![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines. Let's make sure that this article doesn't become that. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I restored the WebMD material. Since Lundberg is involved and gives it his blessing, I think we can safely say it's a V RS, particularly since it cites a journal article (which, per Arthur, is even better for us to use). Maybe the language should be tweaked (although it appears to stick close to the source), but by no means should it be deleted. Given Lundberg, I don't think there are any weight problems with having its own section, though here it would be better to organize the sections by topic, not source. (An exception could be if some source had really amazing weight, like a sci-consensus statement, but we don't have that here.) cheers, Jim Butler ( t) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I know this article has just begun, but it is a mess! I think we need to devise an organizational strategy. Perhaps start with "Historical scientific inquiries" where we discuss early attempts to study chiropractic from a scientific viewpoint all the way through Wilk where it was discovered that the AMA was actually suppressing positive scientific research about chiropractic. Then, the "Modern Research" section could be divided into multiple subsections; perhaps by treatment claim (e.g. "Headaches", "Colic", "Blood pressure", "Back/neck pain", etc.) as well as the "Reports..." section.
Further, I removed the criticism section as it was a bit off topic - dealing more with criticism of chiropractic in general rather than criticism of the scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. I believe that all viewpoints (for, against, neutral) are or will be expressed by the research we cite. If there are notable critics or supporters who have insight on the research, then we should include it inline with the research rather than in separate sections.
Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Was there consensus for this move? Seems we are really flirting with POV-fork land now. There is research supporting chiropractic, or at least the treatment side, i.e. manipulation. Shouldn't that be cited alongside negative results? Oh, I see, QuackGuru ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) removed the WebMD stuff here. Here it is, below. -- Jim Butler ( t) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic has received its share of criticism from the allied health sciences, most particularly, from physicians in the USA; where the practice of chiropractic has its largest base. Some of these criticisms have also been echoed within the chiropractic profession. This article discusses criticisms that have been expressed by notable sources, and includes the rebuttals of chiropractors to these views. Reporting a criticism, or its rebuttal, here, does not imply that either is endorsed by Citizendium or its editors.
Can we live with "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism"? •Jim62sch• dissera! 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WebMD has published several studies that promote the efficacy of chiropractic adjustments. The first of these was published on October 12, 2004. This study showed that not only did Chiropractic cut the cost of treating back pain by 28%, it also reduced hospitilizations by 41%, back surgeries by 32%, and reduced the cost of medical imaging, such as X-rays or MRIs, by 37%. This was according to a study published in the Oct. 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine. Although the researchers did not look at patient satisfaction in this study, Metz says company studies show that 95% of chiropractic care patients are satisfied with the care they receive." [1] -- Jim Butler ( t) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Chiropractic has been the subject of criticism.[1] There has been many scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy. Criticism has also come from philosophical conflicts within the profession and critics outside the profession."
This is among the worst paragraphs I have ever read - but editing that should be reasonably uncontroversial. Where it gets tricky is this:
"The conflicts within the profession comes from the differing schools of thought. There are four varying groups of chiropractors: "traditional straights," "objective straights," "mixers," and "reform.""
Yes, three sources are cited, but when you read all available sources, you see many disputes as to whether any groups other than "traditional straights" and "mixers" are even significant - both "reform" and "objective straights" may or may not be tiny minorities that shouldn't even be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT. There's more discussion on this at talk:Chiropractic. I personally do not believe we should be asserting the existence of those four categories as though there were a universal consensus that they exist. -- Hyperbole ( talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably the worst possible way to do the criticism section is to select random people who have said things negative about chiro and quote them, with no explanation of why they or their opinions matter. Look, I haven't been reverting this stuff because I don't want to see criticism of chiro - I have absolutely no personal experience or POV regarding chiro - I've been reverting it because it is terribly done. I think we can all agree, no matter what our POV, that an encyclopedic look at criticism of chiropractic does not consist of a collection of random smears against the profession. -- Hyperbole ( talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not being critical or anything, I was just wondering how this article ended up coming into being, rather than there just being the chiropractic article? Merkinsmum 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A criticism article is needed that is unrelated to dealing with all the research (that is touched on in other articles), which is generally another matter.
Size has indeed become a problem and certain types of forks are allowable under the circumstances. Attempts at paring down the chiropractic article are underway and being used as an excuse to whitewash the article and profession. That content should not be deleted if it can be used here.
I share the concerns of several about the way this critical article has come into being, but that doesn't mean such articles aren't needed here. Citizendium is a good source to emulate on this matter.
A criticism article is easily justified by our notability criteria, and there are plenty of V & RS, since chiropractic has been and is one of the most controversial alternative medicine subjects around. The long and contentious history of the editing here bears that out. The subject cannot be covered by a few sentences in the chiropractic article, so a separate article needs to exist. We can then copy the lead of that criticism article into the chiropractic article and then link to the "main" criticism article.
While there are "studies that promote the efficacy of chiropractic adjustments," that happens to be a very different topic that should not be mixed into this one. That would be a disruptive tactic designed to water down and hide the criticisms. Joint manipulation may have (it is quite disputed, even by Edzard Ernst) some positive uses (that are vastly overhyped by nearly all DCs, many PTs, and some MDs), but the criticisms of chiropractic are related to the profession as a whole, its history, its fundamental assumptions and theoretical base, its claims, its marketing, its education, its promotion of and toleration for quackeries, its contentious nature, and many other matters unrelated to some possible positive aspects. Those positive aspects are already dealt with in the chiropractic article and the joint manipulation article, among others.
The criticisms aren't adequately dealt with anywhere here, and that should be done. There are abundant V & RS from within and without the profession for a large, informative, and very interesting article. Expect any such attempts to be met with obstructive AfDs and other such moves. Let's come up with some possible titles, such as Chiropractic controversy and criticism. -- Fyslee / talk 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with what Hugh says. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please add comments above this section
What is this article? It is awful. . . poorly written and an ambiguous premise. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the lead supposed to be a summary of the article? This lead doesn't seem to be even relevant to the article. DigitalC ( talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This new section is completely redundant from the main chiropractic article in theory. However, in this version. the only research which is provided are the negative ones, making this section highly POV. We need to reduce the negative research and include much of the positive as well to bring this section into balance. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This was already discussed above and it was decided that the homeopathy warning is not necessary on this article as "homeopathy" is not being discussed here. The only discussion of homeopathy here deals with whether or not the homeopathy warning template should be on this page. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This needs AfD; it is a POV duplicate of a similar subsection of the main chiropractic article and it is poorly written. Many citations and interpretations of those citations leave much to be desired. Please desist from adding this to the main chiropractic article; this POV FORK has been rejected by consensus by the community. Thanks for your co-operation, Quack Guru, and I hope that your editing style improves in the future as I now count 2 blocks on the same topic in less than a month. EBDCM ( talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is highly POV. . . I labelled it accordingly. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see here. Any article broadly related or affected is under probation per community will. Discuss any disagreements on that, at the provided link. Involved editors do not decide what is or is not under probation. Lawrence § t/ e 07:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
At the end of the day. . . this article has nothing to do with homopathy. . . and it seems the only reason why this label was placed here was as a trap. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Its covered thoroughly in the chiropractic article. . . why duplicate it here? TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.49.123.119 (
talk) I agree it is out of place but when i removed it, i got reverted. First time Wikipedia-ing. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.116.236 ( talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you got reverted mostly because you are an IP editor. . . Sign up for an account and you might get better luck. . . Anyhow we all seems to agree that coverage of safety is out of place in an article about scientific investigation. . . I will remove. TheDoctorIsIn ( talk) 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)