Revision as of 17:54, 2 March 2007 editVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →[]: Revise statement to be more neutral.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:15, 2 March 2007 edit undoVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 editsm →[]: minor grammar fixNext edit → | ||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|?}} | {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|?}} | ||
:{{la|Classical homeopathy}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Classical homeopathy}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
Possible POV fork of ], though, to be fair, there |
Possible POV fork of ], though, to be fair, there are strong opinions on Homeopathy, and it may just be that only one side edited it. However, in any case, the article admits the subject is almost undefinable as seperate to Homeopathy, except that it's somehow better than more general homeopathy. Should become a redirect, I think. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:15, 2 March 2007
Classical homeopathy
- Classical homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Possible POV fork of Homeopathy, though, to be fair, there are strong opinions on Homeopathy, and it may just be that only one side edited it. However, in any case, the article admits the subject is almost undefinable as seperate to Homeopathy, except that it's somehow better than more general homeopathy. Should become a redirect, I think. Adam Cuerden 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: