From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning homeopathy.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Former good article Homeopathy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

excessive Negative Claims[edit]

The article is bloated out in the lead itself, on why not to use it and also what is wrong with it. I am not claiming it is right or wrong, but the article is not balanced and is leaning towards one side. the references seems to be cherry picked and there is no mention who claims what but a blank statement suggesting that the it is wikipedia's point of view ! not a encyclopedic material by any stretch Shrikanthv (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia "leans towards" reliable sources in accordance with the WP:PAGs, and the article does this well after a lot of hard work by many editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please also see the archives (this claim is perennial), such as Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_63#Homeopathy_is_effective. To complement what Alexbrn said, note that WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE are not about representing all point of views with the same weight. We must report about what the reliable sources say, not our personal opinions; the weight given to claims must also correlate with what those experts wrote. Without this quality control, Wikipedia would become a collection of fringe claims and a vehicle for promotion, rather than an encyclopedia. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Also see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. —PaleoNeonate - 08:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Do not take me for wrong I do not have any preferences, and have been editing in wiki for long time but in other fields like biography, war, history.. I see your concerns about fringe claims by "new" found doctors but I think we have to divide the personnels, institutes with the actual subject itself. I am unable to read it!, it just contains affirmation and denials in single sentences. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Where? And to what would you like to change the affirmations and denials? If you have been editing for a while, you presumably have sufficient editing privliges to change these issues yourself, provided that there really are differences between the cited text and the sources from which they are drawn. Edaham (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)