This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backin72 (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 7 February 2008 (→WP:POVFORK: h is for heh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:26, 7 February 2008 by Backin72 (talk | contribs) (→WP:POVFORK: h is for heh)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2 |
 | 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. |
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)