This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hughgr (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 12 February 2008 (lol). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:29, 12 February 2008 by Hughgr (talk | contribs) (lol)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
- Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There was a minor consensus at at Chiropractic to create a split article to house the bulk of chiropractic's "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section, Talk:Chiropractic#Too_long.21. This new article was aptly named: Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. I was hesitant about this article becoming a POV Fork, but willing to proceed with it as an experiment. As the days went on, it became increasingly clear that this article was meant not just to house chiropractic research information, but also a substantial criticism section which had no direct correlation with chiropractic research, but rather just general criticism of chiropractic. Then, the article was moved and renamed several times until it became what it is today: Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to justify the inclusion of random chiropractic criticism. In my eyes, this is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK and as such, I am requesting that this article be deleted and the bulk of the research content be restored at Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Chiropractic is too long, and that the seemingly endless, unbroken, repetitive, and boring "scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section was all but guaranteed to make any reader lose interest in the article. I don't care if we heavily truncate it, formally reserve an article for it (and not criticism), leave it as it is, or find some fourth solution, but moving it back into Chiropractic - which is still too long - is really no option at all. Personally? I'd have a content fork for "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" and include a section for criticism of chiro in the Chiropractic article. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- Levine2112 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No need to delete if we genuinely need such an article, simply move this one and work on it IMHO.Merkinsmum 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- Levine2112 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I also viewed this as an experiment and wow it didn't take long to POVFORK... The majority of the article is merely cut/copy and paste from other articles so its rudundant in that regard too. I suggest delete and the science stuff cut from the chiropractic article be rewritten and added back to the chiro article.--Hughgr (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as well. It seems that a particular editor has ran with the article in question has ties to quackwatch and stephen barrett. Not only that, I find that his references are generally very poor and contain significant OR. Indeed, I can almost trace back the same passage verbatim to all the references he quotes. I think that we can truncate the scientific section as well and perhaps add a critiques section, but I would bet that tons of anti-chiropractic propanganda that is not veriable nor based on research papers would sneak its way in there and spiral out of control. I'm all for suggestions though.
- PS: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job; but as I am on 'probation' right now I have to pick and choose my edits carefully for the next week or so. As a rookie on here sometimes I may violate things and genuinely not know it, but do want to stick around for the long run so I've got to keep my nose clean!EBDCM (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment EBDCM stated: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job... but now EBDCM wants to delete the good job Hyperbole did? Hyperbole did a major rewrite. It was a great job and it should be kept based on the improvements made. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- strong delete I actually had already spotted this one. No need for a separate page, plus 'research and criticism' is a wierd name. It is actually a POV title in a way, as it implies true research about chiropractic is solely positive- if you see what I mean? Merkinsmum 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. DGG (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we are all starting to understand the inherent NPOV issues with an article named as such. It is inescapable. -- Levine2112 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. DGG (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The main Chiropractic was too long. This new article resolved the problem. Chiropractic care is a controversial discipline and the article should remain in mainspace. There is a lot of scientific investigation into the credibility of chiropractic philosophy. Hopefully the Misplaced Pages community will allow a quality article to remain on Misplaced Pages and not create another huge main chiropractic article. The Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care section in the main article was shortened. It took up about a third of the page. We don't want a huge main article. This is easy to understand that two articles are better than one in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old bait-and-switch routine. -- Levine2112 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that deleting that section and having that discussion back when the article was called "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care". Once it got renamed to "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" it became clear that an AfD was necessary. -- Levine2112 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old bait-and-switch routine. -- Levine2112 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here is another idea to consider. We can have a pure research article and a pure criticsm article. Critical views of chiropractic Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- This idea is suggested above as well. After this AfD is over, we should have that discussion. One thing at a time. -- Levine2112 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm a bit concerned about so many "usual suspects" showing up here. Is anyone else? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who and why? -- Levine2112 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a clumsy attempt to hide the fact the science, with the exception of outliers, thinks chiro is rubbish. In fact it sails close to abusing the purpose of AfD. Perhaps the article should be renamed Science and chiro. :-) Mccready (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - To state again, I (and it seems others) would welcome an article just about Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. That was the original intent of splitting the article (or at least that is how it was proposed). This article however quickly became a POV Fork by including criticism unrelated to Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. -- Levine2112 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is by definition a WP:POVFORK. I agree with
QGand Hyperbole that the idea to break off a section of chiropractic and expand it in another article would be great (and therefore shorten the chiropractic article), but it too has to be NPOV. This article appears to be an attempt to avoid NPOV. How many different ways can we say "there is research, some people think it is great, others think it is crap, blah, blah, blah..." Unless you have something more important to add, a POV FORK is not the way to make your point. It just makes for a bigger battlefield. What next, add chiropractic to all the articles that concern symptoms? Let's not go there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC) - Note Levine2112, Hughgr, EBDCM, and Dēmatt are all pro-chiropractic advocates. Dematt claims to agree with me but does not. What content was forked? Claiming it was a fork without evidence is gaming the system. What is wrong with the content. It is NPOV and that is the problem with the article. The pro-chiro advocates want a POV article and leave out any critical views of chiropractics. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. Critical views of chiropractic QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If I start a new article titled Critical views of chiropractic it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: Critical views of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You cannot compare Misplaced Pages to Citizendium. They are quite obviously a different wiki with their own policies and such. And I would kindly remind you to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--Hughgr (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If I start a new article titled Critical views of chiropractic it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: Critical views of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. Critical views of chiropractic QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. No reasons for deletion given that satisfy WP:DELETION. This is not automatically a POV fork, and even some of its opponents in its current form seem to say that it was not one from the start. As the POV concerns may well be valid, I suggest the following solution: Rename back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; make sure that the article content matches its title; make sure that the article conforms to WP:NPOV; make sure that it is summarized and linked to as main article per WP:SPINOUT. An article's being biased is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to edit. I share Hyperbole's frustration in seeing a proper spinout article go to AfD. Avb 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)