Revision as of 04:39, 6 February 2008 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,282 edits agree← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:12, 1 December 2024 edit undoNoodleMed (talk | contribs)70 edits →Wiki Education assignment: TCU SOM Misplaced Pages Elective Fall 2024 Block 6A: ReplyTag: Reply |
(802 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talk page}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|date = 20 June 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Chiropractic controversy and criticism| date2 = 16 May 2010 (UTC) | result2 = '''no consensus''' | page2 = Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination)}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== Fluoridation == |
|
''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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does fluoride have to do with chiropracty? Some will oppose, some will agree with it. But fluoridation has nothing to do with the spine, nor does the article mentioning chiropracty historically considering fluoride to influence the spine. |
|
: Good point. If that happens, I'll support a AfD. I have also removed the homeopathy article probation template because no one is discussing homeopathy here. If that happens, it can be replaced. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be a controversial subject; but it's like suggesting that that some chiropractors are vegetarians.Yeah, it's a health issue, but why is it here...? ] (]) 11:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because chiropractors believe that all disease is caused by vertebral subluxation, the notion that fluoride prevents tooth decay and disease of the gingiva is unacceptable, because only spinal manipulation can cure human diseases. ] (]) 15:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, according to that logic, then, the article ought to include chiropractic argument against every single treatment for every single disease that exists. Which if course would be ridiculous. I’m not only in favor of removing the “fluoride” material, but an attempt should be made to define some terms that are otherwise incomprehensible (to a layperson) in a standalone article. Example: “straights” and “mixers”? I came to the article cold from a Google search and those terms aren’t even wiki-linked. I’ll be back later to do some tidying if no one else wants to volunteer. ] (]) 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Sugarbat}}, we include what is supported by reliable independent sources. Chiropractors have a significant history of opposing routine public health interventions including fluoridation and vaccination, usually based on debunked or pseudoscientific rationale. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A "straight" is a chiropractic who does not use any non-chiropractic ideas, as opposed to a "mixer", who does. --] (]) 14:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Innate intelligence definition == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article includes the term 'Innate intelligence' several times without defining it. Even the 'Innate intelligence' section (which is linked from other pages such as ]) does not define the term but jumps straight to criticism. Is there an accepted definition? --<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;">]]</span> 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:An accepted definition of something that doesn't exist? - ] ] 08:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Imaginary numbers can be defined, it should be easy enough to do the same here: |
|
|
::(from the article) |
|
|
::...an undefined fifth force in the body that is otherwise unknown to science. Palmer believed he could influence this fifth force, termed Innate Intelligence... |
|
|
:: 1998 Mar; 42(1): 35–41. ] (]) 02:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Imaginary numbers do exist. ]] 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: TCU SOM Misplaced Pages Elective Fall 2024 Block 6A== |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/TCU_School_of_Medicine/TCU_SOM_Wikipedia_Elective_Fall_2024_Block_6A_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-11-26 | end_date = 2024-12-07 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 20:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I intend to add more citations to the claims about evidence for and against vertebral subluxation as well as chiropractic adjustments for non-musculoskeletal disease. I would also like to expand on the above discussion of innate intelligence and how it contributes to the criticism of chiropractic practice. The above discussion about fluoridation and straights vs mixers is already well-described in the article. ] (]) 18:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
What does fluoride have to do with chiropracty? Some will oppose, some will agree with it. But fluoridation has nothing to do with the spine, nor does the article mentioning chiropracty historically considering fluoride to influence the spine.
It may be a controversial subject; but it's like suggesting that that some chiropractors are vegetarians.Yeah, it's a health issue, but why is it here...? Artheartsoul1 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, according to that logic, then, the article ought to include chiropractic argument against every single treatment for every single disease that exists. Which if course would be ridiculous. I’m not only in favor of removing the “fluoride” material, but an attempt should be made to define some terms that are otherwise incomprehensible (to a layperson) in a standalone article. Example: “straights” and “mixers”? I came to the article cold from a Google search and those terms aren’t even wiki-linked. I’ll be back later to do some tidying if no one else wants to volunteer. Sugarbat (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This article includes the term 'Innate intelligence' several times without defining it. Even the 'Innate intelligence' section (which is linked from other pages such as Chiropractic) does not define the term but jumps straight to criticism. Is there an accepted definition? --Quantum7 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)