Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Ethnomedicine

Ethnomedicine
This book is a bunch of folk remedies and "old wives' tales." I don't see how this has any place as a textbook. (However, some of it could be rewritten into a text on folklore?) --PurplePieman 06:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - now there's a novelty. OK it needs work (page naming apart from anything else) but anyone who doesn't take the research info on Green Tea for example as pretty serious has failed to keep up to date (that doesn't mean all the topics are equally good) -- Herby  talk thyme 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although a few (uncited) studies are mentioned, this book is definitely written from the POV of herbalism, which is more interested in traditional remedies than ones that are scientifically proven. I doubt that the class this textbook is written for would be in a normal university. If this book is allowed, then we should also allow books on chakras, crystal power, energy healing, etc.PurplePieman 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably even ones on Satanism  -- Herby talk thyme 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Wikibooks differentiates between making statements about what people believe, and presenting those beliefs as fact. That's a part of having NPOV, if I'm not mistaken. PurplePieman 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - looks like it might be some sort of class project given the number of contributors -- Herby talk thyme 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - As with Herby this book could be classed as a textbook and is a topic which interests many people. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Needs massive amounts of work, but "ethnobotany" is an important field of study ("ethnomedicine" is a new term to me). -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that with proper citations and possibly a link to another book dealing with more typical remedies (I'm not sure if we have any books on medicine\physical health)in order to reveal the fact that there are multiple alternatives, the book would be compliant with NPOV. Yes, the book advocates the use of medicines for healing purposes, and this would need citations in order to be validated (if you could find proper citations for energy healing and crystal power, they would be fine as well IMO, after all we have a book on lucid dreaming), but with the citations it would be just as valid as a book on Western medicine. I'm sure that there have been studies to show that "traditional" methods can be just as effective as Western remedies. Or we could argue that the book is simply stating what the traditional uses are, not necessarily advocating the use in that manner, which could be useful for example in an anthropology class studying the use of natural resources. If the tone of the book was changed to a more factual tone it would satisfy policy requirements IMO and therefore we should work towards that end rather than deleting the book. Mattb112885 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is tough to keep in mind sometimes that we are less concerned with "fact" then we are with verifiability. It may be difficult to prove that herbal remedies work as well as modern medicines (if they can even be shown to work at all), but it is easy to show that people study this subject, and use these remedies in practice. I would recommend a prominent placement of Content Disclaimer. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment This is a classroom assignment for Anthropology 201 at Western Washington University. Please do not delete this entry or we will not get credit for this assignment. Thank you Snedkerangela
 * Strong Keep From an anthro standpoint, the study and documentation of these remedies is valuable whether they work or not. So long as it is written from an anthropological perspective it seems like a strong keep to me. -- xixtas talk 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs editing for spelling, apostrophe's [sic], grammar, and factual correctness, but has value nonetheless. I look forward to seeing it develop. Webaware talk 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Clear consensus to keep, no votes against, excluding the nomination. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)