Talk:Neural therapy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neural therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

German Wikipedia

There exists a better article in the german wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuraltherapie Jcbohorquez 06:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)JCBohorquez[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Quackwatch a suitable reference?

Quackwatch seems to collate information they claim refutes a number of alternative therapies. There are two issues that make me ask whether it is suitable as a reference in Wikipedia:

1. The site is clearly biased, with a goal of "Investigating questionable claims". This approach often leads to selective reporting on items that agree with the goals of the organisation, and ignores information that disagrees with them.

2. Many of the articles were written by a Dr Barrett. The articles seem to have been written based on information gleaned from the internet and other unreliable sources. It appears that Dr Barrett has no actual experience with many of the therapies he criticises. He also selectively reports on people who have had no success with the therapy, but does not report on people who have had success.

Wikipedia prides itself on being credible and having authoritative references. I do not believe that Quackwatch is an authoritative source. Davidmorr (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:QUACKS and WP:FRIND. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Resident Scholarly Activity WikiMed Project

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 December 2021 and 31 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CharltonDiaz (article contribs).