| Revision as of 03:27, 12 February 2008 editDematt (talk | contribs)5,093 edits →Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism: my 2← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:15, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''no consensus for deletion''', default to keep. ] (]) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="no-spam" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background:#faecc8 ; border:1px DarkOrchid solid; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">'''This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here.''' While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are ''not'' prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See ].</div> | |||
| :{{la|Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| There was a minor consensus at at ] to create a split article to house the bulk of chiropractic's "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section, ]. This new article was aptly named: ]. I was hesitant about this article becoming a POV Fork, but willing to proceed with it as an experiment. As the days went on, it became increasingly clear that this article was meant not just to house chiropractic research information, but also a substantial criticism section which had no direct correlation with chiropractic research, but rather just general criticism of chiropractic. Then, the article was moved and renamed several times until it became what it is today: Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to justify the inclusion of random chiropractic criticism. In my eyes, this is a clear violation of ] and as such, I am requesting that this article be deleted and the bulk of the research content be restored at ]. -- <b |
There was a minor consensus at at ] to create a split article to house the bulk of chiropractic's "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section, ]. This new article was aptly named: ]. I was hesitant about this article becoming a POV Fork, but willing to proceed with it as an experiment. As the days went on, it became increasingly clear that this article was meant not just to house chiropractic research information, but also a substantial criticism section which had no direct correlation with chiropractic research, but rather just general criticism of chiropractic. Then, the article was moved and renamed several times until it became what it is today: Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to justify the inclusion of random chiropractic criticism. In my eyes, this is a clear violation of ] and as such, I am requesting that this article be deleted and the bulk of the research content be restored at ]. -- ] ] 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - ] ''is'' too long, and that the seemingly endless, unbroken, repetitive, and boring "scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section was all but guaranteed to make any reader lose interest in the article. I don't care if we heavily truncate it, formally reserve an article for it (and not criticism), leave it as it is, or find some fourth solution, but moving it back into ] - which is ''still'' too long - is really no option at all. Personally? I'd have a content fork for "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" and include a section for criticism of chiro in the ] article. --] (]) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - ] ''is'' too long, and that the seemingly endless, unbroken, repetitive, and boring "scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section was all but guaranteed to make any reader lose interest in the article. I don't care if we heavily truncate it, formally reserve an article for it (and not criticism), leave it as it is, or find some fourth solution, but moving it back into ] - which is ''still'' too long - is really no option at all. Personally? I'd have a content fork for "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" and include a section for criticism of chiro in the ] article. --] (]) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Reply''' - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- <b |
**'''Reply''' - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- ] ] 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *** No need to delete '''if''' we genuinely need such an article, simply move this one and work on it IMHO.] 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | *** No need to delete '''if''' we genuinely need such an article, simply move this one and work on it IMHO.] 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. I also viewed this as an experiment and wow it didn't take long to POVFORK... The majority of the article is merely cut/copy and paste from other articles so its rudundant in that regard too. I suggest delete and the science stuff cut from the chiropractic article be rewritten and added back to the chiro article.--] (]) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. I also viewed this as an experiment and wow it didn't take long to POVFORK... The majority of the article is merely cut/copy and paste from other articles so its rudundant in that regard too. I suggest delete and the science stuff cut from the chiropractic article be rewritten and added back to the chiro article.--] (]) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 22: | ||
| : PS: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job; but as I am on 'probation' right now I have to pick and choose my edits carefully for the next week or so. As a rookie on here sometimes I may violate things and genuinely not know it, but do want to stick around for the long run so I've got to keep my nose clean!] (]) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | : PS: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job; but as I am on 'probation' right now I have to pick and choose my edits carefully for the next week or so. As a rookie on here sometimes I may violate things and genuinely not know it, but do want to stick around for the long run so I've got to keep my nose clean!] (]) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * |
*'''Comment''' EBDCM stated: ''Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job...'' but now EBDCM wants to delete the ''good job'' Hyperbole did? Hyperbole did a major rewrite. It was a great job and it should be kept based on the improvements made. ] (]) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * '''strong delete''' I actually had already spotted this one. No need for a separate page, plus 'research and criticism' is a wierd name. It is actually a POV title in a way, as it implies true research about chiropractic is solely positive- if you see what I mean? ] 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. ''']''' (]) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ::myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. ''']''' (]) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I think we are all starting to understand the inherent NPOV issues with an article named as such. It is inescapable. -- <b |
::: I think we are all starting to understand the inherent NPOV issues with an article named as such. It is inescapable. -- ] ] 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - The main ] was too long. This new article resolved the problem. Chiropractic care is a controversial discipline and the article should remain in mainspace. There is a lot of scientific investigation into the credibility of chiropractic philosophy. Hopefully the Misplaced Pages community will allow a quality article to remain on Misplaced Pages and not create another huge main chiropractic article. The Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care section in the main article was shortened. It took up about a third of the page. We don't want a huge main article. This is easy to understand that two articles are better than one in this case. ] (]) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - The main ] was too long. This new article resolved the problem. Chiropractic care is a controversial discipline and the article should remain in mainspace. There is a lot of scientific investigation into the credibility of chiropractic philosophy. Hopefully the Misplaced Pages community will allow a quality article to remain on Misplaced Pages and not create another huge main chiropractic article. The Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care section in the main article was shortened. It took up about a third of the page. We don't want a huge main article. This is easy to understand that two articles are better than one in this case. ] (]) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ** Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old ] routine. -- <b |
** Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old ] routine. -- ] ] 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ***So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. ] (]) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ***So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. ] (]) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **** I tried that deleting that section and having that discussion back when the article was called "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care". Once it got renamed to "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" it became clear that an AfD was necessary. -- <b |
**** I tried that deleting that section and having that discussion back when the article was called "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care". Once it got renamed to "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" it became clear that an AfD was necessary. -- ] ] 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Here is another idea to consider. We can have a pure research article and a pure criticsm article. Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. ] (]) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Here is another idea to consider. We can have a pure research article and a pure criticsm article. Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. ] (]) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ** This idea is suggested above as well. After this AfD is over, we should have that discussion. One thing at a time. -- <b |
** This idea is suggested above as well. After this AfD is over, we should have that discussion. One thing at a time. -- ] ] 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': I'm a bit concerned about so many "usual suspects" showing up here. Is anyone else? ] (]) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': I'm a bit concerned about so many "usual suspects" showing up here. Is anyone else? ] (]) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: Who and why? -- <b |
:: Who and why? -- ] ] 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - this is a clumsy attempt to hide the fact the science, with the exception of outliers, thinks chiro is rubbish. In fact it sails close to abusing the purpose of AfD. Perhaps the article should be renamed Science and chiro. :-) ] (]) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - this is a clumsy attempt to hide the fact the science, with the exception of outliers, thinks chiro is rubbish. In fact it sails close to abusing the purpose of AfD. Perhaps the article should be renamed Science and chiro. :-) ] (]) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''' - To state again, I (and it seems others) would welcome an article just about Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. That was the original intent of splitting the article (or at least that is how it was proposed). This article however quickly became a POV Fork by including criticism unrelated to Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. -- ] ] 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Delete''' This is by definition a ]. I agree with <s>QG</s> and Hyperbole that the idea to break off a section of ] and expand it in another article would be great (and therefore shorten the chiropractic article), but it too has to be NPOV. This article appears to be an attempt to avoid NPOV. How many different ways can we say "there is research, some people think it is great, others think it is crap, blah, blah, blah..." Unless you have something more important to add, a POV FORK is not the way to make your point. It just makes for a bigger battlefield. What next, add chiropractic to all the articles that concern symptoms? Let's not go there. -- ] ] 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Note''' Levine2112, Hughgr, EBDCM, and Dēmatt are all pro-chiropractic advocates. Dematt claims to agree with me but does not. What content was forked? Claiming it was a fork without evidence is gaming the system. What is wrong with the content. It is NPOV and that is the problem with the article. The pro-chiro advocates want a POV article and leave out any critical views of chiropractics. ] (]) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- ] ] 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. ] (]) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Comment''' He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- ] ] 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *****'''Comment''' If I start a new article titled ''Critical views of chiropractic'' it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: . ] (]) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ******'''Comment''' You cannot compare Misplaced Pages to Citizendium. They are quite obviously a different wiki with their own policies and such. And I would kindly remind you to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--] (]) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *******'''Vote Canvassing?''' Levine2112 has contacted people to vote in this AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=190572894 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dematt&diff=next&oldid=190555583 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hughgr&diff=next&oldid=190574476 Regards, ] (]) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ********'''NOT!''' Nice attempt at selective diffs... lets see who else is there? , , , , , , and . Please stop with the disruptions ].--] (]) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *********Okay, I was going to just ignore this, but after this blatant example of hypocrisy, I'm speaking out. I received a canvassing e-mail from QuackGuru himself asking me to come here. Maybe he was doing it in response to the canvassing he saw, but he still came to post this afterwards. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ********** This user who was indefinitely blocked in late December 2007. He was unblocked by Adam Ceurden, and was supposed to be under his supervision. Perhaps another admin should take over that responsibility as Adam has left? ] (]) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Keep'''. No reasons for deletion given that satisfy ]. This is ''not'' automatically a POV fork, and even some of its opponents in its current form seem to say that it was not one from the start. As the POV concerns may well be valid, I suggest the following solution: Rename back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; make sure that the article content matches its title; make sure that the article conforms to ]; make sure that it is summarized and linked to as main article per ]. An article's being biased is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to edit. I share Hyperbole's frustration in seeing a proper spinout article go to AfD. ] 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Delete'''. Automatic or not... this article is the very definition of point-of-view forking... Let's get it the fork out of here!] (]) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Delete or Modify''' the title and separate Chiro Research from Chiro Critical. Conflating them is POV. ] (]) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' A clear POV fork and POV assault, an article largely built with greatly UNDUE weight '''''highlighting''''' biased unreliable sources as if technically reliable, from technically unreliable sources that are known for some adversarial, unsound, unscientific and/or pseudoskeptical articles '' two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias''] as well as economic and legal conflicts of interests() and debacles - according to some authors even the overtime vestigial exhibition of the '']'' anticompetitve deprecation of the chiropracters, a historic legal loss. I don't think this Wikipeida POV fork is the proper forum to continue to push hostile statements, recycle anticompetitive dispargement or rewrite history with highly biased sources.--] (]) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' article has top-tier reliable sourcing, namely peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals, despite the above assertions that this is all from Quackwatch et al. For an article about scientific research into Chiro, NPOV means we fairly and proportionately represent the findings of scientific research into Chiro, not that we give equal time to "pro" and "anti" views. <]/]]> 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Comment''' - for the sake of consensus, I would be all for '''renaming''' this article back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; in which we can include both positive and negative research specifically about chiropractic care as well as criticism specifically about chiropractic research. My issue - and reason why I started this AfD - was that what I describe above was the original intent of the content forked article. However, the criticism which was piled into the article wasn't specifically about "chiropractic research" but rather "chiropractic in general". This went against the purpose of the article and it became POV Fork-ish. Then when the article was renamed to accommodate for the allowance of general criticism, it was clear that it had become an all out POV Fork. There does seem to be a growing movement toward a consensus to roll back this article to its original name and purpose. And even if the consensus is to delete this article, my hopes would be to restart the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" article and this time keep it on topic. -- ] ] 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' (only in the sense of do not delete), possibly under the original name ]. But even this title could easily have content which doesn't resemble a ] of ]. As an aside, if the article is deleted, the content should be merged back into ], as a good fraction of it was removed from there. — ] | ] 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Seems to be a valid sub-article. And, that would include the criticism section which seems to be the main point of ''displeasure'' amongst the deleters. I became aware of this article because of a bit of edit warring that showed up on WP:3RR. It would seem that quite a few editors here are wanting the article deleted ''because'' it contains criticism of their field of interest or ''favorite subject''. On viewing the ] main article, I see little to no ''critical views'' - and that seems odd. Perhaps the ''offending'' critical section here should be placed instead within the ''parent'' article and expanded. However, I expect howls of protest about that suggestion from the ''true believers'' here :-) Cheers, ] (]) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - An article on research and criticism is needed, as there is a lot of relevant material, though it may be better under a different title. ''']''' 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', as this article is a legitimate subtopic, not a pov fork. ] issues with regard to the content and title of this article, if any, should be resolved editorially. ] 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''KEEP''', although I personally find the subject matter dry and uninteresting, the article is not a pov fork, is encyclopaedic in content, and has many well-documented references and third party citations. The parent article is definately too long and was a good wiki-move.--]] 07:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Delete''' This is by definition a ]. I agree with QG and Hyperbole that the idea to break off a section of ] and expand it in another article would be great (and therefore shorten the chiropractic article), but it too has to be NPOV. This article appears to be an attempt to avoid NPOV. How many different ways can we say "there is research, some people think it is great, others think it is crap, blah, blah, blah..." Unless you have something more important to add, a POV FORK is not the way to make your point. It just makes for a bigger battlefield. What next, add chiropractic to all the articles that concern symptoms? Let's not go there. -- <b |
||
Latest revision as of 01:15, 6 February 2023
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Misplaced Pages:Canvassing.- Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There was a minor consensus at at Chiropractic to create a split article to house the bulk of chiropractic's "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section, Talk:Chiropractic#Too_long.21. This new article was aptly named: Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. I was hesitant about this article becoming a POV Fork, but willing to proceed with it as an experiment. As the days went on, it became increasingly clear that this article was meant not just to house chiropractic research information, but also a substantial criticism section which had no direct correlation with chiropractic research, but rather just general criticism of chiropractic. Then, the article was moved and renamed several times until it became what it is today: Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to justify the inclusion of random chiropractic criticism. In my eyes, this is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK and as such, I am requesting that this article be deleted and the bulk of the research content be restored at Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Chiropractic is too long, and that the seemingly endless, unbroken, repetitive, and boring "scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section was all but guaranteed to make any reader lose interest in the article. I don't care if we heavily truncate it, formally reserve an article for it (and not criticism), leave it as it is, or find some fourth solution, but moving it back into Chiropractic - which is still too long - is really no option at all. Personally? I'd have a content fork for "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" and include a section for criticism of chiro in the Chiropractic article. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- Levine2112 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No need to delete if we genuinely need such an article, simply move this one and work on it IMHO.Merkinsmum 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- Levine2112 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I also viewed this as an experiment and wow it didn't take long to POVFORK... The majority of the article is merely cut/copy and paste from other articles so its rudundant in that regard too. I suggest delete and the science stuff cut from the chiropractic article be rewritten and added back to the chiro article.--Hughgr (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as well. It seems that a particular editor has ran with the article in question has ties to quackwatch and stephen barrett. Not only that, I find that his references are generally very poor and contain significant OR. Indeed, I can almost trace back the same passage verbatim to all the references he quotes. I think that we can truncate the scientific section as well and perhaps add a critiques section, but I would bet that tons of anti-chiropractic propanganda that is not veriable nor based on research papers would sneak its way in there and spiral out of control. I'm all for suggestions though.
- PS: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job; but as I am on 'probation' right now I have to pick and choose my edits carefully for the next week or so. As a rookie on here sometimes I may violate things and genuinely not know it, but do want to stick around for the long run so I've got to keep my nose clean!EBDCM (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment EBDCM stated: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job... but now EBDCM wants to delete the good job Hyperbole did? Hyperbole did a major rewrite. It was a great job and it should be kept based on the improvements made. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- strong delete I actually had already spotted this one. No need for a separate page, plus 'research and criticism' is a wierd name. It is actually a POV title in a way, as it implies true research about chiropractic is solely positive- if you see what I mean? Merkinsmum 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. DGG (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we are all starting to understand the inherent NPOV issues with an article named as such. It is inescapable. -- Levine2112 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. DGG (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The main Chiropractic was too long. This new article resolved the problem. Chiropractic care is a controversial discipline and the article should remain in mainspace. There is a lot of scientific investigation into the credibility of chiropractic philosophy. Hopefully the Misplaced Pages community will allow a quality article to remain on Misplaced Pages and not create another huge main chiropractic article. The Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care section in the main article was shortened. It took up about a third of the page. We don't want a huge main article. This is easy to understand that two articles are better than one in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old bait-and-switch routine. -- Levine2112 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that deleting that section and having that discussion back when the article was called "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care". Once it got renamed to "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" it became clear that an AfD was necessary. -- Levine2112 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old bait-and-switch routine. -- Levine2112 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here is another idea to consider. We can have a pure research article and a pure criticsm article. Critical views of chiropractic Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- This idea is suggested above as well. After this AfD is over, we should have that discussion. One thing at a time. -- Levine2112 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm a bit concerned about so many "usual suspects" showing up here. Is anyone else? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who and why? -- Levine2112 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a clumsy attempt to hide the fact the science, with the exception of outliers, thinks chiro is rubbish. In fact it sails close to abusing the purpose of AfD. Perhaps the article should be renamed Science and chiro. :-) Mccready (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - To state again, I (and it seems others) would welcome an article just about Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. That was the original intent of splitting the article (or at least that is how it was proposed). This article however quickly became a POV Fork by including criticism unrelated to Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. -- Levine2112 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is by definition a WP:POVFORK. I agree with
QGand Hyperbole that the idea to break off a section of chiropractic and expand it in another article would be great (and therefore shorten the chiropractic article), but it too has to be NPOV. This article appears to be an attempt to avoid NPOV. How many different ways can we say "there is research, some people think it is great, others think it is crap, blah, blah, blah..." Unless you have something more important to add, a POV FORK is not the way to make your point. It just makes for a bigger battlefield. What next, add chiropractic to all the articles that concern symptoms? Let's not go there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC) - Note Levine2112, Hughgr, EBDCM, and Dēmatt are all pro-chiropractic advocates. Dematt claims to agree with me but does not. What content was forked? Claiming it was a fork without evidence is gaming the system. What is wrong with the content. It is NPOV and that is the problem with the article. The pro-chiro advocates want a POV article and leave out any critical views of chiropractics. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. Critical views of chiropractic QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If I start a new article titled Critical views of chiropractic it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: Critical views of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You cannot compare Misplaced Pages to Citizendium. They are quite obviously a different wiki with their own policies and such. And I would kindly remind you to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--Hughgr (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vote Canvassing? Levine2112 has contacted people to vote in this AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=190572894 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dematt&diff=next&oldid=190555583 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hughgr&diff=next&oldid=190574476 Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- NOT! Nice attempt at selective diffs... lets see who else is there? you, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch, Jim Butler, JoshuaZ, Fyslee, and Rracecarr. Please stop with the disruptions User:QuackGuru.--Hughgr (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I was going to just ignore this, but after this blatant example of hypocrisy, I'm speaking out. I received a canvassing e-mail from QuackGuru himself asking me to come here. Maybe he was doing it in response to the canvassing he saw, but he still came to post this afterwards. --Infophile 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This user who was indefinitely blocked in late December 2007. He was unblocked by Adam Ceurden, and was supposed to be under his supervision. Perhaps another admin should take over that responsibility as Adam has left? Anthon01 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I was going to just ignore this, but after this blatant example of hypocrisy, I'm speaking out. I received a canvassing e-mail from QuackGuru himself asking me to come here. Maybe he was doing it in response to the canvassing he saw, but he still came to post this afterwards. --Infophile 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- NOT! Nice attempt at selective diffs... lets see who else is there? you, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch, Jim Butler, JoshuaZ, Fyslee, and Rracecarr. Please stop with the disruptions User:QuackGuru.--Hughgr (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vote Canvassing? Levine2112 has contacted people to vote in this AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=190572894 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dematt&diff=next&oldid=190555583 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hughgr&diff=next&oldid=190574476 Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You cannot compare Misplaced Pages to Citizendium. They are quite obviously a different wiki with their own policies and such. And I would kindly remind you to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--Hughgr (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If I start a new article titled Critical views of chiropractic it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: Critical views of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. Critical views of chiropractic QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. No reasons for deletion given that satisfy WP:DELETION. This is not automatically a POV fork, and even some of its opponents in its current form seem to say that it was not one from the start. As the POV concerns may well be valid, I suggest the following solution: Rename back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; make sure that the article content matches its title; make sure that the article conforms to WP:NPOV; make sure that it is summarized and linked to as main article per WP:SPINOUT. An article's being biased is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to edit. I share Hyperbole's frustration in seeing a proper spinout article go to AfD. Avb 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Automatic or not... this article is the very definition of point-of-view forking... Let's get it the fork out of here!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete or Modify the title and separate Chiro Research from Chiro Critical. Conflating them is POV. Anthon01 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A clear POV fork and POV assault, an article largely built with greatly UNDUE weight highlighting biased unreliable sources as if technically reliable, from technically unreliable sources that are known for some adversarial, unsound, unscientific and/or pseudoskeptical articles two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias]pp 23, 36, 76-77 as well as economic and legal conflicts of interests(TNC or bother) and debacles - according to some authors even the overtime vestigial exhibition of the Wilk vs AMA anticompetitve deprecation of the chiropracters, a historic legal loss. I don't think this Wikipeida POV fork is the proper forum to continue to push hostile statements, recycle anticompetitive dispargement or rewrite history with highly biased sources.--I'clast (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep article has top-tier reliable sourcing, namely peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals, despite the above assertions that this is all from Quackwatch et al. For an article about scientific research into Chiro, NPOV means we fairly and proportionately represent the findings of scientific research into Chiro, not that we give equal time to "pro" and "anti" views. <eleland/talkedits> 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - for the sake of consensus, I would be all for renaming this article back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; in which we can include both positive and negative research specifically about chiropractic care as well as criticism specifically about chiropractic research. My issue - and reason why I started this AfD - was that what I describe above was the original intent of the content forked article. However, the criticism which was piled into the article wasn't specifically about "chiropractic research" but rather "chiropractic in general". This went against the purpose of the article and it became POV Fork-ish. Then when the article was renamed to accommodate for the allowance of general criticism, it was clear that it had become an all out POV Fork. There does seem to be a growing movement toward a consensus to roll back this article to its original name and purpose. And even if the consensus is to delete this article, my hopes would be to restart the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" article and this time keep it on topic. -- Levine2112 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (only in the sense of do not delete), possibly under the original name Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. But even this title could easily have content which doesn't resemble a fork of Chiropractic. As an aside, if the article is deleted, the content should be merged back into Chiropractic, as a good fraction of it was removed from there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems to be a valid sub-article. And, that would include the criticism section which seems to be the main point of displeasure amongst the deleters. I became aware of this article because of a bit of edit warring that showed up on WP:3RR. It would seem that quite a few editors here are wanting the article deleted because it contains criticism of their field of interest or favorite subject. On viewing the Chiropractic main article, I see little to no critical views - and that seems odd. Perhaps the offending critical section here should be placed instead within the parent article and expanded. However, I expect howls of protest about that suggestion from the true believers here :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - An article on research and criticism is needed, as there is a lot of relevant material, though it may be better under a different title. Voice-of-All 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as this article is a legitimate subtopic, not a pov fork. Neutrality issues with regard to the content and title of this article, if any, should be resolved editorially. John254 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP, although I personally find the subject matter dry and uninteresting, the article is not a pov fork, is encyclopaedic in content, and has many well-documented references and third party citations. The parent article is definately too long and was a good wiki-move.--Sallicio 07:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.