Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 achieved by including all points of view in rough proportion to their prominence, including negative views, critical views, mainstream views etc. This is neutral, in that it describes the various points of view without favoring any one in particular.
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.
11. Homeopathy is not a FRINGE belief at all. It is not fair to call it a FRINGE belief.
Homeopathy is definitely a FRINGE treatment by almost any measure:
-
- the homeopathy share of world drug market is 0.3% [1]
- money spent per person on medical items in the US in 2004 is 5267$ [2]
- money spent per person in the US on all herbals including homeopathy is 54$ [3]
- there were 315 professional homeopaths in the US in 1993, but counting lay homeopaths (unlicensed), maybe over 1000 [4] ( there were only 50-100 homeopaths in the US in the early 70s [5]) compared with 884,000 regular physicians in the US in 2006 [6]
Even in India, where about 15-20% of the medical professionals are homeopaths, homeopathy is 3rd or 4th behind regular medicine and ayurvedic medicine. In numerous European countries in the last few years, like the UK and Switzerland, government support for homeopathic treatments has been decreased as study after study have failed to show its efficacy.
12. Homeopathy is a blatant fraud and quackery. Why are my warnings about this removed?
Wikipedia articles should be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide. The reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions. Inserting inflammatory language does not forward the encyclopedia and it should only be done if it can be supported from a reliable source and if it serves the purpose of improving the article. It should already be clear for the reader that homeopathy is completely unsupported by scientific evidence.
