Talk:Human Design System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I created the original post for this subject for a few reasons. First, the subject matter seemed broad enough to me to appeal to a large audience - anyone interested in any of a variety of metaphysical, mystical, or behavioral topics would probably like to at least be aware of this relative newcomer.
Second I noticed that really a lot of web pages on the subject had appeared in the past couple of years indicating that HD was beginning to proliferate at an expononetial rate. There are lots of organizations and analysts with web pages now.
I didn't include links to my own site or to any other sites because all of them are, frankly, commercial sites. (OK, I was tempted, but I resisted). I think that if links to commercial sites appear in the entry it devalues the worth of the entry, meaning that this entry on HD will simply look like a way to make money. I think HD is much more than that of course.
I don't control Wiki, so it's not my decision as to what does or does not belong here. Neither do I anticipate playing the role of hall monitor. That said, it really seems to me that the entry here should be constrained to factual information about the general body of knowledge that is HD. Wbsikip 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The article lacks any criticism. --Nina 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I simply supplied the facts about a particular movement. I didn't supply an endorsement. What kind of criticism would one normally expect in such a situation? Would you like to see, for example, a statement that says there is no objective scientific evidence to support any claims made by the system? Wbsikip 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I read this again and it could come across as sounding harsh or defensive, but I don't mean it that way. I really do want to know what kind of criticism would be appropriate when offering obervation about something that is. If I were to provide, for example, a short blurb about the book Treasure Island, what kind of criticism should be included that would reflect something other than my opinion?Wbsikip 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
