Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

m

Line 336:

: This is some very dedicated research, Alice1818. Unfortunately, since there are ''so many'' scientific journal papers about homeopathy, the difficulty with this article is how to summarize the present state of research in a way that gives appropriate weight to the variety of different results. Assigning the appropriate weight to different studies is beyond our purview as Wikipedia editors. We certainly can't settle it in a debate on a talk page. Would you be willing to track down some secondary sources that cover homeopathy research ''as a whole'' neutrally and authoritatively? For more information about why scientific journal papers are generally not preferred on Wikipedia, please take a look at [[WP:PRIMARY]]. —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] ([[User talk:BenKovitz|talk]]) 23:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

::<small>Erm, actually, please see the "basic advice" contained in [[WP:MEDRS]] (ie [[WP:MEDREV]], [[WP:MEDSCI]], [[WP:MEDASSESS]], etc). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (the bulk of the sources under discussion in this thread) are considered secondary rather than primary sources, even though they are studies in their own right. WP:MEDRS also advises on how to [[Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence|davoid providing ated information]] (a relevant issue in this thread): ''Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.''<p> —[[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)</small>

: OK - yes, yes, yes, we've all read those conclusions. Not one single editor here agrees with your assertions - and, trust me, we've all seen those three articles before and we've discussed them here in the past. The bottom line is that you don't have consensus for the kind of change you're demanding - and your repeated arguments are not new - and they aren't changing anyone's minds. With no consensus and no prospect of getting a consensus, you must understand that your proposed changes don't get into the article...period.