User talk:Scottporad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Homeopathy question
Hi, Scott. Usually a member of the Welcoming Committee leaves a message for new participants, but as they're apparently a little behind, I copied and modified one of the form messages:
Hi Scottporad, and welcome to Wikipedia.
Thank you for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:
- Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
- The help center and FAQs
- The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions
- Wikipedia:Glossary - if you run into any jargon you don't understand
It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.
When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~>. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.
But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!
OK, end of form intro. :)
Now, as to your point about Homeopathy: Yes, one could say that anything is controversial, but some are much more controversial than others. I think it's appropriate to make clear immediately that homeopathy is controversial, given that it's not accepted by the scientific establishment. To introduce it as a "system", without qualification, would give a false impression. An example from outside medical sciences: If you look at punctuated equilibrium, which is one version of evolution, you see it's characterized as a "theory", because some scientists support it and some don't. I don't think homeopathy rises even to that level.
There's also a particular concern among many people at Wikipedia about appearing to give medical advice. We have a standard disclaimer, but I think it's especially important that we not appear to give an imprimatur to medical views that don't conform to the prevailing professional standards for treatment. That may explain why we give more prominence to the controversial nature of homeopathy than to that of, for example, astrology. JamesMLane 00:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
