can we agree to keep the tag based on the principle that it is better present when not needed false positive than not when needed false negative i am not too concerned with the current notable phrase but second leifern's tagging for example because of a concern i brought up about a week ago that the ocntrovertial nature of homeopathy should not be alluded to twice in the introduction becase it diverts the issue from exegesis to premature evaluation i suggested a comprehensive sentence that highlighted rather than obscured the controvertiallity issue but without this diversion there are many little things in the article that were written from a lay perspective of those who have read a bit about homeopathy and think that they know a lot and unless those are repaired there is no reason to remove the tag besides it is reasonable to have this tag on indefinitely due to the wide disagreement on the topic this is not a bad thing as one thing can be stated with certainty that the issue of homeopathy is not as simple as it looks so each reader will need both critical faculties and research time to make sense of it july utc