| Revision as of 00:00, 12 December 2001 editEloquence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,329 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:05, 12 December 2001 edit undoSodium (talk | contribs)816 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| It is now up to the homeopathy folks to present an actual reasonable argument <I>for</I> homeopathy, including citations (please!). ] | It is now up to the homeopathy folks to present an actual reasonable argument <I>for</I> homeopathy, including citations (please!). ] | ||
| ---- | |||
| I totally agree. There *is* a big debate over the value of homeopathy and it should be represented in the article. The fact that one side is properly represented now should be seen as better than having no sides properly represented before, eventually the NPOV should sort itself out. -- ] | |||
Revision as of 00:05, 12 December 2001
I added the link to faith healing because both treatments rely substantially on belief (though not necessarily religious belief) in order for the treatments to work, as well as the rejection of modern medical techniques. Is this not relevant? -- sodium
Well, I think homeopathy proponents would disagree with you that homeopathy relies on faith. They consider it to be scientifically valid. I think that a link to alternative medicine would be appropriate, though.
Ah, yet another illustration of what is wrong with Misplaced Pages. We had an article on homeopathy that attempted to be balanced, and I think it succeeded. Then, a series of changes were added with no interest in pursuing NPOV, complete with a long quotation from another work attacking thesubject, is added to the article. However, since deleting text is a faux pas in Misplaced Pages, the added text is just supposed to stand as it is and instead, presumably, for the sake of balance anyone who wants to restore a semblance of NPOV here would have to put in an equal amount of text that served as a rebuttal, so that both sides would have an equal amount of text. This does not make for an encyclopedia article.
- So revert it if you want. There's no official policy against doing so. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 11
- I got attacked for doing that in the feminism article. I am not even a proponent of homeopathy, but I am not about to get into another war of deletion and addition.
This does not make for an encyclopedia article.
You are incorrect. The only way to handle controversies in an encyclopedia properly is to present both sides of the controversy to the extent to which this is reasonably possible. The original article ignored facts and was therefore incomplete.
What is undesirable is to have this presentation in the form "Party X argues that .. party Y replies that .. party X responds taht .." -- if such paragraphs become the norm, the article should be split into separate pro and contra positions which can be read independently.
It is now up to the homeopathy folks to present an actual reasonable argument for homeopathy, including citations (please!). Eloquence
I totally agree. There *is* a big debate over the value of homeopathy and it should be represented in the article. The fact that one side is properly represented now should be seen as better than having no sides properly represented before, eventually the NPOV should sort itself out. -- sodium