Talk:Edzard Ernst

message: Edzard Ernst was sacked because of the low quality on his work. He was a joke as a scientist. Here is a funny(But correct) description of parts of his "work":
http://smperle.blogspot.se/2010/12/self-importance-of-being-ernst.html
Edzard Ernst is a member of the "skeptical"movement, and this article is written 
of so called Sceptics("The skeptical movement" is a Front torganisation for ACSH(
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health  
) ACSH is a lobby organization working for those who "donate" money to ACSH. Mostly it is chemical and pharmaceutical companies who hire them.
So it is not OK that this article is written by "skeptics". The sources in the article are often 
"skeptical" bloggs. This article makes Wikipedia look like a joke, and that is sad.--Nils poppe (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources you have shown aren't reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Which of the sources used in the article are blogs? If you are talking about the last two (scienceinmedicine.org and csicop.org - I wouldn't call them blogs but maybe my definition of ″blog″ is too narrow): they're used to verify that Ernst is affiliated with these two organisations - that's a valid use of primary sources. Except for those two, we're only using independent secondary sources. --Six words (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that Ernst "was sacked because of the low quality on his work" is probably a WP:BLP violation unless a reliable source is available to back up the claim. "He was a joke as a scientist" is almost certainly inappropriate. Nils poppe should provide a proper source for these claims or retract them immediately. — Scientizzle 13:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  [REDACTED as a violation of WP:BLP] --Nils poppe (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

text: that comment looks libellous.  Does the author have any money?  Midgley (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is of low quality. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Edzard Ernst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091112201640/http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk:80/compmed/ernst.htm to http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/compmed/ernst.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edzard Ernst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622003436/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Popcult_45/Note_to_Prince_Charles_You_re_wrong.asp to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Popcult_45/Note_to_Prince_Charles_You_re_wrong.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116004116/http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Committees/Medicinesadvisorybodies/MedicinesCommission/Members/CON002258 to http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Committees/Medicinesadvisorybodies/MedicinesCommission/Members/CON002258
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IP 183.90.36.169 - I reverted your recent changes, partly because some of them were ungrammatical, but also because they did not appear to be improving the article. If you would like to discuss your changes here and attempt to gain consensus, please present your rationale. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I want to trust this article, but it has no attempt to address concerns about the topic, and there are plenty of concerns.
This article should be flagged as not meeting proper Wikipedia quality checks. Tlunsf (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide an example of a change you'd like to see, specifically? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no sections on contrary points? 

message: What is a "mega physician"? I can't find a definition anywhere and it doesn't seem to be a commonly used term? 46.127.9.118 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That was vandalism, now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mega physician"?