Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism

Rewrite

Since I had some time I have rewritten the article. I suggest a better title such as chiropractic controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 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 Chiropractic controversies and criticism or some such beast? You can just move the article to the new title. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hughgr's edit 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 antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims ... that are ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment." [1] This sentence has been discussed extensively at the Chiropractic 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 WP:ASF. 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 Talk:Chiropractic, and the Chiropractic page uses prose attribution to make it clear that Wikipedia is describing what's asserted in reliable sources, not endorsing those judgements itself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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...--Hughgr (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious POV fork. I believe this article has been deleted before on the same grounds. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the Aspartame controversy page. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous article was never deleted. It survived AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Should we redirect the page or keep it like the Aspartame controversy page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

we should redirect the page, or simply delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination

See discussion at User talk:Coppertwig#FV.

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 (WP:ASF): "one of the most effective public health measures in history". The ref used at the Chiropractic 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." [2] I suggest the following wording (since this article is to be longer than Chiropractic): "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. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Although not problem free is failed verification in that context and is a minority point. QuackGuru (talk) 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. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this rejected at the main article. Only a few would argue is clearly a minor point. QuackGuru (talk) 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.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which ref are you reading. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Busse 2005, Chiropractic Antivaccination Arguments, [3] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the ref in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For some unknown reason the sentence Copptertwig objected to has vanished. I think this was the reason. I don't understand. I thought Coppertwig made the edit but to my suprise it was another editor. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I added attribution as suggested. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought dentists is more relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 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

gallup poll

HO groups from RS

I added what I thought what more relevant. I am not interested in participating in a poll. QuackGuru (talk) 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? Unomi (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They came from a ref. I think some are more relevant to chiropractic while others are irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 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? Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that wikipedia content should reflect the information in the sources it purports to use? Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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 :) Unomi (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding about 6 or 7 health occupations is too many. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the time to read what you are writing:

“ 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. :) Unomi (talk) 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. Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Some chiropractors are concerned by the routine unjustified claims chiropractors have made.[1]" This is also in the article. Do you want to comment this out too. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'some' regarding fluoridation is part of an attributed quote and as such, per WP:NPOV is ok, remember that 'some', 'many', 'few' should generally be attributed directly per WP:NPOV. 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. Unomi (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to add the long run quotes about some chiropractors. You commented out some chiropractors and add long run on quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Unomi (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You disagreed with having a sentence about "some chiropractors" but then added large quotes about some chiropractors. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to restore vaccination and removed the full quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 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. 79.101.242.230 (talk) 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." QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

i am aware. however, can you find a better source for similar statement? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote then WP:NPOV: Each Wikipedia 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 WP:REDFLAG, a subsection of WP:V. I find the claim exceptional. Could you please find exceptional source? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 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. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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 Wikipedia works, after all).

Second, the fact that the source is recent is a good thing. Check WP:MEDRS. 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:

Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.

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. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

o.k., so here's [4] the search for keywords, with second paper's citations being this 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? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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...79.101.174.192 (talk) 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. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 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? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 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. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 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. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, in 2008 the New England Journal of Medicine said this about Ernst: "Ernst is one of the best qualified people to summarize the evidence on this topic (Alternative medicine)."

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): [5], [6]...

There are barriers between primary care physicians and chiropractors for having positive referral relationships. QuackGuru (talk) 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? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the information to history from two refs. QuackGuru (talk) 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'. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 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 vertebral subluxation and innate intelligence articles here so he can include information about Simon Singh. There is nothing in this article that isn't already covered in either the main chiropractic article or other related articles. This article is the primary definition of a POV fork and should be AFD'd.--Hughgr (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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 [7] 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

D.D. Palmer jailed

At Your Own Risk: The Case Against Chiropractic. Several chiropractors were behind bars. Look at that picture. We can add information about the jail thingy and upload the picture for the history section. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs.[8][9][10][11][12][13] [14][15] QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some ‘‘martyrs,’’ including D.D. Palmer himself, went to jail for practicing medicine without a licence.6,41[16] QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs to read.[17][18][19][20][21] QuackGuru (talk) 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.--stmrlbs|talk 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. --stmrlbs|talk 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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.[1]". QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a controversy because Palmer claims manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It isnt a controversy until you find reliable sources saying it is a controversy 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is from Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. It is a critical evaluation. QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement is controversial from a critical source. QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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.[5] The longstanding feud between chiropractors and medical doctors continued for decades. The AMA labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966,[6] and until 1980 held that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with "unscientific practitioners".[7] 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.[8]"
• "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? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the section is too short. QuackGuru (talk) 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? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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.[17] 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. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was miselading to claim under the heading chiropractic refers to their chiropractic role. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What OTHER role would it be refering to, when it is under the heading 'Chiropractors'??? SERIOUSLY! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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'") 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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." 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The giant heading "CHIROPRACTORS" qualifies the use of the title 'Doctor'... as the sources show 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I showed under the heading chiropractic must be qualified according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

u failed to do any such thing and u continue to ignore multiple sources above showing this 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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." QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Being under the heading CHIROPRACTORS qualifies the use of the title... the source says "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" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The source says the title must be qualified. Under the title is not qualified. The source gave examples. QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

u might think so, but that ISN'T what the sources say. Under the heading CHIROPRACTORS is qualified. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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 [22]. 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>. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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." QuackGuru (talk) 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" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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." QuackGuru (talk) 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" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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." QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor here is absolutely correct. This seems to be a case of WP:IDHT on QuackGuru's part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 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." QuackGuru (talk) 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 WP:DR. In the meantime, stop editwarring and leave the text as it is in the given source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to move the material to another section of the article but no consensus to delete. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It must be qualified. Such as in the yellow pages is not automatically qualified. QuackGuru (talk) 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! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

here is one of the sources...[23] 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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'... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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? Brangifer (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

QG, please provide the URL for the original source discussed by that quote. That quote is in response to something. I want that URL. Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Found:

• Study: Use of inappropriate titles by New Zealand practitioners of acupuncture, chiropractic, and osteopathy. Andrew Gilbey, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278
• Editorial: Doctor Who? Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative “medicine” practitioners, by David Colquhoun [24][25], Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278

Brangifer (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science

The charity Sense About Science has launched a campaign to draw attention to the libel case. They have issued a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes", 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.

We can add this to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Both sentences give context. When this is over we can explain what happened. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The second part is tangential to the subject of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If the second and third sentences are put together and slightly trimmed I see no problem with it. Verbal chat 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about The charity Sense About Science 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 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. Verbal chat 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a section on Legal cases or Response of chiropractic associations to criticism under History? - 2/0 (cont.) 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. Verbal chat 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been WP:TAGTEAM reverted for placing a tag which appropriately describes this article. Which portion of the tag is untrue?

This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.

This article uses both words in its title. Thus this article may not present a npov of the subject. And, per the AfD, many agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained what you think is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. The tag says "may mean the article does not present a NPOV". From WP:NPOV:

• A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. 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.

-- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't know that you've already been reverted for adding this tag, please be mindful of WP:3RR. WP:BRD 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 Aspartame controversy. There are whole WP:RS 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. Verbal chat 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. Verbal chat 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 other articles. 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That was not an explantion for the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I made this change. 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 Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is also a non-argument and no explanation for a tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I will bring the matter to NPOV/N and wait for a response from a WP:3PO per WP:DR. Please let's wait for such a response on this issue. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 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. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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. Verbal chat 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. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have already poisoned the well by making a non-neutral comment at NPOV/N. QuackGuru (talk) 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. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The relevant NPOVN post, which fails to mention this discussion or even link to it, can be found here at the moment. Verbal chat 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. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting image upload

Here is an image that would fit like a glove for the history section. We request an editor with the experience with images upload it to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 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.Verbal chat 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.[26] QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the text using another ref. I explained who is arguably the sole founder of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this controversial? u need a reference that states that this is controversial! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

it isn't controversial just because you say so... see WP:CRIT... you need a source to say that it is criticism or controversry... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from a source that says it is a critical review. QuackGuru (talk) 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! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy controversy

Chiropractic has seen considerable controversy over its philosophy.[27] Here is a ref about the Philosophy controversy. Any thoughts on expanding it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Forking issue

See recent discussions in [28] and [29]

Again as an unbiased editor I won't push for any action but I will say this. Chiropractic controversy and criticism 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 Chiropractic controversy and criticism is either a content fork, a point of view (POV) fork as per WP:POVFORK or a legitimate fork badly implemented as per WP:SUMMARY. The actions that Wikipedia 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 WP:SUMMARY 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 Chiropractic controversy and criticism Talk Page.--LexCorp (talk) 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... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted the merge then you would not of made this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 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 70.71.22.45 (talk) 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 WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 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. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.