottle of this without a homeopathic label, I think it goes along with the statement of the guy who said he had three sons and three flashlights and they all worked. Candidate for the tall-tale awards. As for your assertion about Zicam, it's flatly wrong. Blow up the package label by clicking on it: . See the word "homeopathic" at the bottom? Criminy, Fill, do you think you can just say whatever you want, if it sounds true? S  B Harris 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a rebuttal and explanation, but it is too dangerous under the current circumstances to give it. I think the best option is just to scrap WP:NPOV completely. --Filll (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill's last argument is just semantics. Whether people know it or not, a large amount of us are using homeopathic remedies. After all how many Americans know what NSAIDS are? And how many Americans take Ibuprofen (a common NSAID)?

Hey, isn't Wikipedia for people outside of America too? Like, say, the 20% of India's population who use homeopathy - isn't Wikipedia for them too? (Let's see, 20% of 1.12 billion... that's like 224,000,000 people using homeopathy in India alone. Yeah, homeopathy is so not significant! ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a WP:RS that demonstrates that 15% or 20% constitutes a majority. That is interesting.--Filll (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would answer you but unfortunately it is just too dangerous with your intimidation tactics. Just do not believe that everyone else thinks you are correct. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I think your concern is unfounded. I don't see the intimidation. You are again not AGF. The threat of admin action is related to incivility and stonewalling and not a polite discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. Am I intimidating you in any way? What tactics? Please come to my talk page and explain. Otherwise, please WP:AGF.


 * Not sure what you mean by "majority". I am just pointing out that 224,000,000 people in India alone is rather significant and shouldn't be ignored.


 * I think what this conversation shows more than anything is that while Homeopathy's effectiveness may be a fringe belief, it's actual use is clearly not a minority topic. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 20% is far from fringe. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This argument does not hold up to scrutiny but it is far too dangerous to describe why. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly. P.S. Filll (and anyone else), I would still like to read more answers to my question above if you have a chance. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I and others would address your concerns but given the environment that has been created, it is far too dangerous to do so. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy & NPOV break
Unfortunately it is too dangerous for me to continue this because of the viscious threats. So I have some advice for you then. Why do you not just rewrite the NPOV document and see what happens, since you are positive you are correct and no one is allowed to discuss anything with you or answer any questions or disagree with you? Just do it. No one can talk to you because of the threats. --Filll (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you afraid of. You see danger here? I don't. I see a discussion. Where do you see vicious threats here? Anthon01 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody has threatened Filll or anyone else that I can see. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You win. What part of "you win" do you not understand? In the current circumstances it is not permitted to discuss or disagree.--Filll (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who told you that? Is it written somewhere? Take a look at the Talk:Deadly_nightshade page. Note the high level of discussion and disagreement there. Anthon01 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is too dangerous. Do what you want.--Filll (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am both saddened and confused by Filll's apparent inability to assume good faith here. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not continue to threaten me or I will be obliged to take steps. You are correct in all respects on all topics. Go ahead and do whatever you want.--Filll (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll: I understand that you are concerned about continuing this discussion. I don't share your concern as this is to me a good faith attempt to better understand the application of NPOV to minority topics. I accept your "good faith" desire to leave this discussion. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is just too dangerous to disagree. FRINGE views outweigh all others in the current environment, so go ahead and do whatever you want.--Filll (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. You may not realize it but you have repeated this about ten times in this thread. You don't need to respond or repeat it anymore. I get your point. Anthon01 (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes on this topic it takes repeating things dozens if not hundreds of times before someone gets it. Ok so now you get it, go ahead and act since you won.--Filll (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would agree that you were wrong when you said Oscillococcinum is not clearly labeled as homeopathic. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussing, disagreeing, explaining and anything else is just too dangerous. Do what you want. --Filll (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too dangerous to whom? How? &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not willing to admit you were wrong? Anthon01 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not say I was wrong. I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit, if you feel so inclined, and to go ahead and do whatever you want.--Filll (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely the point. You won't admit you were wrong when you are shown absolute proof. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not continue to attack and threaten me or I will be obliged to take steps. Please WP:AGF and maintain civility.--Filll (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take any and all steps you feel appropriate, I will say you are quite welcome. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you consider the question, You're not willing to admit you were wrong an attack? Anthon01 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am asking you again please do not continue to badger, threaten, harass and attack me. I am asking you to please abide by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Filll (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Was that addressed to me? Anthon01 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * AAGF. I am asking you to exhibit good faith and admit an error. &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am asking you one last time to please stop badgering me and violating WP:POINT by these uncivil threatening tactics. I am not obstructing you in any way shape or form. Go ahead with any edits of this article or any other as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no threats. Please clarify with diffs or quotes. Anthon01 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you do not understand that you have won and are therefore correct in all respects and are free to change NPOV policy as you would like and any articles as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been quite a diversion. I am disengaging from discussing this with you. Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and propose new wording for the policy, since you are so certain you are correct. Obviously there is some confusion about what the policy means and you believe you understand it better than anyone else. And this page is about discussing the wording of the policy. So clarify the policy for everyone.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV check on topics like this
The way I understand NPOV to work depends on our sources, for example take a minority topic like Scientology: Understanding that these are not the only sources for this topic, does the table illustrate the general concept of NPOV? Anynobody 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, just too dangerous under these circumstances.--Filll (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat accurate. The only substantial difference is that the fraction of reliable sources that are negative to homeopathy is larger than that with scientology and so the weight given is corespondingly larger. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it depends upon your inclusion criteria for reliable sources. There are some editors who think that peer reviewed Homeopathy journals are not reliable sources, and seek to exclude them from being used. On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of peer reviewed literature in the mainstream scientific journals about Homeopathy at all. &mdash;Whig (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

{{|Off-Topic| Exactly. I wonder why that would be?--Filll (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were done arguing and were going to leave us alone now. [] &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find that statement highly offensive and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I thought this was the encyclopedia anyone could edit. I am not welcome to post here? What did I say that constitutes an argument? Please provide diffs and a pointer to the relevant policy page in WP policy that describes how I am not welcome to post here. If I do not get an appropriate response, I will report you and you will have to deal with the administrative bureaucracy, which you are on extremely thin ice with anyway. So your choice...By the way, I invite you to provide a document describing exactly what you think WP:NPOV is or should be. The ball is in your court. We are waiting for your input. --Filll (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so go file another complaint. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you produce a proposal for how you want to change NPOV.-Filll (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to change NPOV. Please stop being disruptive. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you have been arguing against the accepted interpretation of NPOV as long as I have interacted with you. So clearly it is written poorly and not well explained. Please feel free to write it so we can all understand it properly and you are no longer at odds or offended by the interpretation of others of the NPOV policy. Of course you do not have to, but it would make things far easier, you must admit.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * O...the irony... Shot info (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this constructive? &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can it be assumed that irony goes over ones head? Shot info (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs documenting that I have been involved with "repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying". You do not know that making spurious accusations like you are doing is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:TE. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [] [] and you still refuse to retract your false statements. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again this conversation is devolving into an argument. I intent to complete this discussion sooner or later. Filll you are going off-topic with and Whig you are following him. Consider disengaging. Anthon01 (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing further. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly offensive that you would suggest I lied. Clearly from those diffs there is no discrepancy or inconsistency. However, some people suffer from a reading comprehension problem; maybe that is the issue here.--Filll (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But of course, no admin will take such incivility to task. Mind you Fill, if you called Whig a liar....well, 96 hour block for you my boy... Shot info (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we complete the arguments on user talk pages and stay on topic here? Anthon01 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Enough of the shit. Let's address the topic.  Quite frankly, I tire of this constant homeopathetic nonsense.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; {{sup|dissera!}} 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to basics
The policy states ''Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.'' Anthon01 asked "what does this really mean in particular the appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint? What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise." My response is that this should not be read in isolation. We should representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Fair representation of the majority viewpoint means setting it out clearly, and not tucking it away elsewhere with a link. The proportion of the article describing each viewpoint will depend on how much explanation is needed to make the viewpoint clear, and isn't a matter of word counts being equally distributed or allocated in proportion to prominence of views, though care is needed to avoid giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint or giving it "equal validity" where that's inappropriate. As I stated at the outset, this policy has to be read in conjunction with other policies and guidance. .. dave souza, talk 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just look how they did it Apollo moon landings and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Both articles reference the other. S  B Harris 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was some discussion months ago about splitting things in a similar way but it was criticized as a WP:POVFORK. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was wrong. If you read WP:FORK carefully, you'll see it does NOT forbid forking in this way, so long as no information is lost, and summaries of each fork article are left in the other. Sometimes this is the only way out which pleases everybody. Politically, it's good. S  B Harris 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm fully in favor, but what forks to create with what names? Criticism of homeopathy might be appropriately neutral. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the guidance. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject should be treated in one article, and thus the homeopathy article has to show them. Where there's considerable detail, Summary style allows sections of long articles to be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary of the various viewpoints in their place, but what you're suggesting looks like a classic POV fork. .. dave souza, talk 12:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the guidance, Dave, and per Sbharris suggestion, this is precisely what the guidance seems to suggest is appropriate. Your objection is already dealt with by Sbharris. &mdash;Whig (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Apollo moon landings and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations give a good example of Summary style applied to a scientific article where the minority viewpoint is shown in a section, complete with the mainstream response to the minority viewpoint. The minority viewpoint is then dealt with in an article of its own, which takes care to comply with NPOV by making appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and avoiding presenting majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. In accordance with UNDUE significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source are shown in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and so the various minority claims are each accompanied by an explanation of the majority explanation. That's the appropriate standard for homeopathy, and if it in turn is split into sub-articles dealing with more detail, the main homeopathy article has to include summaries showing majority and minority viewpoints and the detailed article has also to show the various viewpoints appropriately. .. dave souza, talk 12:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As Sbharris suggested. &mdash;Whig (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, as you seem to be agreeing that both the main and any sub articles have to show minority claims in the context of majority explanation, what are your detailed proposals? Don't forget these proposals should be set out and discussed at the article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly previously, Wikinfo has organized itself to have separate articles for mainstream and minority views. Wikipedia has tried to organize itself around a different principle, called WP:NPOV, in which mainstream and minority views are in the same article. Notice the difference?--Filll (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just not true. If you go to an article on Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, or Scientology, you're going to get an article consisting mostly of what Mormons, Catholics, and Scientologists themselves say about their own beliefs. And smaller references to subarticles on disidents. Having Catholics describe their own beliefs, with pointers to people who disagree (ie protestants and atheists and so on), is the most nearly neutral way you can do it. What, are you going to have agnostics or Baptists write the Catholic articles? And as for numbers, no religion I know of is a majority among the Earth's 6+ billion people, so does an article on any one of them need to be filled MOSTLY with stuff about how most of the world doesn't believe MOST of what is being discussed? Which is the strict truth?? If it helps, you can think of any article on homeopathy as merely a subarticle on medical practice theories. No matter how many homeopathy articles and subarticles there are, articles on all the other medical practices will always outnumber them, and contain more words, simply because more people are interested and writing about them, and there's more to summarize. So have no fear about "weight" overall, here (I mean in the English Wikipedia). For subjects like this, THAT takes care of itself, just in the natural course of things. All we have to make sure of, is that it's summarized, linked, and connected. It's only when you focus at the individual article level that you think things are skewed. But back away, and you'll see it's not. Wikipedia is indeed skewed in terms of topics covered, but (interestingly) rarely in any nasty POV way. Actually most of the skew is due to the pop-culture interests of our rather youngish-male Wired GenX, GenY editorial staff. But there's no real POV fork as we understand it, between Star Trek and Jane Austin and Aristotle. So chill. S  B Harris 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're treating homeopathy as a religion, that works. However, it makes claims to medical credibility and so has to be considered in the context of majority views in medical science. Showing both the views of its proponents and of the wider medical community. In a broad sense it the guidance under WP:FRINGE is appropriate, and should be taken into consideration. The question of whether aspects of homeopathy are pseudoscience are a matter of contention, and the relevant parts of WP:NPOV/FAQ policy apply. .. dave souza, talk 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is completely inapposite, as homeopathy is well accepted in some countries and is used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But somehow homeopathic remedies only represent 0.3% of the market for pharmaceuticals worldwide. Sounds pretty fringey to me. Especially when homeopathic practitioners in the US represent someplace between 0.03% and 0.1% of the physicians in the US. Pretty tiny. Even in India the number of homeopaths is only 15% of the number of regular physicians, and smaller than the number Ayurvedic Medicine practioners; a distant 3rd or 4th behind regular medicine and ayurvedic medicine. So even where it is super prevalent, in India, homeopathy is not that popular and is a tiny minority form of treatment. And worldwide, forget it. They barely exist.--Filll (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, more than 99.97% of US physicians are not homeopathic physicians (counting those who are licensed). So yes, it is a FRINGE form of treatment.--Filll (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 15% prevalence in India is over a hundred and fifty million people, Filll. We've covered this already, and you promised to disengage. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's a significant minority in one country, but as discussed before the provisions of WP:FRINGE apply – "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include ... ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine....". By the way, there seems to be a higher percentage in the US thinking the moon landings were a hoax than using homeopathy, so by your logic the hoax belief is well accepted. Of course I'm not a homeopathy article regular like yourself, but I thought you were looking for outside views here? .. dave souza, talk 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the number of people using homeopathy in California is significant, not so many in Pennsylvania (surfing isn't too popular there either, nor is medical marijuana accepted there). Filll's numbers are not conceivably accurate ("99.97%"), but he makes things up so we shouldn't give any regard to it. Also, homeopathy is its own field of study, there are undoubtedly fringe practitioners but the field is not fringe. Homeopathy is not part of biochemistry, so its minority status among biochemists is inapposite as well.
 * Anyhow, back to the suggestion that we fork Criticism of homeopathy and all of the arguments against its plausibility and effectiveness can be described at great length there, with a summary and link in the main Homeopathy article. Does that seem reasonable to you? I have now proposed it on Talk:Homeopathy. &mdash;Whig (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No this would constitute a POV fork, have a look at Criticism for how criticism should be incorporated into the article. Addhoc (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just an essay, and has to do with how criticism may be handled within an article. It isn't against creating articles about criticism. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not allowed to give data? I have sources for all that. Do a litle research yourself since this is an encyclopedia, not someplace where you can just declare things to be true and we have to accept them. There are only about 300 or so licensed homeopaths in the US, and about 1000 if you count unlicensed. I find the numbers credible (which come from a paper by Dana Ullman) because in my metropolitan area of 10 million people there are only 4 parttime homeopaths (well maybe 3 and 1 fulltime, but I am not sure). The worldwide market for homeopathic pharmaceuticals is only 0.3% the size of the worldwide market for all pharmaceuticals. There are 6.5 billion people in the world market and this is not just an encyclopedia for India, which only has a paltry 1.2 billion people you know. --Filll (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your data needs to be reliably sourced to be believed at all, because you make things up. As for 1.2 billion people being a paltry number, I think that speaks for itself. &mdash;Whig (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Minority topics receive coverage in articles on themselves. The mainstream criticism is given appropriate reference. However, while it is given enough space to be clear on what it is saying, it does not need more than that. It's more a matter of being clear about things than proportion. In a situation like Homeopathy, you will have most of the material be about the history and practice, ideas behind it etc. There will be very notable objections. But they will not overwhelm the article. If the only objection to Homeopathy were that it doesn't have any chemical theory behind it, you wouldn't really need more than a few sentences. If objections are more detailed, you will need more. There is absolutely nothing in WEIGHT that says you have to give the mainstream a certain number of the words in articles about fringe subjects. Nor that an objection which is highly notable but easy (and takes little room) to explain should be given as much space as a fringe idea which is hard (and takes space) to explain. Think good writing, people. Think common sense. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems about right to me. That's why the 60/40 positive/negative breakdown that some editors are fond of has little to do with NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the Show button seems not to be working, hopefully someone can fix this if I don't figure it out first. I'd really encourage discussions of people making side bets about policy arguments be taken to user talk. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The problem is special characters markup in Martin's signature. I put  around the problem. Anthon01 (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In which case, you seemed to have missed quite a few other edits to the thread. Shot info (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to archive it. But the point there was -however childish it was to play Filll's game of dare- that SPOV is a discredited way of writing articles. We have NPOV, instead. We have WEIGHT, exactly as written:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

PROMINENCE

In terms of the homeopathy article, it is not "An Evaluation of the merits of Homeopathy". This is what certain people don't seem to understand, and they think that describing the history, events, people and beliefs relevant to a subject is always pro the subject. It is not, it is just description the way a good encyclopaedia does it. But because they don't understand description they want evaluation and nothing but evaluation-- including original research. But WP is here to describe, not debunk. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, well the proposed Criticism of homeopathy fork would allow that very thing, the evaluation of the merits of homeopathy to be set forth at as much length as the skeptics want. It would not be only their POV however, all criticism and rebuttals belong there with reliable sources. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whig, whig, whig. You can't get a rebuttal from a reliable source (-;  Yes, I think that would be a very good idea, while keeping appropriate reference in the main article.  They might evenutally be merged back with consensus.  I hear that happens sometimes. I hear it happened I think on Creationism et al.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, that does sound like a POV fork. Don't forget each article has to show all significant views on the subject, not just views promoting the subject. And, by the way, "criticism of homeopathy" isn't a separate defined subject in the way that, for example, biblical criticism is. Of course you're welcome to produce reliable sources saying otherwise. .. dave souza, talk 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I agree with Whig and Martin. Dave, in need not be a POV fork as long as the SPOV is summarized on the homeopathy page. However, looking into my crystal ball, I can editors arguing about, "appropriate reference" on the homeopathy page, which is why I first started this topic on NPOV. So, appropriate reference is text that explains the science POV, just enough to make the point clear, as opposed to a detail analysis of a multitude of individual studies. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What if describing it accurately looks like debunking? It is very hard to claim that this is a well accepted mainstream therapy with no controversy associated with it and no people who dispute its claims.--Filll (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is. "The majority of scientific research does not support the claims made by homeopathy beyond placebo." Put that in the H article and it's now been debunked as far as science is concerned. It is that easy. Anthon01 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the criticism is more extensive with more references is because people challenge it. If you put a statement like that in there without much documentation and without details, it would never survive. What proponents of FRINGE theories do not quite realize, is that when they challenge things, they get bolstered if there are WP:RS available. This has happened to the creationism articles over and over so that now it looks like we are pounding the tar out of creationism on purpose. This is not true; however, after a few years of challenges, more and more references and details are added. And pretty soon, it looks like someone just tried to slam the FRINGE position. Nope. It gets that way honestly, through FRINGE proponents who challenge every single statement.

I have seen it for example in irreducible complexity which had some statements about intelligent design. Now we did not want to document the fact that intelligent design is regarded as nonsense, pseudoscience and creationism in the irreducible complexity article, since it was already done in the intelligent design article. But intelligent design proponents attacked and attacked and challenged and edit warred. And slowly but surely irreducible complexity is getting more and more detail that is negative to intelligent design. We did not want to do it; we were forced to do it. The same is going on on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. And people complain, but the more they complain, the more of this "negative" detail gets introduced. It is that simple.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "If you put a statement like that in there without much documentation and without details, it would never survive." I was understating. More could be added with references. The statement would be part of a summary of the H criticism article. I vow to support its inclusion and permanance using the H criticism article and it's references as support. I am certain that many more moderate and even some pro-H editors would also support that move and help maintain this agreement. Anthon01 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article needs to be split as it's too large, then appropriately each viewpoint should have just enough text to make the views clear. Why so keen to hive off a "criticism" fork in what looks exactly like a POV fork? If you feel there's getting to be too much detail of evidence in the article, a more suitable split could be a detailed article on "studies of effectiveness of homeopathy", which would include both the science POV and the pseudoscience POV as appropriate. . .. dave souza, talk 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a better fork would be to spin off all the material about laws in different parts of the world and prevalence in different parts of the world. It is boring, and the main article does not have to go into such detail.--Filll (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticism fork can handle in much greater detail the modern history(past 20 years) of science research into homoepathy as the research science itself is evolving and there is a lot to cover both pro and con that would overwhelm this H article. The H article could summarize the main points of the critcism article. Anthon01 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mainly, because it is a definable topic which takes out 40% -to expand probably to 100%- of the current space of the article, which happens to be too large, from the looks of it. It would stop the pressure for undue Weight in the current article as well. That is enough information for a whole article, and we have people who want to write it. See you in  a few days.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)