Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 6 March 2008

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

WP:POVFORK

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines. Let's make sure that this article doesn't become that. -- Levine2112 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If that happens, I'll support a AfD. I have also removed the homeopathy article probation template because no one is discussing homeopathy here. If that happens, it can be replaced. -- Fyslee / talk 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you just mentioned the H-word. Everybody get out their ban-sticks! ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the template for the same reasons. It is not a template for any and all alterntive medicine articles, but only those where homeopathy is being discussed or edited. That's not the case here. This is a focused and unrelated discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WebMD

I restored the WebMD material. Since Lundberg is involved and gives it his blessing, I think we can safely say it's a V RS, particularly since it cites a journal article (which, per Arthur, is even better for us to use). Maybe the language should be tweaked (although it appears to stick close to the source), but by no means should it be deleted. Given Lundberg, I don't think there are any weight problems with having its own section, though here it would be better to organize the sections by topic, not source. (An exception could be if some source had really amazing weight, like a sci-consensus statement, but we don't have that here.) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What specifically about the content is disputed for its lack of neutrality? I am not sure what the argument here is. -- Levine2112 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the diff where it was added here: - it seems Arthur Rubin's actual expressed concern wasn't that the section had POV problems, but that WebMD was perhaps not a "reliable source" - by which I assume he meant it was perhaps not a notable enough viewpoint to be included in the article. At any rate, the NPOV tag is all wrong, and I'm taking it down. I'm of the opinion that WebMD's stance is notable enough for inclusion, particularly in a content fork like this. --Hyperbole (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquest on the issue, Hyperbole. -- Levine2112 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A mess!

I know this article has just begun, but it is a mess! I think we need to devise an organizational strategy. Perhaps start with "Historical scientific inquiries" where we discuss early attempts to study chiropractic from a scientific viewpoint all the way through Wilk where it was discovered that the AMA was actually suppressing positive scientific research about chiropractic. Then, the "Modern Research" section could be divided into multiple subsections; perhaps by treatment claim (e.g. "Headaches", "Colic", "Blood pressure", "Back/neck pain", etc.) as well as the "Reports..." section.

Further, I removed the criticism section as it was a bit off topic - dealing more with criticism of chiropractic in general rather than criticism of the scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. I believe that all viewpoints (for, against, neutral) are or will be expressed by the research we cite. If there are notable critics or supporters who have insight on the research, then we should include it inline with the research rather than in separate sections.

Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I had performed some cleaning up of redundancy and excising of material not relevant to this very specific topic, Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. OrangeMarlin, you have thrice reverted this edit (which is totally fine... clearly you are against the substance of my edits) I would just like some specifics in terms of issues you have. Perhaps something less general than the policy megillah of your reverting edit summary: Per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. -- Levine2112 08:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I also am definitely going to need to know the thinking behind that revert before I'm comfortable with letting it stay. --Hyperbole (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Homeopathy guys. •Jim62sch• 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? I don't see the relationship between what we are asking for and any of the discussion at Talk:Homeopathy. -- Levine2112 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

Was there consensus for this move? Seems we are really flirting with POV-fork land now. There is research supporting chiropractic, or at least the treatment side, i.e. manipulation. Shouldn't that be cited alongside negative results? Oh, I see, QuackGuru (talk · contribs · logs · block log) removed the WebMD stuff here. Here it is, below. --Jim Butler (t) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that CZ has an article with a similar title; maybe we can learn from their lead section and take a similar approach here. But I still like the earlier title better, because a scientific result isn't criticism or praise, it's just a result.... OrangeMarlin, think about whether you really want to depict scientific research as "critical".... as in, false equivalence: "scientists criticized foobar", "foobar lovers replied scientists were full of baloney." Seems like the kinda relativism that I'd think you'd want to get away from. Maybe better just to cite research and discuss what people say about it, e.g. arguments over proper study design, etc. ... but anyway:

Chiropractic has received its share of criticism from the allied health sciences, most particularly, from physicians in the USA; where the practice of chiropractic has its largest base. Some of these criticisms have also been echoed within the chiropractic profession. This article discusses criticisms that have been expressed by notable sources, and includes the rebuttals of chiropractors to these views. Reporting a criticism, or its rebuttal, here, does not imply that either is endorsed by Citizendium or its editors.

regards, Jim Butler (t) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, critical (from -- κρίνειν, to decide, judge) has a number of meanings, some innocuous, some noxious. ;) I get your point though. •Jim62sch• 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now I know this has become a POVFORK with the title change. Perhaps the old title wasn't great but the "critism of chiropractic care" title is blatently POV when the article consists of chiropractic research..... --Hughgr (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that Criticism of chiropractic care and Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care are both good topics to write about, but they are not the same article. Any more than "criticism of psychoanalysis" and "scientific inquiries into psychoanalysis" are the same thing. --Jim Butler (t) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am going to nominate this article for deletion this coming week if it doesn't become less of a POV Fork. -- Levine2112 18:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

moved again

Can we live with "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism"? •Jim62sch• 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another title to consider. Critical views of chiropractic Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. Quack Guru 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatant WP:POVFORK now and should be nominated for deletion as such. I'll check back after the weekend to see if things have changed or if the nomination for deletion has occurred. -- Levine2112 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WebMD (removed without adequate explanation)

WebMD has published several studies that promote the efficacy of chiropractic adjustments. The first of these was published on October 12, 2004. This study showed that not only did Chiropractic cut the cost of treating back pain by 28%, it also reduced hospitilizations by 41%, back surgeries by 32%, and reduced the cost of medical imaging, such as X-rays or MRIs, by 37%. This was according to a study published in the Oct. 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine. Although the researchers did not look at patient satisfaction in this study, Metz says company studies show that 95% of chiropractic care patients are satisfied with the care they receive." --Jim Butler (t) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to have a whole section on WebMD. They do not promote chiro adjustments anyhow. It is also a bit off topic. Quack Guru 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No more undue than having any section titled after a particular V RS... should reorg tha article and leave the WebMD there. --Jim Butler (t) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disputed content moved from another article and I do not see the relevancy. Quack Guru 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed by you, yes, but since it's a V RS I don't see what your objections are. Of course, it may or may not be relevant depending on what the article happens to be titled at the moment.

All the moving is a little surreal. I'd like to suggest we hold off on page moves till we have some consensus on where to take this. Seems WP:GAMEy to retitle and then argue for omitting/including certain material. Why not have both a sci research and a criticisms article (assuming the main chiro article can accomodate neither, size-wise)? --Jim Butler (t) 03:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite and reincluision looks good. --Jim Butler (t) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This lead is absolutely horrible

"Chiropractic has been the subject of criticism. There has been many scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy. Criticism has also come from philosophical conflicts within the profession and critics outside the profession."

This is among the worst paragraphs I have ever read - but editing that should be reasonably uncontroversial. Where it gets tricky is this:

"The conflicts within the profession comes from the differing schools of thought. There are four varying groups of chiropractors: "traditional straights," "objective straights," "mixers," and "reform.""

Yes, three sources are cited, but when you read all available sources, you see many disputes as to whether any groups other than "traditional straights" and "mixers" are even significant - both "reform" and "objective straights" may or may not be tiny minorities that shouldn't even be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT. There's more discussion on this at talk:Chiropractic. I personally do not believe we should be asserting the existence of those four categories as though there were a universal consensus that they exist. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great editing Hyperbole. I must say, I am impressed by your writing skills. Quack Guru 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And the criticism section is done completely wrong

Probably the worst possible way to do the criticism section is to select random people who have said things negative about chiro and quote them, with no explanation of why they or their opinions matter. Look, I haven't been reverting this stuff because I don't want to see criticism of chiro - I have absolutely no personal experience or POV regarding chiro - I've been reverting it because it is terribly done. I think we can all agree, no matter what our POV, that an encyclopedic look at criticism of chiropractic does not consist of a collection of random smears against the profession. --Hyperbole (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just edit it and improve it. Quack Guru 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

why does this article exist?

Not being critical or anything, I was just wondering how this article ended up coming into being, rather than there just being the chiropractic article? Merkinsmum 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This was Hyperbole's suggestion. There was clear consensus at the talk page at the main chiropractic article. Quack Guru 03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There was clear conscensus on the talk page for a science article, in order to reduce the kb of the chiro page. But this one has morphed into a POVFORK with quotes from other articles related to chiro such as the Innate intellegence article quote of Lon Morgan. In my opinion, this art should be deleted as a POVFORK and the science stuff condensed and put back in the Chiropractic article.--Hughgr (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism article needed that is unrelated to research

A criticism article is needed that is unrelated to dealing with all the research (that is touched on in other articles), which is generally another matter.

Size has indeed become a problem and certain types of forks are allowable under the circumstances. Attempts at paring down the chiropractic article are underway and being used as an excuse to whitewash the article and profession. That content should not be deleted if it can be used here.

I share the concerns of several about the way this critical article has come into being, but that doesn't mean such articles aren't needed here. Citizendium is a good source to emulate on this matter.

A criticism article is easily justified by our notability criteria, and there are plenty of V & RS, since chiropractic has been and is one of the most controversial alternative medicine subjects around. The long and contentious history of the editing here bears that out. The subject cannot be covered by a few sentences in the chiropractic article, so a separate article needs to exist. We can then copy the lead of that criticism article into the chiropractic article and then link to the "main" criticism article.

While there are "studies that promote the efficacy of chiropractic adjustments," that happens to be a very different topic that should not be mixed into this one. That would be a disruptive tactic designed to water down and hide the criticisms. Joint manipulation may have (it is quite disputed, even by Edzard Ernst) some positive uses (that are vastly overhyped by nearly all DCs, many PTs, and some MDs), but the criticisms of chiropractic are related to the profession as a whole, its history, its fundamental assumptions and theoretical base, its claims, its marketing, its education, its promotion of and toleration for quackeries, its contentious nature, and many other matters unrelated to some possible positive aspects. Those positive aspects are already dealt with in the chiropractic article and the joint manipulation article, among others.

The criticisms aren't adequately dealt with anywhere here, and that should be done. There are abundant V & RS from within and without the profession for a large, informative, and very interesting article. Expect any such attempts to be met with obstructive AfDs and other such moves. Let's come up with some possible titles, such as Chiropractic controversy and criticism. -- Fyslee / talk 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While thats what they decided to do at Citizendium, Misplaced Pages has its own rules. This article has become a POVFORK and the one you propose would definitely be a POVFORK.--Hughgr (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be ideal to cover it in the chiropractic article, but it's too large already. How would you propose we could do the subject justice within our framework here? -- Fyslee / talk 04:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First, this POVFORK needs to get deleted. Its just material copied from other articles anyway with a few exceptions. The science material cut and pasted from the chiro article can be re-written into a more readable form and reinserted into the chiropractic article, hopefully taking up less space in the process. The same can go for the criticism at the bottom of the chiro article. That can be either integrated into the article better or two paragraphs, one for internal and one for external. Finally, the page size is not a policy but a guideline. Hence, we don't have to do it, but I think the chiro article can handle some copy-editing, not many people will spend an hour reading. :) --Hughgr (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what Hugh says.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Please add comments above this section

1. Web MD,

What is this article?

What is this article? It is awful. . . poorly written and an ambiguous premise.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is another opportunity to see if we can write another NPOV article about chiropractic. I hope you have a lot of time. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This title (Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care) is the closest thing I saw to a consensus at the AfD. Restoring. Hopefully this is a good start to get this finally in shape. -- Levine2112 07:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, inquiries sounds better than the weasel word "investigation", which can imply that Chiropractic is under investigation. DigitalC (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Investigation is not a weasel word. Chiropractic, as with all other practices of its kind, are under scientific investigation. Evidence-based medicine is a result of and always subject to scientific investigation. All human knowledge is subject to scientific investigation. And this article is about the scientific investigations of Chiropractics --72.183.127.57 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LEAD

Isn't the lead supposed to be a summary of the article? This lead doesn't seem to be even relevant to the article. DigitalC (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the lead has to this with the material that was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Safety and Efficacy

This new section is completely redundant from the main chiropractic article in theory. However, in this version. the only research which is provided are the negative ones, making this section highly POV. We need to reduce the negative research and include much of the positive as well to bring this section into balance. -- Levine2112 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This version is substandard and the conclusions drawn from the citations is nothing but negative "spin" by Mr. Guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBDCM (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No additional so-called positive references have been provided. Therefore no arguement has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy warning (again)

This was already discussed above and it was decided that the homeopathy warning is not necessary on this article as "homeopathy" is not being discussed here. The only discussion of homeopathy here deals with whether or not the homeopathy warning template should be on this page. -- Levine2112 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved editors should not remove the tag. Please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV FORK

This needs AfD; it is a POV duplicate of a similar subsection of the main chiropractic article and it is poorly written. Many citations and interpretations of those citations leave much to be desired. Please desist from adding this to the main chiropractic article; this POV FORK has been rejected by consensus by the community. Thanks for your co-operation, Quack Guru, and I hope that your editing style improves in the future as I now count 2 blocks on the same topic in less than a month. EBDCM (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is just talk. I doubt you will AFD anything. The safety is heavily referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Probation

Please see here. Any article broadly related or affected is under probation per community will. Discuss any disagreements on that, at the provided link. Involved editors do not decide what is or is not under probation. Lawrence § t/e 07:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I an not an editor involved with chiropractic or homeopathy. Adding such an aggressive expansion shopping of a POV on edits should be considered disruption and bad faith of an all too common ill-informed, -ing anti-scientific POV (I mean that quite literally - rejection of science & its methodology in practice with concrete examples, all while loudly claiming (falsely) its mantle) into an unrelated topic. I do not edit the homeopathy or chiropractic articles - I simply see this as a disruptive extension of disputive POV pushing with clear features of initimidation, provocation and unfairness into an unrelated topic that needs to stop. Such "policy" intrepretations remind me all too much of 3rd world countries that claim a rule of law and wonder why they have negative growth and such a bad reputation.--I'clast (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)