Talk:Herbal Magic

I'm conscious that this could prove a somewhat controversial point, but I just reverted the addition of this comment: "But few herbal supplements have any peer-reviewed scientific evidence of efficacy."

Two thoughts:

1. This seems like a rather broad statement of opinion. I think there's evidence either camp could muster to debate this point. There are peer-reviewed studies challenging the efficacy of herbal supplements; equally, there are peer-reviewed studies that indicate to the contrary, and;

2. While opinions differ here, without a pointer to definitive, all-encompassing empirical evidence one way or the other, I think we're best to avoid stating absolutes.

Michaelocc (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2010

I deleted text that was put in there twice by the same user - Eileenabc. I left the one in that has an "unreliable source" in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna sky (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User Eileenabc continues to engage in edit wars even though there is adequate reason to delete the text in question:

1) Double text - the same text is in there twice.

2) Questionable sources: As stated in Wikipedia: “Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.”

3) Does not encompass Natural Point of view: As stated in Wikipedia, “An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna sky (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have redeleted this; it's not properly cited or verifiable or neutral. Please only readd it if you can cite it properly and write it neutrally. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted the administrators and Stifle again regarding the edit war occurring on this page from Eileenabc--Luna sky (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The postings by Eileenabc are completely accurate and the TV program in question has been cited for any reader to review. The company keeps removing the edit because they do not want the public to be able to view this critical TV segment. The company should not be allowed to remove accurate and well cited references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileenabc (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Eileenabc's wording is lacking, there really should be a mention of the Marketplace segment on Herbal Magic. As it stands, the claim that "The company says that all programs and supplements are researched and formulated by a team of nutritional and health care experts. Clients follow programs based on appropriate modifications to the Canada Food Guide and learn the importance of making healthy eating choices." is misleading and incomplete and should be countered with correct information that their supplements do NOT carry NHP (natural health product) numbers and are not approved for the health claims made in their marketing materials. I believe that it is also significant to mention that their counsellors are neither Dietitians/nutritionists nor have they any counselling/therapy training, plus they are paid commission for up-selling their unsupported products. (I have no idea if I have just edited this properly - forgive me if I screw it up. I will fix it if I break it.) GigiM (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)GigiM

I have removed the YouTube link as an inappropriate EL; in short, YouTube isn't a reliable source and can't be used in articles. Doc Tropics 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The posting of the TV program in question is not a Youtube posting. The TV program was aired on Canada's national Government TV Network. This is a link directly to Canada's only National Government owned TV network. This program aired and with the hidden cameras, exposed many improper (and possibly illegal) practises. The company keeps trying to remove all references to this program because the program is scientifcally objective, yet highly critical of this company. This company only wants positive articles and stories referenced about in on this Wikipedia site. That is an improper use of this site. This site should not be an advertising forum for the company. The fact the TV program aired is a fact. Let the viewer watch the TV segment and determine the veracity of the claims in the TV program, but do not allow the company to unilaterally remove all references to this program. That would seem to be an abuse of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileenabc (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)