User talk:Woodcarver2010

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Woodcarver2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Edzard Ernst
Your recent edit was screwed up so an attempt to fix it has been made. Reference 7 still doesn't work. Do you have the URL for that reference? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi BullRanger, Thank you for pointing my error out. I am a novice at this editing lark.  I found the translation by clicking a link on http://www.hmc21.org/#/edzard-ernst/4543212059 .  When I did so the ....bin/download.cgi address showed in the address bar.  In my ignorance I thought it was a direct link.  The link is near the bottom of the page, just above the references.  Could you help me with correcting this.  I am out of my depth here.Woodcarver2010 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 16:24 27 November 2010


 * I totally understand the difficulty! It's not easy getting it right here. We've all been there and we're all learning. I often have to seek help from other editors, even though I've been here for five years and have nearly 30,000 edits under my belt.


 * I can see that the source is probably reliable for documenting what has been added to the article, but nothing more than that because the rest of the article is a one-sided opinion piece. Ernst does indeed say something about his education, and that is now used. Good! The article itself is very one-sided and makes inaccurate statements about both Ernst and Singh. They are definitely not considered great "experts" on homeopathy, but they understand enough to criticize it accurately. He definitely isn't the "leading ‘authority’ on homeopathy, and perhaps its most referenced critic." There are other skeptics and scientists who are more prominent critics of homeopathy, and the relatively recent British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy, where the very best evidence from skeptics and top homeopaths was used, counts far more than anything Ernst or Singh could say. One only has to know how homeopathy is supposed to work to be able to analyze the research performed on it. One has to understand and follow the scientific method. One doesn't have to be a fully trained homeopath to be able to do that. The article makes a number of charges and logical errors typical of homeopaths who won't accept the use of the scientific method to test homeopathy. It's simply an opinion piece by a homeopath who's upset, and it wouldn't be considered a reliable source since it's a one-sided hit piece. I still think it's reliable when it quotes Ernst on his education, and we've got that in the article now. Thanks for finding this. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)