Talk:Gerson therapy
| 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. |
NPOV and Sources edit
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)
references/sections edit
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)
Neutrality check edit
I've added a tag requesting that the article be checked for neutrality. Anchoress 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
or/speculation removed edit
the bolded section of following is original research
- The Guardian has reported that the main clinic of the Gerson Institute in Mexico charges $4900 per week for the therapy, a possible indication that this therapy is a purely profit-driven industry.
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)
Merge with Gerson diet edit
Discussion edit
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)
- After checking the other article, it seems like a POV fork. It makes several inflammatory claims (the 'known deaths' for example) and makes one statement I know to be inaccurate (minimum cooking). Support merging. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pro merge edit
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)
- Merge, and the sooner the better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge.
Personally I'd prefer to call it the Gerson diet, as that is more descriptive of what it is actually about.Nevermind, I see they add coffee enemas to that, which makes it more than a diet, and call it a therapy. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Con merge edit
Merge finished edit
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)