Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion

message: "Current lead" can be found at Talk:Homeopathy/LEADdiscussion/current lead  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientizzle (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

message: My suggestions:
*The LEAD should be as short as possible and simple as possible 
*The LEAD should use simple language
*The first paragraph should summarize most of the article. 
*The first sentence should say what homeopathy is, as simply as possible. 
*The LEAD must include most material of the article in summary form. 
*The LEAD must include material describing homeopathy and material critical of homeopathy
*The first paragraph must include material describing homeopathy and material critical of homeopathy.  
*The first sentence must include material describing homeopathy and material critical of homeopathy.
*The LEAD, first paragraph and first sentence must describe what is unique and different about homeopathy. 
*Details do not belong in the LEAD, and even less in the first paragraph and the first sentence
*The LEAD should be vague. The first paragraph should be more vague. The first sentence should be most vague. 
*Comments about how popular homeopathy is in the first few sentences are probably not helpful.
*Comments about how homeopathy is viewed as quackery etc in the first few sentences are probably not helpful
*Comments about how homeopathy violates the known laws of chemistry and physics in the first few sentences are probably not helpful 
*Comments describing in detail the opposition of allopaths in the first few sentences are probably not helpful
*Detailed descriptions of potentization, succussion, trituration etc in the first few paragraphs are probably too detailed
*Long unfamiliar words or jargon like potentization, succussion, trituration, miasma, tincture etc in the LEAD are probably too detailed and confusing. 
*Discussions of double blind studies in the first paragraph are probably too detailed.
*The word "controversial" is succinct, accurate and is descriptive, and is not excessively critical by itself. 
*Hahnemann is an important figure, but he does not need to be in the first sentence or two, and his relationship to homeopathy should be described carefully but without a lot of detail
*Maybe the word "dilution" is too controversial to use in the first paragraph
*We should compare the homeopathy descriptions from other sources like other dictionaries etc --Filll (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filll's guiding principles for LEAD

message: First, the first paragraph:
 --Filll (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fair enough. That is a first attempt. I want to talk about how it is popular among some groups and in some parts of the world (like India, and maybe some places in Europe), but less popular in other areas (seems to be of decreasing interest in the US over the last 100 years).--Filll (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filll's suggestion 1 for LEAD

message: Leads are supposed to be concise. I believe a simple and well written one paragraph lead - instead of 3 paragraphs - is sufficient, as long as all major elements of the article are included in that lead paragraph. Incorporating suggestions and comments from Filll, Peter morrell, and Friarslantern, as well as the Five Wikipedia Core Polices, here is my suggestion:
I await your comments. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several problems with it. First, I am not sure it will pass WP:MOS. Second, I think that the first few sentences should be quite accessible. Introducing things like "Law of Similars" and tinctures and potentized are really just not going to fly with a regular audience. We are not writing for homeopaths here. The word remedy is used in a strange way of course, using the homeopath's definition. System of therapeutics is too complicated for the first couple of sentences. The article must have a good measure of mainstream discussion and viewpoint, and the LEAD must summarize that. So at least a third of the LEAD must discuss such matters. And although I think we can live with minimal discussion of it in the first couple of paragraphs except maybe a nod to "controversial", the third paragraph should discuss the mainstream view. --Filll (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. There are many FAs with leads of roughly the same size as the current one for Homeopathy; and given the size of the article and the breadth of coverage, a decent-sized lead is appropriate. This version eliminates much of the positives of the current version (decent WEIGHT distribution, limited jargon, etc.) to a more esoteric version that especially lacks any teeth regarding the claims of skeptics. — Scientizzle 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEAD PARAGRAPH draft: Arion version 3 - taking into account views stated above