On 12/09/03 at 04:31 AM, Robert Graham Merkel <rgmerk(a)mira.net> said:
Whilst that edit summary may have been unwise, I
don't think the edit I
made was unreasonable. In fact, did you bother to read the edit that
comment was attached to?
Yes, of course I did.
Basically, I take the view that articles should
generally be written in
"news style" with a very quick summary of the most pertinent facts at
the top, and then dealing with each point in more detail later.
I completely agree and strive for the same in the articles I write.
Now, as it happens, the majority medical/scientific
view on alternative
medicine, whether the proponents of alternative medicine like it or not,
is that most of it is at best ineffective New Age mysticism that
generates strong placebo effects, or at worst a particularly cruel fraud
on very sick people with nothing to lose. They may be wrong, but I
believe that to be an accurate summary of a majority of doctors' views,
and I don't think there's terribly much dispute on that.
Sorry, it isn't an accurate summary. It is a crass generalization which
reflects a hidden POV and doesn't belong in an encyclodia.
For the record: I am NOT a proponent of alternative medicine. Like many
people in the part of the world where I live, at times I have recourse to
mainstream medicine, and times to alternative, depending on the
affliction. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
What I actually said in the article, in the fourth
paragraph, was
something along the lines of
"mainstream Western medicine views most alternative medicine as either
[[pseudoscience]] or [[quackery]]". In other words, a quick summary of
a sentiment expanded greatly later on in the article.
Yes, I know, I saw this. I thought it completely blind to reality; a
wretched lapse of NPOV. That is why we are discussing it here.
So, in essence, I think my edit was quite reasonable
and in good faith,
and my edit summary was an accurate (if indelicate) summary of the
content of my edit and my reasoning.
In good faith, I have no doubt. But in no way reasonable.
Read the relevant edit in full
next time before making unjustified claims.
A completely superfluous rejoinder.
V.