Template talk:Homeopathy/Warning

I see a potential problem. "Glass" is homeopathy-related, as there is more residual glass in homeopathic preparations than there is the actual material (CF - Thuja), but this prohibition should apply to Thuja and not to glass. There needs to be a neutral statement that makes it clear that the existance of this prohibition is not a statement that homeopathic-related information be included in the article. I don't know how to artfully word this. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The template will go where ever there are homeopathy-related disruptions. If there is no disruption or no homeopathy, there will be no template, per common sense. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So homeopathic POV-pushers, when they decide an article is relevant to homeopathy and start to talk about homeopathy on a completely unrelated page (like Rue) will get to decide which articles are related to homeopathy then? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If disruptive editing spreads to unrelated articles, then those articles' talk pages will be tagged so that the disruptive editors can be banned from editing them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I will edit the tag accordingly since such articles will not be related to homeopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to edit the tag for that reason. Whether something is related to homeopathy may debatable. We construe "related" broadly to include these debatable topics. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE TRUST ME. If you have a tag that declares an article is related to homeopathy there WILL BE USERS who say that this means the community has consensus that the article is related to homeopathy. This is not the intention of the tag. Please see my edit: I don't think there is anything controversial about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN if you want to change the wording, please. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:ANI report is now archived. Please discuss here. There is no reason to start a new report since this isn't about administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The current wording is wrong. Homeopathy articles that have not been disrupted yet are still covered. Please revert to the formulation that was approved by the community. Any editor who makes a content assertion based on this tag will get a warning, and if they persist, they will be subjected to an editing restriction. If somebody asserts a topic is related to homeopathy, then that topic can be tagged to prevent disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So what if I assert that every article at Wikipedia is related to homeopathy? Does that mean the entire encyclopedia automatically goes on probation? We have to have a standard, man. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be disruption to make a point and you would get banned or blocked rather quickly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheatgrass and Quackwatch

Is this a homeopathy topic? Also, as Quackwatch is an "enemy" of Homeopathy, it seems that should be covered as well. I added the template to a couple of articles and User:Anthon01 seemed to take issue with that. Lawrence § t/e 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You might consider changing the template name from homeopathy to alt-med topics or Alleged Psueodscience-related topics. That would cover all the pages that you are placing warnings on. Anthon01 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it is written, I can see this argument unfolding, based on the events of the last few weeks. User:X cites Generic Reference Work when editing the Generic Plant article to say that it is "used in homeopathic preperations". User:Yy reverts, stating in the edit summary: "rv POV-pushing'". User:Xx reverts back to his version, (edit summary: "rv vandalism"). User:Zee comes along sees the controversy about homeopathy, and adds the Homeopathy/Warning tag. User:Yy will subsequently argue that the Generic Plant article is unrelated to Homeopathy, therefore the warning does not apply. I honestly do not believe in Clairvoyance yet I think in this instance I may have seen the future, even if I have the details wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

J. H. Christ

It is long convention in Arbitration cases and the related enforcement thereof that "X and related articles" is broadly interpreted. That is, if someone is banned from editing "Elvis Pressley and related articles," the ban would apply if that editor went to a previously unrelated article, say Peanut butter, and tried to add a long section about Elvis' favorite fried PB and banana sandwich against the consensus of other editors. So, if someone went to the article Glass (which currently does not mention homeopathy) and added information about the role of glass in preparing homeopathic remedies (as opposed to plastic), or how certain kinds of glass were better than others, that article would become "related" and would fall under the terms of the probation, meaning editors who were disruptive in their editing behavior could be placed on 1RR or banned from the article. Ditto for articles on plants or other ingredients of homeopathic preparations where editors wish to add or expand discussion of same.

I want to stress that this is long-term convention in Arbitration enforcement matters, and this is how I would interpret the community-applied probation regardless of the specific wording used in the noticebox. I also add that edit warring over the noticebox itself, or its placement and removal at various articles, falls under the same probation restrictions. Use whatever wording you wish to accurately convey the meaning of the community-applied probation. We need not be prolix for prolixity's sake, but we should not be so imprecise that we leave editors of either camp a loophole to try and avoid sanction. Stopping disruptive behavior is the key; explain it any way you want, but for heaven's sake try to figure it out with edit-warring over the wording of the warning. Good grief. Thatcher 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you are saying that this warning template itself falls under the community probation, correct? Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly any disruptive edits to the template or as far as adding and subtracting articles is likely to be a problem. Thatcher 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, please, did you mean to say: "for heaven's sake try to figure it out without edit-warring over the wording of the warning"? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Approve

As a note, I think SA's changes to the template were exactly what we needed, and I do not see edit warring on the template page, rather constructive editing. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for now. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

unduly promoting a minority viewpoint

I suggest a little more wording for this template to make is more clear. There are a lot of alternative medicine promoters on Wikipedia attempting to include and promote a minority viewpoint against WP:NPOV policy. A minority viewpoint should be limited and and not overwhelm any article. Something about unduly promoting a minority viewpoint in this template may work. Quack Guru 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the standard is disruptive editing. People who promote minority viewpoints but who are willing and able to work within the system are entirely welcome. Thatcher 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am saying for editors who unduly include a large representation of a minority viewpoint against Wikipedia policy. See WP:WEIGHT. Quack Guru 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)