Talk:Lathi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
|
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.
Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Inida may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] Caduceus
I removed the reference to Kundalini: "This is the basis for the caduceus, the medical doctor’s symbol of two crossed snakes that weave upward." The caduceus is based on the staff of Hermes. Of course, if I'm wrong and a citation can be given showing it, please feel free to reinsert the statement.
Septegram 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please try for unbiased, neutral approach in writing. (refers to my recent edit)
I added a few words that I feel go a long way towards making this article more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Previously it stated that the practice has strong healing properties, something that absolutely does not belong in an encyclopedia without proper supporting references. I am NOT claiming it does not, only that the burden of proof falls on those claiming it does, and that they should provide evidence, preferably of robust scientific studies showing the results. Otherwise, please keep away from strait out claims. I attempted to do this by adding "Practitioners believe..." My goal was to put the claim in proper light without in any way invalidating it. I'm not criticizing the practice at all, btw.
It can be very hard to write unbiased articles about things we feel strongly about, but it is therefor all the more vital for the health, usability and success of this site that we do so. Anything spiritual, political, religious, involving ethics or morals, etc. deserve extra care when covering for this very reason. Please consider what the results would be if everyone just wrote about topics without attempting to step back and write at an unbiased level... it would simply be what we see in the rest of the internet - a huge collection of basically useless propaganda, instead of a reasonably trusted source (assuming one knows when and how to appropriately place that trust!) I've certainly been guilty of that very mistake, but I try not to.
Thank you --Fitzhugh 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're being very kind to this article. I'm not so tolerant of articles written as advertisements for someone's personal POV. I consider this a form of vandalism. I've removed all the obvious pure POV statements that seem unlikely to ever be cited, leaving just the small set of statements that actually sound like they belong in an encyclopedia. I've also added an unreferenced tag, since most of the remaining statements are not obviously true, and definitely require references. Xezlec (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
