Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (→In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward: changes to the intro) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Too pro-homeopathy an introduction, or, more correctly, lacking the intensity of objections to it by medicine) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Sorry, Matt, but that introduction is far too weak. There isn't any mention of disagreement by physicians until the third paragraph, and the issues about the danger of such things as homeopathic treatment of asthma remain buried. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:35, 2 September 2009
In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward
I think we bit off more than we could chew when we tried to make some needed adjustments to the current approved version of Homeopathy by making too many changes at once. Ideally, I think the process should take it one step at a time. I've looked at the history of changes and have reverted to the first group of changes that were made mostly to the science sections by our science editors. This was the version number 100486956 dated 12:27, 12 May, 2009I then replace the intro with the intro from tha already approved article, because that seemed to be something that was agreeable to we three editors that approved the article initially. I then added a slightly stronger statement about why science finds it hard to support. Hopefully, that would lead to a more likely chance of getting the incremental changes that would be improvements rather than total rewrites. I thought this might be a rational place to start.
From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Matt, but that introduction is far too weak. There isn't any mention of disagreement by physicians until the third paragraph, and the issues about the danger of such things as homeopathic treatment of asthma remain buried. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)