Talk:Homeopathy/POV tag refactored

POV tag here despite no discussion.sciencewatcher
 * Article has improved, but tag still justified. Encyclopedia Britannica explains what homeopathy is, and Wikipedia mostly explains why it is stupid. Thinks that plausibility discussions and unrelated criticism should not dominate the article. Agrees with downgrading to a POV intro tag; problem is mostly of lede. Hans Adler
 * Points out archives contain many unresolved discussions. Believes whole article contains POV. Colonel Warden
 * Asks for specific problem. Verbal
 * Agrees with Hans Adler and Colonel. Adds that notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230 JeanandJane
 * Opposes NPOV tag. Thinks there is too much "he-said-she-said" style narrative. Points out weaknesses in homeopathic theory and likes Wikipedia's version compared to most descriptions on the internet.Guy
 * Supports removal of NPOV tag, per SW and JzG. Verbal
 * Asks editors for specific examples of POV, saying this tag not for WP:IDONTLIKEIT Skinwalker
 * Says that would be fine, absent concrete ongoing discussion. - Eldereft
 * Doesn't see any ongoing dispute on this talk page. Says that simply not liking what the article says is not grounds for calling it "POV". --sciencewatcher
 * Agrees that no discussion ongoing and tag may be removed. Eldereft
 * Repeats question from other section: "Notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed. Why?" Argues that article on homeopathy should have homeopath's opinions, given they are from a good source. Not pleased with atmosphere of talk page. JeanandJane
 * Provides an example quotation "Homeopaths say they are being treated unfairly and that The Lancet is a biased, unreliable source"? and points out that it is not useful. Consumed Crustacean