Talk:Microdosing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 26 March 2009

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I dispute the neutrality of this article, it reads more like a cross between an advert and anti-vivisectionist propaganda. I am not implying that this is junk science, just that the writing overstates the benefit of the technique Colostomyexplosion (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I agree and have removed many of the sections that I believe are promotional in nature. I recognise that i have added a lot of need citation tags but feel that without them unverified information might be given too much credence by a reader in an article that may be mainly promotion for a particular corporate interest or product.[reply]

Revision as of 11:51, 21 September 2008 edit Colostomyexplosion (talk \| contribs) 43 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:51, 26 March 2009 edit undo 131.251.134.152 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I dispute the neutrality of this article, it reads more like a cross between an advert and anti-vivisectionist propaganda. I am not implying that this is junk science, just that the writing overstates the benefit of the technique [[User:Colostomyexplosion\|Colostomyexplosion]] ([[User talk:Colostomyexplosion\|talk]]) 11:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)		I dispute the neutrality of this article, it reads more like a cross between an advert and anti-vivisectionist propaganda. I am not implying that this is junk science, just that the writing overstates the benefit of the technique [[User:Colostomyexplosion\|Colostomyexplosion]] ([[User talk:Colostomyexplosion\|talk]]) 11:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
			I agree and have removed many of the sections that I believe are promotional in nature. I recognise that i have added a lot of need citation tags but feel that without them unverified information might be given too much credence by a reader in an article that may be mainly promotion for a particular corporate interest or product.