Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:18, 12 July 2014 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits archive← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:02, 17 December 2014 edit undo69.4.143.58 (talk) →Dispute of Neutrality: new sectionNext edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	\|mask=Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive <#>		\|mask=Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}		\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Dispute of Neutrality ==

			This article seems to be incredibly one-sided. There is little to no citation of the benefits of Chiropractic practices. Furthermore, the article makes opinionated claims with no citations, such as the following: "The core concept of traditional chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, is not based on sound science."

Revision as of 23:02, 17 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chiropractic controversy and criticism at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 16 May 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
no consensus, 20 June 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Dispute of Neutrality

This article seems to be incredibly one-sided. There is little to no citation of the benefits of Chiropractic practices. Furthermore, the article makes opinionated claims with no citations, such as the following: "The core concept of traditional chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, is not based on sound science."

Categories: