18:0518:05, 14 December 2012diffhist−6
Homeopathy
Changed wording to more NPOV, the previous text made it look as if positive trials WERE NOT systematic reviews (they were).
17:3517:35, 14 December 2012diffhist−19
Homeopathy
Removed Adler reference (an obvious example of WP double standards) - does not meet WP:MEDRS and the therapy in question is absolutely not homeopathy (bioresonance and whatnot)
16:2816:28, 14 December 2012diffhist+4
Homeopathy
Homeopathy does not consider diseases, but symptoms of diseases, whatever their names, according to Hahnemann's Organon.
15:1115:11, 14 December 2012diffhist+4
Homeopathy
Homeopathy does not consider diseases, but symptoms of diseases, whatever their names, according to Hahnemann's Organon.
15:1015:10, 14 December 2012diffhist+558
Homeopathy
The addition says, "homeopaths claim". Are you saying that André Saine is not a homeopath, did not say what the text says or his view does not represent view of other homeopaths? See the talk page.
15:0315:03, 14 December 2012diffhist+558
Homeopathy
Adding significant point of view by Dr. André Saine, a prominent homeopath. I hope that a homeopath's point of view is at least somewhat significant, rather than POVs of people who never studied homeopathy.
14:2114:21, 14 December 2012diffhist+2,063
Homeopathy
NPOV - representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Are you saying those view are from unreliable sources or they are not significant?
14:1214:12, 14 December 2012diffhist+2,063
Homeopathy
Undid revision SteveBaker - please explain why this content had to be removed. Is there some consensus on Wikipedia that no pro-homeopathy references are allowed?