Talk:Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme

POV

This article needs serious cleanup - it is bristling with POV. --David.Mestel 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had a go at it in June 2007, but as I said then, it still needs work. Unfortunately for me, I don't read German; the only English Language information on the PEK that I have found is the 2006 Peter Fisher article. (However, I find his 1994 article "Complementary medicine in Europe" interesting reading.) Pdfpdf 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8038643&dopt=Citation

I would say that recent efforts by a number of people have achieved the needed "serious cleanup", and the various POV are now attributed to their sources. Pdfpdf 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September edits by anonymous users

We have the makings of an Edit War here, so let's stop it before it becomes one.

There's quite a string of edits - 4 anonymous editors, a Bot, Jmcw37 and Pdfpdf:

71.193.193.109 - 1 edit - leaves explanation: correct spelling error
85.3.158.94 - 3 edits - no explanation

Adds unreferenced/unsupported statement:

The actual collection of field data was, however, not started before Sept 2002 and data collection and scientific evaluation required only a fraction of the originally available financial resources. Most of available resources were spent on finding consensus and on how to organize the project prior to the actually performed field studies and literature reviews.

Deletes the referenced/supported statement:

With complementary medicine, the total annual costs are markedly lower than the average for conventional care. Overall, however, complementary practitioners treat fewer patients, and more frequently younger and female patients. Adjusted for these factors, the

Pdfpdf - 1 compound edit - leaves explanation: (a) Asks for evidence (b) Resurects deleted text as a hidden comment.
Bot
85.3.37.158 - 1 edit - no explanation - puts in vague reference: "(see final PEK Report)"

(I examined the PEK Report (yet again). I couldn't find this statement.)

Jmcw37 - reverted the vague reference. (Presumably couldn't find the statement either.)
Jmcw37 - decided POV creeping in - reverted back to version after the 27 Aug spelling correction.
85.1.238.203 - 1 compound edit - no explanation
- Deleted a valid reference
- Added a new statement very similar to previous statement.
- Says "According to PEK Report", but as was previously the case, the statement still isn't in the report.
- Added reference to the "Evaluation" report; the statement most certainly is not in that report either.
- Took a statement that is a direct quote from the PEK Report and changed it into a statement with the opposite meaning.
Jmcw37 tried to improve the situation thus created.
Pdfpdf says: "No, it's too far gone. Let's go back to 27 August, and discuss it here on this talk page.

Pdfpdf 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

85.3.158.94, 85.3.37.158 and 85.1.238.203 are all from the same dial-in internet provider. It could be one user. jmcw 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]