The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete; discussion about editorial improvements (if found to be required by consensus) such as rename, edit, merge etc. can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This page is a blatant POV FORK and attempts to improve the article have been blocked. The majority of the article has been simply copied from Chiropractic history, and is not based on sources of "Chiropractic controversy" or "Criticism of chiropractic", because such as topic doesn't not exist... it is WP:MADEUP like a lot of other "Criticism of" articles on Wikipedia. The current Chiropractic article has criticism sprinkled throughout, and does not need to be trimmed. DigitalC 19:49, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
The actual size of the main article isn't a problem that would prevent complete merger, but so far the objection from chiropractic supporters is "undue weight". They don't realize (or don't want it described) just how much criticism and controversy has characterized the history of this profession, and it's growing right now because of the latest screwup by the profession in England - their attempt to sue Simon Singh for libel. Fortunately the BCA has withdrawn the suit. This article can grow much larger, and then even I would consider it undue weight to include so much material in the main article. As it is now, the chiropractic supporters would never allow all this in the main article. Certain of them are pretty good at wikilawyering and stonewalling to keep out such things, no matter how well sourced. If there were to be a merge, it should be done in its entirety, but that would overwhelm the main article and create an undue weight problem. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I was actually discussing criticism articles earlier today, and my opinion here is similar: criticism should be discussed within the main article (in proportion to its importance), but when the volume of coverage of criticism is sufficient to warrant a more thorough discussion—and especially when the state of the Wikipedia article is such that editors have contributed more properly-sourced information about criticism than support—it's perfectly appropriate to summarize in the main article, and fork it and write a standalone article about the criticism. (This actually mitigates the emphasis of criticism in the main article, deservedly or not.) Of course the tone of the article should be neutral, but that doesn't mean that limiting the scope of the article to the discussion of "negative" things is inherently non-neutral or undesirable. TheFeds 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply