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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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
- Why do there have to be "sides" represented at all? Why not just present the facts about what is found in a belief system and let the reader decide? I dislike articles in wikipedia that have a he-said/she-said feel about them.
Well, I tried to summarize what you added and removed the long quote, but if you don't agree with what I did, then return it back to the way it was. I am not interested in getting into another fight over another article.
Sorry, you deleted critical information. Neither the nature of the quote nor its content prohibits inclusion according to the criteria of an encyclopedia. As I said, the best way to "balance" the article, if proponents of homeopathy find the current article unbalanced, is to add additional information, including quotes (which may well criticize the other side).
Why do there have to be "sides" represented at all? Why not just present the facts about what is found in a belief system and let the reader decide?
Because people disagree about what the facts are. I believe that Wikipedia should not be postmodernist and acknowledge that there is an objective reality which can be approximated, everything else would doom this project to failure. However, different perspectives on a subject deserve to be acknowledged where reasonable people may disagree. For example, I do not find "flat earth theory" worth including in the "geology" node, but only because its very premise rejects science altogether. Homeopathy at least pretends to be scientific, and this pretense must be adequately treated. --Eloquence
Please don't fight, boys. I also strongly disbelieve in homeopathy, possibly as strongly as LDC disbelieves in creationism. Yet the best way to show homeopathy up for the crock it is, is to give it the most sympathetic explanation possible; then, follow up with a concise paragraph explaining its unscientific basis. --
Ed Poor, reformed axe-grinder
Ed: I see no reason to be unnecessarily concise either in presentation or rebuttal. Adequacy is essential, not brevity. --
Eloquence
(from rev. 11):
Proponents argue, however, that homeopathy is, in fact, effective.
This can't really be given as a serious argument. Homeopathy has not *proven* itself - both sides would probably agree that. This would simply be their opinion. Critics could then argue "that homeopathy is, in fact, not effective" etc...
-- sodium
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)