This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gerson therapy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Archive 1: 2005-2006
Archive 2: February 2007-
I have rewritten the article a bit for NPOV. Previously, it started with 'The pseudoscientific Gerson therapy.' Writing like this won't convince anyone. The criticisms speak for themselves if they are allowed to do so.
Also, there need to be sources for this article. Merkinsmum 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have moved a bit about developments made by later practitioners, to the section named 'developments,' and added somewhere references to decent sources can go if and when they are found. Merkinsmum 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a tag requesting that the article be checked for neutrality. Anchoress 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
the bolded section of following is original research
the article cited does not speculate whether this fee indicates any profit motive behind the therapy, so i'm assuming this is the editor's view-- Mongreilf ( talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the two shouldn't be merged, but I'm interested in a discussion, if any. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge - Gerson diet seems to be a POV fork. Considering that there's not really any sourced info in the article and dubious statements (see discussion above), I suggest merging the 'reading' section and deleting the rest. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
These look like the same thing to me. I think they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.136.153 ( talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged. The other talk page is still over there; I guess we just leave it? ImpIn | ( t - c) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gerson therapy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Archive 1: 2005-2006
Archive 2: February 2007-
I have rewritten the article a bit for NPOV. Previously, it started with 'The pseudoscientific Gerson therapy.' Writing like this won't convince anyone. The criticisms speak for themselves if they are allowed to do so.
Also, there need to be sources for this article. Merkinsmum 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have moved a bit about developments made by later practitioners, to the section named 'developments,' and added somewhere references to decent sources can go if and when they are found. Merkinsmum 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a tag requesting that the article be checked for neutrality. Anchoress 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
the bolded section of following is original research
the article cited does not speculate whether this fee indicates any profit motive behind the therapy, so i'm assuming this is the editor's view-- Mongreilf ( talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the two shouldn't be merged, but I'm interested in a discussion, if any. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge - Gerson diet seems to be a POV fork. Considering that there's not really any sourced info in the article and dubious statements (see discussion above), I suggest merging the 'reading' section and deleting the rest. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
These look like the same thing to me. I think they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.136.153 ( talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged. The other talk page is still over there; I guess we just leave it? ImpIn | ( t - c) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)