| Revision as of 04:06, 16 July 2009 edit70.71.22.45 (talk) →lede← 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 |
| (439 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 20 June 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Chiropractic controversy and criticism }} |
|
|
|
{{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)}} |
|
{{talk page}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{mbox |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=high}} |
|
| type = content |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}} |
|
| text = '''Archives:''' ], ]}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
<!--- THIS REFERS TO A PREVIOUS AND UNRELATED ARTICLE: {{oldafdfull|page=Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism|date=11 February 2008|result='''no consensus'''}} --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|
{{mbox |
|
|
|type=notice |
|
|
|small= |
|
|
|image=] |
|
|
|imageright=] |
|
|
|smallimage=none |
|
|
|smallimageright=none |
|
|
|textstyle=text-align:center; |
|
|
|text=<inputbox> |
|
|
type=fulltext |
|
|
prefix=Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism|Talk:Scientific investigation of chiropractic|Talk:Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism |
|
|
width={{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|15|30}} |
|
|
searchbuttonlabel=Search talk page and archives |
|
|
</inputbox> |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rewrite == |
|
== Fluoridation == |
|
|
|
|
Since I had some time I have rewritten the article. I suggest a better title such as chiropractic controversy. ] (]) 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: That's what the current content describes, and the title should match the contents. Be bold. Good going. This article can form the basis for a much larger article. I note that you have bolded controversy and criticism, and they should likely be part of the title. Hmmmm.....maybe ] or some such beast? You can just move the article to the new title. -- ] (]) 06:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree with Hughgr's changing this back into a redirect. I agree that the article as written was a POV fork. QuackGuru had, for example, added the following: "Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs ] reasoning and unsubstantiated claims ... that are ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment." This sentence has been discussed extensively at the ] article. QuackGuru has been involved in those discussions, and it has been explained that this violates NPOV by stating as if it's fact the opinion that something is "antiscientific" and that something is "ethically suspect". Whether something is "ethically suspect" is always opinion, not fact, even if it's something clear such as that it's wrong to steal: see ]. Whether chiropractors' reasoning is "antiscientific" is also not established as fact but only stated as opinion. All this has been explained to QuackGuru in previous discussions at ], and the ] page uses prose attribution to make it clear that Misplaced Pages is describing what's asserted in reliable sources, not endorsing those judgements itself. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Then the solution is to word it (the whole thing, not just that one instance) in an NPOV manner by using attibution to the very notable and RS, not delete it after the wishes of chiropractor Hughgr. The subject is too large to be contained in the chiropractic article simply because of space issues. It wouldn't be welcome there either, as the deletionism of Hughgr and other chiropractors and chiro advocates has abundantly shown in the past. They don't tolerate much documented criticism in the main article. This leaves a large gaping hole (the elephant in the corner) in the main article, since the profession has been extremely controversial throughout its history. That aspect of its history isn't dealt with much at all. -- ] (]) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Note that the current contents (before this latest redirect) did not match the title, and the article was just about to be moved to an appropriate title. These contents did not match the spot the redirect has pointed to. -- ] (]) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::This page is a stub. It took a number of years to improve the main page. This can be written like Aspartame controversy. ] (]) 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Hi Fylsee/BullRangifer, still commenting on the contributor and not the contributions I see.... It should not matter that I am a chiro or that you are a chiro-skeptic. After all these years, I would have thought you would have picked up on that by now...--] (]) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Obvious POV fork. I believe this article has been deleted before on the same grounds. -- <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> 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Did you see the Aspartame controversy page. ] (]) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: Levine2112, THIS article hasn't been deleted, since it's a different article. Unfortunately the way it was created (initially using the same title as a previously deleted article) has caused some confusion. Look at this with different glasses, IOW forget the old article and its history. -- ] (]) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The previous article was never deleted. It survived AFD. ] (]) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Redirect |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we redirect the page or keep it like the Aspartame controversy page. ] (]) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:we should redirect the page, or simply delete it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::Would you like me to AFD this page. I could start the AFD discussion for you or you could ask an admin to do a procederal AFD. ] (]) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If there is a issue with the page bring it up. No explanantion was given why anyone would consider this page to be a fork. ] (]) 18:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vaccination == |
|
|
|
|
|
See discussion at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I can access the source for this statement about vaccination, but it sounds rather effusive and I suspect it may be more of an opinion than a verifiable fact (]): ''"one of the most effective public health measures in history"''. The ref used at the ] article for a statement about vaccination says ''"Although most public health authorities would agree that vaccination constitutes one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures of the last century, few, if any, would argue that there are no problems associated with their use."'' I suggest the following wording (since this article is to be longer than ]): ''"generally considered one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures, although not problem-free"'', to replace the wording I quoted earlier in this paragraph. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Although not problem free is failed verification in that context and is a minority point. ] (]) 19:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't know what you mean by failed verification. "not problem-free" is my summary of the wording in the source "few, if any, would argue that there are no problems associated with their use". Do you think it's an inaccurate summary? Can you suggest another summary of those words? How about "not free of problems"? And I don't know why you call it a minority point; it says "although few would argue that", implying that almost all public health authorities agree that there are problems. <span style="color:Green; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Wasn't this rejected at the main article. Only a few would argue is clearly a minor point. ] (]) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Few arguing that there are no problems implies that most accept that there are problems. That's therefore the majority view: that it's not free of problems. The idea that it's free of problems is the minority view (or nobody's view, possibly: "if any"). How about sticking more closely to the wording of the source? That's often a way to overcome disagreement. How about ''"generally considered one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures, although few would argue that it is free of problems."'' This is a concession to the anti-vaccination POV, since I'm leaving out "if any". |
|
|
::::I don't remember this wording having been discussed previously at the main article. (See my comment on this at my talk page.) <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Which ref are you reading. ] (]) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Busse 2005, Chiropractic Antivaccination Arguments, <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Where is the ref in the article. ] (]) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::For some unknown reason the sentence Copptertwig objected to has vanished. I think this was . I don't understand. I thought Coppertwig made the edit but to my suprise it was another editor. ] (]) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Need for attribution == |
|
|
|
|
|
To cut down on the amount of (future) conflict here, I think it is imperative that this article be absolutely NPOV and uses plenty of attribution for every opinion, and even for many facts. -- ] (]) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. Prose attribution, i.e. not just giving a footnote, but saying in the sentences who said what. <span style="color:Red; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I added as suggested. ] (]) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== History == |
|
|
|
|
|
Now that I've thought about it (which I should have done sooner..) I think it's unfortunate that we "moved" this article, rather than just copied it. We've gotten the whole history of another article with it, and that's not good. This is a different subject. We should get the history cleared, except that that would remove the history of the previous article, which wouldn't be good either. What's the right way to do this? Can we temporarily (a few minutes) move this back, delete this current title, short history and all, and then copy the contents over here and start this article title up again? if we can get an admin with the right tools to help, we should be able to do this within a few minutes time. -- ] (]) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is a different article but I did use a couple of refs from the previous article and part of the first sentence. My sandbox showed I did use a tiny portion the previous article to form this newer article. ] (]) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: This is indeed a different article, and the less that other article is mentioned the better. Doing so only confuses people. -- ] (]) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This is a different article but why bother tyring to fix something that would only confuse a few people. ] (]) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I am in your wiki, editing your articles. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have made some small edits, but for the most part I have kept 'removed' text in comments for ease of subsequent editing. ] (]) 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The edits were not small. Your comments are vague and do not explain the reason for commenting them out. ] (]) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::They amounted to commenting out 4 lines that in each case were restating the information of the line immediately after or before, changing the text to reflect the source, ie including the numbers for psychiatrists in the Gallup poll, and using a full quote rather than a partial one. And yes, commenting out a line regarding vaccines which struck me as 'odd' and unadorned by narrative or explanation. They were hardly 'large' edits. Feel free to undo them if you believe I have made the article worse. ] (]) 23:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You commented out a line regarding vaccines but then you added full quotes. This was very odd. What was the point about the quotes. ] (]) 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am have trouble understanding the point about psychiatrists. I don't consider psychiatrists relevant because they don't do any similar to chiropractic. ] (]) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I thought dentists is . ] (]) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Could you point out 7 of the following that you consider to be 'health occupations'? |
|
|
|
|
|
Advertising practitioners |
|
|
|
|
|
Bankers |
|
|
|
|
|
Business executives |
|
|
|
|
|
Car salesmen |
|
|
|
|
|
Clergy |
|
|
|
|
|
Congressmen |
|
|
|
|
|
Druggists or pharmacists |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyers |
|
|
|
|
|
Medical doctors |
|
|
|
|
|
Nurses |
|
|
|
|
|
Policemen |
|
|
|
|
|
Chiropractors |
|
|
|
|
|
College teachers |
|
|
|
|
|
Dentists |
|
|
|
|
|
Engineers |
|
|
|
|
|
HMO managers |
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance salesmen |
|
|
|
|
|
Journalists |
|
|
|
|
|
Psychiatrists |
|
|
|
|
|
Senators |
|
|
|
|
|
State governors |
|
|
|
|
|
Veterinarians |
|
|
|
|
|
Stockbrokers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I added what I thought what more relevant. I am not interested in participating in a poll. ] (]) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Ok let me ask you this, do you recognize the above list of professions? Where do you think it came from? ] (]) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
They came from a ref. I think some are more relevant to chiropractic while others are irrelevant. ] (]) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Presumably you mean that the 6 other health care professions are more relevant than say stockbrokers, correct? If so, just so we are clear, could you name those other health care professions? ] (]) 18:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::What I added to the page was what I believe to be most relevant. I am not interested in adding more other health care professions to this page. ] (]) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In the article you refer to 7 health care occupations, I am trying to find out if you are agreeing with the RS as to what constitutes health care occupation. ] (]) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think it is better to add something that is related to chiropractic. Some could argue that stockbrokers would be more relevent but I disagree. ] (]) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Do you agree that wikipedia content should reflect the information in the sources it purports to use? ] (]) 13:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think you are not suggesting I added original research to the page. What I added to the page is referenced. ] (]) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, I am suggesting that you refrain from original research, and use the 7 health occupations as given by RS :) ] (]) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Adding about 6 or 7 health occupations is too many. ] (]) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Perhaps you should take the time to read what you are writing: {{cquote| A 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, chiropractors rated last among seven health care professions for being very high or high in honesty and ethical standards, with 36% of poll respondents rating chiropractors very high or high; the corresponding ratings for other professions ranged from 62% for dentists to 84% for nurses}} |
|
|
:::::::::This does a bang up job of making it sound like the other 6 health occupations ranged from 62%-84%, which would be inconsistent with what is stated in the source. :) ] (]) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re vaccination, flouridation == |
|
|
|
|
|
btw, from the source re flouridation I gathered why some chiros held their view based on ''Chiropractors have a drugless healing profession, but the feeling that fluoridation is medication is absurd. It is an essential nutrient that naturally occurs.''. |
|
|
IE that chiros are against all kinds of medication, if so this would probably be a better header than having it under 'efficacy'. I commented out the vaccine line because it seemed strange to have what 'some believe' as a criticism of Chiropractic, ie, ''some Chiropractors believe they are good singers'' etc. ] (]) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't understand what you are saying. You did add "Some continue to oppose flouridation in many areas as being an infringement of personal freedom." When it is about flouridation some is okay but some is not okay for vaccination. ] (]) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Some chiropractors are concerned by the routine unjustified claims chiropractors have made." This is also in the article. Do you want to comment this out too. ] (]) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The 'some' regarding fluoridation is part of an attributed quote and as such, per ] is ok, remember that 'some', 'many', 'few' should generally be attributed directly per ]. As for the latter paragraph, I did not get up there yet, but yes it should be attributed to those that are stating 'some'. If there is a source that shows that chiros are against medicine of all kinds then this could be the narrative glue that holds the statements regarding vaccination and fluoridation together. Anyway, I am the least of your worries, I am backing away from the article until it is clear if it is going to be deleted or not. ] (]) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You commented out a statement that is about some chiropractors but did not do the same for other similar sentence. I do not follow your logic. ] (]) 23:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't see a need to add the long run quotes about . You commented out some chiropractors and add long run on quotes. ] (]) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I started from the bottom up, I then noticed the comments on this talk page and on CTs talkpage and thought it best to wait for awhile so you could engage them without too much distraction. That I have left the other text alone is by no means an indication of consent. ] (]) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You disagreed with having a sentence about "" but then added large quotes about . ] (]) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I made to restore vaccination and removed the full quotes. ] (]) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== good sources please == |
|
|
|
|
|
please cite sources that stood the test of time and are cited themselves. first citation is not good enough for a controversial statement. ] (]) 07:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: The source stated "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today." ] (]) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::i am aware. however, can you find a better source for similar statement? ] (]) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::for example, that reference has 6 citations (mostly self citations), while 3rd reference has 60 citations, and is a much better reference for controversial statements, as it has been cited by the scientific community. ] (]) 08:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: You seem to be changing the sourcing rules we have here. The source is perfectly appropriate for the text and should be attributed properly. Just follow our V & RS policies. -- ] (]) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Let me quote then ]: ''Each Misplaced Pages article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by '''representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias.''' '' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I am not changing any rules that we have here. It seems to me that first citation does not represent significant view as it is not quoted by scientific community. You can also consult ], a subsection of WP:V. I find the claim exceptional. Could you please find exceptional source? ] (]) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I see nothing wrong with the source in question. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is a review, and it is very recent (2008). I also don't see the statement that this is an "exceptional" claim to be accurate. There is a well-known schism among chiropractors with those who still hold on to the mystical beliefs on one side (the ones who still say they can cure everything from acne to allergies to ulcers via spinal manipulations), and those who have cast them off on the other. There's nothing "exceptional" about the claim, and the source is perfectly fine, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I also have to question the comparison of the number of citations to source 1 vs. source 3. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that source 3 was published in 1998, while source 1 was published in 2008. As such, source 3 has had ten extra years of being available for citations. Hardly a fair comparison. --'''<font color="800080">]''' <sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></font> 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Exactly my point -- for the lead find a source that has stood the test of time, not some recent view on the very old subject. Also, I don't think it is fair that you disapprove my right to challenge the validity (exceptionalness) of a statement, as it is something, as stated in policies, that can be done by any editor. It is not exceptional for you as you have different experience and knowledge from me, but you must acknowledge that people are different, and that i based on my experience and knowledge find that statement exceptional. ] (]) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(undent)First off, we are all stating our opinions here (I even said as much in my comment above). You have every right to think that the claim is exceptional, just as I have every right to disagree with you. I'm not saying you are "wrong," I'm saying that I don't agree, and I'm explaining why. So far, three editors here disagree with you, and none have agreed. That doesn't mean you are "wrong," but it does mean that you haven't argued your position well enough to convince anyone (building consensus is at the heart of how Misplaced Pages works, after all). |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, the fact that the source is recent is a ''good thing''. Check ]. The source you are questioning is a recent review of relevant studies and sources (a secondary source, which is also preferred, I might add). In fact, WP:MEDRS says: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Look for '''reviews''' published in the last five years or so, preferably in the '''last two or three years'''.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
That is a perfect description of this source - a review published in the last two or three years. A recent review doesn't ''ignore'' older sources and studies - it takes them into consideration as warranted by today's standards. This is why I (and, I suspect, others) don't agree with your criticism of this source. Again, this is ''my opinion'', but if you want to make changes, then it is opinions that you must sway. --'''<font color="800080">]''' <sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></font> 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:o.k., so here's the search for keywords, with second paper's citations being and second paper there seems to be much stronger citation within last 3 years telling similar things: |
|
|
|
|
|
:A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation - rsmjournals.com |
|
|
:E Ernst, PH Canter - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006 - Royal Soc Med |
|
|
|
|
|
:Now, don't you agree with me that the topic which is (as the first statement sais) ''Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism.'' deserves as good a citation as this above that i provided, or do you really think that controversial statement should be verified with a recent and not well cited paper? ] (]) 21:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm sorry - I don't think I follow you. Are you suggesting that the source you mentioned above (the 2006 review from Ernst) should be used as a citation for the statement "Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism"? If so, then I have to asy that the source you list says no such thing. However, the 2008 Ernst review says ''exactly that''. I may be missing what you're trying to say here, though, so if that's the case, please explain. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::not first statement, others... first just tells stuff is controversial, and therefore presumably requires very good citations...] (]) 06:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That said, there's nothing wrong with the 2008 source. If anything, this 2006 source by the same author shows that he has a well-established track record in this field of study. Why would we embrace what he wrote three years ago, but set aside what he wrote last year? It just doesn't make any sense to me. --'''<font color="800080">]''' <sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></font> 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::because it is not just what someone sais that matters, but also whether other scientists acknowledge it. p.s. i also looked at some papers that cite that one, and there are quite a few of 'refutations' of validity of his method, so maybe that should also be noted in the lead? ] (]) 06:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK, it's a review study. Is the "mystical" statement a new opinion generated by the authors of the review study, or is it based on similar information in the material they're reviewing? <span style="color:Blue; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't have access to the full text, but from what I can see, I can tell you that the statement is in the abstract. Maybe someone who has full access can say more. --'''<font color="800080">]''' <sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></font> 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"The history of chiropractic is ‘‘rooted in quasi-mystical concepts.’’20 20. Meeker WC, Haldeman S. Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:216—227. This is from Ernst. ] (]) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: FYI, in 2008 the ] said this about Ernst: "Ernst is one of the best qualified people to summarize the evidence on this topic (Alternative medicine)."<ref name=NEJM_book_review>Book review of "Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine." '']'' Volume 359:2076-2077 November 6, 2008 Number 19</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Indeed. Maybe it should also be noted in the lead what physicians in general think (paraphrasing -- chiropractic is widely accepted/recommended by physicians and its scientific validation should therefore be an imperative): , ... |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::There are barriers between primary care physicians and chiropractors for having positive referral relationships.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Ambul Care Manage |year=2007 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=347–54 |title= Facilitators and barriers to improving interprofessional referral relationships between primary care physicians and chiropractors |author= Allareddy V, Greene BR, Smith M, Haas M, Liao J |doi=10.1097/01.JAC.0000290404.96907.e3 |pmid=17873667}}</ref> ] (]) 07:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::interesting how diverse results people publish in different countries and times. its no strange that the topic is controversial. i think all these results should be presented, don't you? ] (]) 07:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::One of the refs is generally about alternative medicine in 1998 and the other is in 2007. I would use the newer ref from 2007. ] (]) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::I added the information to from two refs. ] (]) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::i guess that still doesn't cover 'all sides', but i made my point. i'll let someone else 'jump in'. ] (]) 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why does this article exist? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is merely a collection of the criticisms from the other sub-chiro articles. Quackguru is merely copying and pasting info from the ] and ] articles here so he can include information about ]. There is nothing in this article that isn't already covered in either the main ] article or other related articles. This article is the primary definition of a POV fork and should be AFD'd.--] (]) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for your suggestion. If it is AFD'd then it would probably result in editors expanding the article. ] (]) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:i would too agree that this pov fork should be deleted... it also seems like the pov fork that QuackGuru wanted to create and was told by an admin that it would be a pov fork here ] (]) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== D.D. Palmer jailed == |
|
|
|
|
|
. Several chiropractors were behind bars. Look at that . We can add information about the jail thingy and upload the picture for the ]. ] (]) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Refs. ] (]) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Some ‘‘martyrs,’’ including D.D. Palmer himself, went to jail for practicing medicine without a licence.6,41 ] (]) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Refs to read. ] (]) 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "no drugs" philosophy of D. Palmer == |
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that D.Palmer defined chiropractic as "science of healing without drugs" is the introductory sentence of what seems to be a favorite Ernst source for this article. To pick and choose only certain parts and ignore this first sentence seems not to be NPOV.--]|] 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:In the ‘‘earliest known’’ publication14 on the subject, its founder (Daniel David Palmer) stated that, ‘‘chiropractic is a science of healing without drugs.’’15 This is the opinion of Palmer that does not add much to this page. ] (]) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think it is central. I think this was part of his drive to find another method of healing. I'm not saying that I agree with Palmer's statement that there is one cure, but I think his drive to find a healing method without drugs was a force behind his development of chiropractic. --]|] 01:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think it is minor. ''There is evidence to suggest that D.D. Palmer had learned manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still (1828—1917), the founder of osteopathy.30 He combined the skills of a bonesetter with the background of a magnetic healer and claimed that ‘‘chiropractic was not evolved from medicine or any other method, except that of magnetic.’’31'' There are a lot of things from the source that are minor. We can't include them all. ] (]) 01:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::What do you mean tis is the opinion of Palmer?? it is fact that he stated this... and as the founder of chiropractic i dont see how this is minor? ] (]) 03:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That part is minor. The controversy is "According to D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race.". ] (]) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That isnt a controversy thats a statement... until we have reliable sources saying that that statement is controversial then it doesnt belong on the chiropractic controversy and criticism page ] (]) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::This is a controversy because Palmer claims manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race. ] (]) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It isnt a controversy until you find reliable sources saying it is a controversy ] (]) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It is from Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. It is a critical evaluation. ] (]) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The statement you are talking about may be from "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation"... but the statement itself is not criticism nor controversy... what we need for this article is either critical statements... statements about criticism or statements about the controversy... this statement is none of the above ] (]) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The statement is controversial from a critical source. ] (]) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The statement is neither documenting criticism or controversy and as such isnt suitable for this article... i dont know how you fail to understand this ] (]) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== history == |
|
|
|
|
|
this section seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the article and reads like a bunch of non-related sentences... the only text in this section that should stay is... |
|
|
*"Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts, leading to internal conflicts between straights and mixers which continue to this day" |
|
|
*"Despite heavy opposition by mainstream medicine, by the 1930s chiropractic was the largest alternative healing profession in the U.S. The longstanding feud between chiropractors and medical doctors continued for decades. The AMA labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966, and until 1980 held that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with "unscientific practitioners". This culminated in a landmark 1987 decision, Wilk v. AMA, in which the court found that the AMA had engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade and conspiracy, and which ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic." |
|
|
*"The medical establishment has not entirely accepted chiropractic care as mainstream." |
|
|
does anyone agree? because if the text isnt about controversy and criticism i dont see how it belongs here... if this irrelevant text IS kept... then what is the inclusion criteria for the article? |
|
|
] (]) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I disagree. I think the section is too short. ] (]) 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::well, we could continue to follow your style and add more irrelevent information that has nothing to do with the topic of the article, or at least hasnt been shown to have anything to do with the topic of the article... but maybe we should hear what OTHER editors think? ] (]) 05:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ethics and claims... new zealand == |
|
|
|
|
|
QuackGuru conveniently failed to include the information about how New Zealand Chiropractor's are allowed to use the title doctor as long as it is clear that the title refers to the role of a chiropractor... i added it in and he has been edit warring to change it to not be as clear as what the source says... so rather than getting banned again for reverting his poor edits, i want to know what u guys think makes more sense: |
|
|
*Some New Zealand chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a New Zealand Yellow pages telephone directory in a way that implied they are registered medical practitioners, when no evidence was presented it was true. Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’ such as in the Yellow Pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors' when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role. |
|
|
<bold>OR |
|
|
*Some New Zealand chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a New Zealand Yellow pages telephone directory in a way that implied they are registered medical practitioners, when no evidence was presented it was true. Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’, when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role, such as in the Yellow Pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors'. |
|
|
to me, the second one follows the source much more closely and makes more sense... obivously the title refers to their chiropractic role in a yellow pages section under the heading of 'Chiropractors'... if it was under the heading of 'Physicians' or something, then yeah that would be different or if the section was 'Health Professionals' then yeah, they would have to clarify that their title refers to their chiropractic role, but being in the yellow pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors' is an EXAMPLE of how it can be shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role. |
|
|
] (]) 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It was miselading to claim under the heading chiropractic refers to their chiropractic role. ] (]) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::What OTHER role would it be refering to, when it is under the heading 'Chiropractors'??? SERIOUSLY! ] (]) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::QuackGuru is changing the text to not be true to the source... the source states "chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" (it is also interesting that the source also states that "the protected title for medical doctors under the provisions of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2003) is ‘medical practitioner’ not ‘doctor'") ] (]) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you need more clarification i found another source saying "in no way is it incorrect when the "Dr" title is used under the Chiropractors section of the Yellow Pages. Likewise, if a medical practitioner was to advertise in the chiropractors' section or hold themselves out to be a chiropractor they would be in breach of the HPCA Act 2003 and subject to disciplinary action." ] (]) 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." From the source. ] (]) 22:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The giant heading "CHIROPRACTORS" qualifies the use of the title 'Doctor'... as the sources show ] (]) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I showed under the heading chiropractic must be qualified according to the source. ] (]) 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::u failed to do any such thing and u continue to ignore multiple sources above showing this ] (]) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The source says the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." ] (]) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Being under the heading CHIROPRACTORS qualifies the use of the title... the source says <b>"chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners"</b> ] (]) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The source says the title must be qualified. Under the title is not qualified. The source gave examples. ] (]) 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Under the heading CHIROPRACTORS is qualified, and it is illogical to think otherwise. The source I provided backs this up... u may think this disagrees with your source, but that is ok... per NPOV we have to include ALL viewpoints, not just yours ] (]) 14:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Under the title chiropractic is not qualified. The source we are using says it must be qualified. We should not have a misleading sentence in the article that tell chiropractors under the heading chiropractic it is ok to use the title doctor. It must be qualified to refer to their chiropractic role. ] (]) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::u might think so, but that ISN'T what the sources say. Under the heading CHIROPRACTORS is qualified. ] (]) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::since i didn't link the other source above and the dispute still isnt resolved, i will link to it here . again, quotiing with emphasis from that source <bold>"chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners"</bold>. ] (]) 01:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::It is obvious from the source that ‘Doctor’ must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." ] (]) 04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::it is obvious from the source that they feel that it IS qualified, by being under the heading "Chiropractors" ] (]) 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::The heading "Chiropractors" is not qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." ] (]) 05:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::The heading "Chiropractors" qualifies the use of the title on that page... this is the reason that "it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" ] (]) 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::The heading "Chiropractors" does not qualify the use of the title doctor. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." ] (]) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::: The IP editor here is absolutely correct. This seems to be a case of ] on QuackGuru's part. -- <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> 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::The IP is not logged in. The editor is incorrect. The heading "Chiropractors" does not qualify the use of the title doctor. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." ] (]) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::: I disagree with you and agree with the 70.71.22.45 (regardless if the user is logged in or has an actual account). RfC would be a good next step according to ]. In the meantime, stop editwarring and leave the text as it is in the given source. -- <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> 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'm not sure why you are saying the IP also disagrees with me. It is clear the IP has an account and sometimes is not logged in. The sources says it must be qualified. ''"The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor."'' What you added was misleading. I suggest editors log in when possibly making controversial edits. ] (]) 21:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::: I am not sure why you think it is clear that the IP has an account which they are not logging into, nor am I clear why you think it is appropriate to be discussing that here. What is germain to this talk page is discussing the clearest written sentence which best reflects what the reference is saying. The reference is saying that in NZ, Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’ when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role. The "Yellow Pages" portion of the statement is an auxillary example of such a use and was included because the NZ Yellow Pages were the basis of a study which discussed the use of the title. -- <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> 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::The sources says it must be qualified. ''"The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor."'' It is obvious under the heading chiropractic does not always qualify doctor. ] (]) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This only seems to be obvious to you. As I said, a RfC may be a good next step for you to take. In the meantime, stop editwarring. -- <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> 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You deleted it from another page without consensus in edit war. The next step is for you to revert your edits and restore the text. ] (]) 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: If you'd like to talk the use of that information on another page, then I suggest you talk about it on that page's corresponding talk page. -- <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> 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::There was a suggestion to move the material to another section of the article but to delete. ] (]) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::This is . Not such as in the yellow pages. It must be qualified in the yellow pages. Such as in the yellow pages suggests no qualified is needed in the yellow pages. ] (]) 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::as i have explained to you countless times above and as the sources make clear, being under the heading ''CHIROPRACTORS'' qualifies the use of the title dr... what other type of doctor would you think you would find under the heading of ''CHIROPRACTORS''??? plz stop your disruptive editing!!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It must be qualified. Such as in the yellow pages is not automatically qualified. ] (]) 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::and no one is saying it is... however, under the heading "CHIROPRACTORS" is qualified... which is what the source says! ] (]) 05:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The source states ''The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role.'' ] (]) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::The sources states ''The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act.'' ] (]) 06:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Request for sources === |
|
|
|
|
|
To facilitate an undestanding of this weird debate, will all of you please provide your sources and diffs in a list below this comment. ] (]) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:here is one of the sources... ] (]) 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::the source is listed above says this: |
|
|
::: "The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role. |
|
|
:::In addition, chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners." |
|
|
::which is pretty clear that it isnt a problem for a chiropractor to be listed in the yellow pages under the heading of ‘Chiropractors’ because the heading qualifies that the title is refering to their chiropractic role (again, what other type of doctor would you find in the yellow pages under chiropractors)... i think similar rules are in place elsewhere, where on a business sign it must say "Dr. John Doe, Chiropractor" or "Chiropractors: Dr. John Doe, Dr. Jack Smith, Dr. Jane Black"... the "however" in the source text is actually pretty important because it really shows that the use in the yellow pages isnt an abuve of the title 'doctor'... ] (]) 17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Thanks for that URL. It is a response, IOW a chiropractic quote. Where is the URL for the original quote that started all this? ] (]) 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It '''must''' be qualified according to the source. The source states ''The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role.'' The source states ''The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act.'' ] (]) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: <s>QG, please provide the URL for the original source discussed by that quote. That quote is in response to something. I want that URL. ] (]) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Found: |
|
|
|
|
|
::* Study: Andrew Gilbey, '']'', 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278 |
|
|
::* Editorial: , by ] , '']'', 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278 |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] (]) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sense About Science == |
|
|
|
|
|
The charity ] has launched a campaign<ref name=SAScience> ]</ref> to draw attention to the libel case. They have issued a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes",<ref name=Statement>. ]</ref> which has been signed by myriad signers representing science, journalism, publishing, arts, humanities, entertainment, skeptics, campaign groups and law. As of June 13, 2009, over 10,000 have signed.<ref name=SAScience/> |
|
|
|
|
|
We can add this to the page. ] (]) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: First sentence is all right, but the rest is tangential to the subject at hand, and more more apt for the SAS page. -- <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> 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Both sentences give context. When this is over we can explain what happened. ] (]) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Disagree. The second part is tangential to the subject of this article. -- <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> 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: If the second and third sentences are put together and slightly trimmed I see no problem with it. ] <small>]</small> 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: How about ''The charity ] has launched the ''Keep Libel Laws Out Of Science'' campaign to draw attention to the libel case. {{As of|June 13, 2009}}, over ten thousand signatures have been collected in support of their statement ''The law has no place in scientific disputes''.''? This is more succinct while still covering the charity and the signers. The list of categories of signers does not really add much, but the reception of the campaign is relevant to this article as a reflection on public reception of chiropractic. I could, though, see an argument that a reader should assume that if the campaign and statement were insignificant they would have been omitted. We should also add a source besides SAS. - ] <small>(])</small> 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: That's good with me. It'd be nice to expand on it, but this is the minimum we should have now. ] <small>]</small> 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Maybe a section on ''Legal cases'' or ''Response of chiropractic associations to criticism'' under ]? - ] <small>(])</small> 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Controversy and criticism NPOV tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed this tag as this article is about the well sourced topic of the controversy and criticism surrounding Chiropractic. The tag hasn't been justified here, and as there are no credible arguments here for renaming or removing this article then it doesn't appear justified. ] <small>]</small> 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have been ] reverted for placing a tag which appropriately describes this article. Which portion of the tag is untrue? |
|
|
|
|
|
:: This article's use of the terms ] in its title '''may mean the article does not present a ] of the subject'''. It may be better to ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:This article uses both words in its title. Thus this article '''may''' not present a npov of the subject. And, per the ], many agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You have not explained what you think is not NPOV. ] (]) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Not necessary. The tag says "may mean the article does not present a NPOV". From ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::* A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper ]. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming ''"Criticisms of drugs"'' to ''"Societal views on drugs"''). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::{{ec}} I didn't know that you've already been reverted for adding this tag, please be mindful of ]. ] would suggest that if you have been reverted you should move to discussion. Not revert again and then make bad faith accusations of tag teaming, which is uncivil and not likely to help resolve the situation. Your justification of the tag is lacking, in that the tag should therefore be on every controversy and criticism article, such as ]. There are whole ] on Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I would suggest the problem is with the wording of the tag and its misuse, rather than with the title of this article. ] <small>]</small> 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: If you want articles to not have controversy or criticism in the title then you'll have to propose that as an addition to NPOV policy or try to promote a new policy with that content. ] <small>]</small> 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: NPOV already says that "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So it already is policy. We are not talking about ]. We are talking about this one. Please see the AfD where many editors were in favor of renaming to a more neutral title. I have given much justification for the tag, and in return all I've heard is ]. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That was for the tag. ] (]) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I made . No specific explantion was given to any NPOV problems for the content. The title is NPOV. There are many articles with similar titles such as Aspartame controversy and Criticism of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: How much more explanation can I give? I have shown that the tag's language directly applies to this article's title. If you disagree, please explain how the tag's language is in any way false and I will drop this discussion. So far you have not even attempted to do so. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This is also a non-argument and for a tag. ] (]) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: I disagree. I will bring the matter to NPOV/N and wait for a response from a ] per ]. Please let's wait for such a response on this issue. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You have not given a specific reason for the tag. There are lots of articles with similar titles. The AFD did not go your way and now you are edit warring a tag into the article. ] (]) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::: {{ec}} Thanks for your feelings on this. It doesn't really offer anything to help this discussion or solve this issue though. In the AfD, most editors felt that this article is either a clear POV fork and should be deleted or merged or this article should be retitled. Please review the AfD. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: {{ec}}I think that'll be a waste of your time, but if you feel the need, then please drop a note at this thread to let us know where you've raised it, if anywhere. ] <small>]</small> 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: I've posted it NPOV/N as stated above. Let's wait for responses and try not to poison the well. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You have already poisoned the well by making a non-neutral comment at NPOV/N. ] (]) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I saw this posted on the NPOV noticeboard and wanted to comment. The article uses the words "controversy" and "criticism" which '''"may"''' indicate a NPOV problem. This means that further justification for the argument that the title is inappropriate is needed. If the article is about criticism and controversy surrounding the field of chiropracty, then the title is appropriate. If the article has specific areas where NPOV is being violated, bring them up for discussion. As it is, the title seems entirely appropriate to me. <font color="forestgreen">]</font> ] ] 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* The relevant NPOVN post, which fails to mention this discussion or even link to it, can be found ] at the moment. ] <small>]</small> 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The template is about the title of a section. Not the title of an article. Therefore, the template should be removed. ] (]) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requesting image upload == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an that would fit like a glove for the history section. We request an editor with the experience with images it to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: I think I've seen that on WP before. Isn't it already uploaded? I'll have a look.] <small>]</small> 21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence == |
|
|
Evidence suggests that before the founding of chiropractic in 1895, D.D. Palmer visited visted A.T. Still, the founder of osteopathy, in Kirksville, Missouri, where Still started the first school of osteopathy. ] (]) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I added the text using another ref. I explained who is arguably the of chiropractic. ] (]) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How is this controversial? u need a reference that states that this is controversial! ] (]) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is controversial how chiropractic was started. Osteopaths who are also Wikipedians don't like the "bastardizeded form". The rivalry was not solely with conventional medicine; many osteopaths proclaimed that chiropractic was a bastardized form of osteopathy. ] (]) 05:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: it isn't controversial just because you say so... see ]... you need a source to say that it is criticism or controversry... ] (]) 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is from a source that says it is a critical review. ] (]) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::just because a source is a critical review doesnt mean that everythign within it is criticism... find a reliable source that says it is criticism or dont put it in the article... its that simple! ] (]) 04:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It seems you did not read the source. If you have not read the source then I don't undersand why you are commenting on it. ] (]) 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Philosophy controversy == |
|
|
|
|
|
Chiropractic has seen considerable controversy over its philosophy. Here is a ref about the Philosophy controversy. Any thoughts on expanding it. ] (]) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Forking issue == |
|
|
See recent discussions in and |
|
|
|
|
|
Again as an unbiased editor I won't push for any action but I will say this. ] is a fork of this article. I was under the impression that it was a legitimate fork but after seen your essay now I am in doubt. Nevertheless ] is either a '''content fork''', a '''point of view (POV) fork''' as per ] or a legitimate fork badly implemented as per ]. The actions that Misplaced Pages policy suggest for these cases are 1. if content fork the merge with main article and delete. 2. if point of view (POV) fork merge any NPOV part with main article and delete. 3. if legitimate fork then a sub-section as per ] in the main article and leave the articles linked but separate. Now it is up to willing editors to find consensus as to how to proceed from here. PS I will copy this into the ] Talk Page.--] (]) 12:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:as stated elsewhere i think this is a POVFORK... as such any npov content that is not covered at the chiropractic article and is relevant and important should be merged over there... ] (]) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you wanted the merge then you would not of made . ] (]) 04:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::please reread my comment... i do not support merging every piece of information into a criticism section but i do support merging some information to relevant areas of the article... further that section is not npov and so when i say "any npov content" it doesnt mean a bunch of POV conent into a pov section... i do NOT support a bulk merge of content and the content needs to be checked sentence by sentence to determine if it is relevant, if it is npov, if it is already in the main article... plz do not tell me what i would or not do ] (]) 05:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If this page was merged then why was this page not redirected to chiropractic. Because the merge was rejected. Editors seem to want to keep this article now. It is too big to merge anywhere and meets notability guidelines. However, editors can add material to other articles per ]. ] (]) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: That's a fallacy. A merge was never rejected. Even the deletion of this article was never rejected. The AfD resulted in "no consensus". That's no consensus to merge, delete or keep. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I see no consensus for a merge becuase this page was not redirected. Time to move on. ] (]) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Correct. Time to move on. So moving on, we should now proceed to arrive at a consensus about the future of this article. From the AfD and from other conversations, we know that there are editors who feel that this article: |
|
|
:::::::# Should be merged. |
|
|
:::::::# Should be rewritten to comply with NPOV. |
|
|
:::::::# Should be retitled to comply with NPOV |
|
|
:::::::# Should be deleted as a POV fork. |
|
|
::::::: I don't think many if any editor felt that this article should be left as is. So now we need to work to find a consensus on how to move forward. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Levine2112 ackowledged shortly after the AFD discussion there was . We do not continue the discussion over and over again to come to a different result. If you don't like the article you can AFD it. ] (]) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::there is no current consensus on what to do with the article and as such discussion should continue... please do not close this discussion as that would be disruptive editing... 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::i believe that either any npov content should be merged with other appropriate articles (]/]) or that the article should be rewritten to comply with NPOV... while i agree that it is a POV fork i think there may be some content worth saving... i do NOT think the article should be kept as it is now ] (]) 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::We don't continue a discussion when a few editors don't like the outcome. There was no consensus to delete the article. Since the AFD the article has expanded. I tried a merge but it was rejected. ] (]) 06:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Having reviewed the AfD and other discussions its apparent that a consensus has not yet developed. Anyone who doesn't want to participate in the discussion further certainly isn't required to, but lets leaving closing discussions to folks uninvolved in these disputes, ok? I'd suggest since the regulars here have probably already had their say and are unlikely to convince each other that it would be a good idea to engage other members of the community through RfC or a similar process. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'd love some more specific guidance here, Shell (or anyone else). If we were to have an RfC, what question(s) do you think we should be asking? (Should it be merged? Should it be deleted? Should it be retitled? Should it be rewritten?) -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, there's a couple of those options I wouldn't suggest. For example, I would say that the question of retitling the article has already been answered on talk here and the NPOV noticeboard. The majority of editors felt that the title was appropriate for a ] (Oddly though, it seems like someone has removed the summary from the main article?). I also think that due to the recent deletion discussion, opening another one this soon is unlikely to produce a different result. That leaves either merger or rewriting. In the case of a merger, since there are already other subarticles for Chiropractic, there would need to be a good policy based reason that this particular one should be merged back into the main article. In the case of rewriting, someone would need to make specific suggestions on what they think should be reworded and why (those suggestions might even be tried here first before using further dispute resolution). ] <sup>]</sup> 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Thanks Shell for the excellent advice. Instead of complaining and trying to get this deleted, why don't critics of this article start making specific suggestions, just as you suggest? That's the way forward. I'll create a section heading below. ] (]) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Editors are makiing vague comments that they claim there are NPOV problems with this article. If there is a problem with the text editors could be specific. The vague comments are non-arguments which I don't know what to do about. Specific suggestions would be helpful. ] (]) 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><b>A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable.</b></blockquote> |
|
|
:the criticism of chiropractic is already presented in the article ] in each section... as such this article is a blatant POV fork... ] (]) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Specific suggestions for improvement == |
|
|
# Diversify the sources. Currently, this article seems to be primarily driven by Ernst's POV. He is cited at about 20 times, mentioned twice in the article. Considering the article cites about 40 sources, we may assume that Ernst's POV account for about half of the article. This presents a serious ] issue as well as ] in general. |
|
|
# ''"The core concepts of chiropractic, ] and ], are not based on ]."'' This misrepresents a critical view of chiropractic as if it were mainstream. There is science behind these concepts and (arguably) parts of that science are sound, despite what Ernst (a critic) says. This article should not be taking sides in this dispute among mainstream sources. As it is, it creates a ] problem. |
|
|
# This article simply regurgitates many items which are included in other articles, including ], ], ], ] and ]. This also creates a ] issue. |
|
|
# The ''History'' section spends too much time regurgitating what is already found in the ] and have very little to do with documented "Criticism" or "Controversy". (i.e. ''The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, Daniel D. Palmer, manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured.'' and ''Chiropractic included vitalistic ideas of innate intelligence with religious attributes of universal intelligence to substitute science.'' ) As it is written, the article seems to try and create "criticism" or "controversy" where none is present in the sources, thus violating ]. |
|
|
# ''Chiropractic does not have the same level of mainstream credibility as other healthcare professions. A 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, chiropractors rated last among seven health care professions for being very high or high in honesty and ethical standards, with 36% of poll respondents rating chiropractors very high or high; the corresponding ratings for other professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, 62% for dentists, and 84% for nurses.'' This is an opinion which is stated as though it were fact and again tries to create a criticism or controversy where there is none, thus violating ] and ]. This also is repeated from the ] article, thus violating ]. |
|
|
# ''The largest chiropractic associations in the U.S. and Canada distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims.'' Opinion presented as fact, thus violates ]. |
|
|
# ''Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients.'' Opinion presented as fact, thus violates ]. |
|
|
# ''Sustained chiropractic care is promoted as a preventative tool but unnecessary manipulation could possibly present a risk to patients.'' Opinion presented as fact, thus violates ]. |
|
|
# ''A study of California disciplinary statistics during 1997–2000 reported 4.5 disciplinary actions per 1000 chiropractors per year, compared to 2.27 for MDs; the incident rate for fraud was 9 times greater among chiropractors (1.99 per 1000 chiropractors per year) than among MDs (0.20).'' Source fails ]. |
|
|
# The whole New Zealand "usage of the Doctor title" comes from sources which fails ] and is repeated in ], thus violates ]. |
|
|
# ''UK chiropractic organizations and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by scientific evidence...'' This paragraph presents opinion as though it were fact and thus violations ]. The source it cites fails ]. |
|
|
# The Simon Singh stuff is too long and smacks of WP:RECENTISM and gives way undue WP:WEIGHT for the case. |
|
|
# ''Not all criticism originated from critics in the medical profession. Some chiropractors are cautiously calling for reform...'' This paragraph duplicates text already in ], thus violating ]. |
|
|
# ''The dogma of subluxation is the biggest single barrier to professional development for chiropractors.'' Presents opinion as fact and thus violates ] |
|
|
# ''The cost, effectiveness, and safety, of spinal manipulation are uncertain.''This text duplicates text already in ]. |
|
|
# ''Quackwatch is critical of chiropractic; its founder, Stephen Barrett, has written that it is "absurd" to think that chiropractors are qualified to be primary care providers...'' Quackwatch is not a particularly reliable source on chiropractic, and should not be cited or promoted, as we have far-more-reliable and equally-critical sources. |
|
|
# ''Lon Morgan, DC...'' Unnotable critic, his opinion here violations ]. Misplaced Pages is not his soapbox. |
|
|
# ''William T. Jarvis, Ph.D...'' Likewise, Jarvis is not notable nor worth emphasizing. This is a looooooong quote from an old source, violates ] and ]. |
|
|
# ''Chiropractors historically are strongly opposed to vaccination...'' More ] violation. This text is also repeated in the ], ],and the ] articles, this violating ]. |
|
|
Finally, I would like to highlight a few bits from ] and I think it will be clear to all why this article obviously violates this guideline: |
|
|
|
|
|
* A '''point of view (POV) fork''' is a content fork deliberately created to avoid ] guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. |
|
|
* (R)egardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. |
|
|
* Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article '''must'''include suitably-] positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. |
|
|
* There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers '''both''' the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead). |
|
|
|
|
|
In sum, this article has many problems. After we remove/fix the soapbox, weight and RS violating content, we'll still be left with a lot of POV text in under a POV title in a POV article. The ] - while resulting in no consensus - revealed that most editors felt that this article is problematic in one way or another. Some suggested a title change, some suggested a merger, and some suggested total deletion. I personally don't think that this article is salvagable as its very concept violates ]. While I am in favor of all out deletion, above I have described some very specific problems in this very problematic article and until these at least these specific issues can be resolved, this article should be tagged with labels highlighting its issues. I have gone ahead and tagged this article with the labels I think are most relevant. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===lede=== |
|
|
Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
:this sentence doesnt pass WP:NPOV or WP:V... i put a citation needed tag on it and added Ernst as a reference... but the reference used doesnt use the words controversy or criticism... so how can it be used to verifiy this sentence?? it fails NPOV because it only describes one viewpoint... how about the praise that chiropractic has been the subject of?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Edzard Ernst has stated that chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts which led to internal conflict within the profession. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:why are we giving ernsts viewpoints a prominent display in the lede of the article?? hasnt there been dispute about similar text because the article actually doesnt say this even though the abstract does?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation. |
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
:this seems to be original research to me... the source referenced doesnt use the word battle or battled let alone antiscientific or pseudoscientific and uses the term mainstream medicine only once which isnt talking about a battle with chiropractic... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Innate intelligence definition == |
|
The core concepts of chiropractic, vertebral subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:this sentence is already in the main article ] and as such does not need to be duplicated here |
|
|
] (]) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:An accepted definition of something that doesn't exist? - ] ] 08:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
===history=== |
|
|
|
::Imaginary numbers can be defined, it should be easy enough to do the same here: |
|
The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, ], manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured. D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, defined chiropractic as "a science of healing without drugs" and considered establishing chiropractic as a ]. |
|
|
|
::(from the article) |
|
:this is all covered in the chiropractic history article and none of it is criticism or controversy... it is original research to include it in an article on criticism and controversy when it is neither (unless we have sources that say it is)... as levine said above it is also a problem with npov/weight because it is already covered in chiropractic history |
|
|
|
::...an undefined fifth force in the body that is otherwise unknown to science. Palmer believed he could influence this fifth force, termed Innate Intelligence... |
|
Evidence suggests that D.D. Palmer had acquired knowledge of manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy. |
|
|
:again... it is original research to put this in an article on controversy and criticism... although it should be in ] ] (]) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
:: 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== |
|
== References == |
|
|
|
{{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> |
|
'''Please keep this section at the bottom. <span style="color:red">TO ADD A NEW SECTION</span>, just click the <span style="color:red">EDIT</span> link at the right and add the new section <span style="color:red">ABOVE</span> this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
<!-- ATTENTION! --> |
|
|
<!-- If you are inserting something below here, STOP PLEASE and instead insert above "== References ==". Thanks! --> |
|
|
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** --> |
|
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 November 2024 and 7 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NoodleMed (article contribs).