Talk:NAET

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This page needs to be edited. It is incorrect, and unfortunately very biased. Needs to looked over. Shouldn't present opinions as facts as it does. Should be completely objective. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.136.133 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 7 July 2006.

Please do not remove references simply because you disagree with them. The current state of this article represents the current literature available on Google scholar. You're very welcome to alter the article if you can find supporting, peer reviewed references from other sources. So far a reasonable search has only uncovered this much. Please read WP:V. Which in a nutshell states:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles
if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever
possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

And WP:NOR

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any
new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Also WP:NPOV

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This
includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.

I agree that currently this article does not conform to the No point of view policy totally. But without further verifiable information the medical literature can only be balanced with NAET's own claims. This is not a position I am happy with but until NAET submit scholarly sources that can be referenced this is how the facts stand. --Monotonehell 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding in-article vandalism

Simply complaining about something doesn't fix it. This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. I've attempted to balance the bias with quotes from NAET's own website. This is far from acceptable, but with absolutley no evidence from either the western medical nor alternate medical communities we can only view NAET by what they claim on their website and what their educated detractors claim. --Monotonehell 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)