User:Dogweather: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dogweather (talk | contribs) |
Dogweather (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{User:UBX/Twitter|dogweather}} |
| {{User:UBX/Twitter|dogweather}} |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| {{User WikiProject |
| {{User WikiProject Nevada}} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
In the real world, I'm a [http://www.weblaws.org/robb/about/ law student and software engineer]. I create [http://www.oregonlaws.org/ online resources] that provide better access to the law and government information. |
|||
On Wikipedia, I'm using my German language and critical thinking skills to help reduce [[WP:NPOV]] problems and increase the quality of the articles. |
|||
== Who says law school is worthless? == |
|||
'''A question was asked:''' "[Regarding whether to include British doctors' consensus that homeopathy is witchcraft.] Probably not notable until it actually becomes BMA policy, though? . . ." |
|||
'''My answer:''' ''Notability'' pertains to "whether a topic merits its own article", not the viewpoints within an article. ([[WP:Notability]]) For viewpoints within an article, ''Due Weight'' and ''Neutrality'' are the guiding principles. They mandate fair representation of "all [1] significant viewpoints that have been [2] published by a reliable source, and should do so [3] in proportion to the prominence of each." ([[WP:UNDUE]]) Here, the viewpoint that "homeopathy is witchcraft" is significant (1), the Scotland Herald is reliable (2), and the story makes clear that this is the majority view of physicians, and thus by proportion it can be thoroughly mentioned in the article (3). Dogweather (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:06, 5 April 2018
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
| ||
| ||
|
