Viajero wrote:
I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.
Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative medicine]] talk page:
Setting aside the question of scientism's merits, isn't the talk page _supposed_ to be a place where POV statements are allowed?
Actually, what are the terms of allowed discourse on talk pages? I've had a user recently on the Disinfopedia who hasn't done any damage to actual articles, but he has made a number of nasty remarks on talk pages, accusing other users of "paranoid ravings" and referring to me personally as a fascist. I've been operating on the assumption that even intemperate remarks like this should be acceptable if they are limited to comments on talk pages. At what point do Wikipedians draw the line on this sort of thing?