Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete; discussion about editorial improvements (if found to be required by consensus) such as rename, edit, merge etc. can continue on the talk page.  Sandstein  09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chiropractic controversy and criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a blatant POV FORK and attempts to improve the article have been blocked. The majority of the article has been simply copied from Chiropractic history, and is not based on sources of "Chiropractic controversy" or "Criticism of chiropractic", because such as topic doesn't not exist... it is WP:MADEUP like a lot of other "Criticism of" articles on Wikipedia. The current Chiropractic article has criticism sprinkled throughout, and does not need to be trimmed. DigitalC 19:49, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep While the criticism article does have some information that is similar to the history of chiropractic article, interestingly enough, the history article doesn't have sources for the information that was copied, while the criticism article does. In that way, the criticism article is almost better than its counterpart (which is a little sad). I've gone through this before and I guess have to go through it again. Yes, "Criticism of" is not an actual topic, say the name of books about it, or sections in a textbook. However, Criticism of articles document criticism on a topic, which is completely valid as an article topic, so long as it is correctly sourced. And it seems clear to me that this article is very well sourced indeed and is completely valid to exist on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article is of fairly good content and a decent amount of sources (although neutrality can't be guaranteed in them), however it is not overall a NPOV article, and seems like it was written by someone with some sort of bias. However, the content is well written, but can't stand alone as an article, but is too valuable to simply delete. A massive edit overhaul would still not work, as the article isn't bad in context, just the way the whole thing is set up. If it is merged though, it would need to be shortened. Old Al (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DigitalC, can you explain why you are nominating this now? Because it seems to me that, when you couldn't get consensus for your changes on the talk page, you nominated it here, which seems rather pointy to me. SilverserenC 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this now because it has been almost a year since the last nomination, and the article has not been improved. Attempts to improve it to make it more neutral in tone (IE: incorproate positive criticism, aka praise) have been blocked by other editors. In addition, there was no consensus in the last discussion, so relisting it for more discussion seems like it would be beneficial in terms of coming to some sort of consensus. DigitalC (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or merge. It's a very obvious and notable subject that documents what has always characterized the profession. This article now has the opportunity for growth which the subject has been denied by some of the chiropractic editors who have always cried "undue weight" as an excuse to minimize and hide the subject in the main article by sprinkling barely noticeable tidbits around. The option of a merge is definitely preferable to deletion (we aren't forced to choose between "keep" or "delete"), but merging isn't really a good option as this subject has enough notability in its own right to be a much larger article. The profession has always been characterized by criticism and controversy from both inside and outside the profession, and that story is not and cannot be told properly in the main chiropractic article.

    The actual size of the main article isn't a problem that would prevent complete merger, but so far the objection from chiropractic supporters is "undue weight". They don't realize (or don't want it described) just how much criticism and controversy has characterized the history of this profession, and it's growing right now because of the latest screwup by the profession in England - their attempt to sue Simon Singh for libel. Fortunately the BCA has withdrawn the suit. This article can grow much larger, and then even I would consider it undue weight to include so much material in the main article. As it is now, the chiropractic supporters would never allow all this in the main article. Certain of them are pretty good at wikilawyering and stonewalling to keep out such things, no matter how well sourced. If there were to be a merge, it should be done in its entirety, but that would overwhelm the main article and create an undue weight problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should probably be a summary style section about criticisms in the main chiropractic article (I didn't check to see if there was) that links back to this article. That's the best method, I think. SilverserenC 21:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the standard method for dealing with proper forks, but in my opinion this isn't a proper fork. DigitalC (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) ::There isn't at the moment, because the consesnsus among editors was to not hide criticism tucked away in a criticism section, but to keep it throughout the article. However, it can't be both ways and still pass WP:NPOV. DigitalC (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:NPOV, "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia". This article was created even though criticism is present throughout the article Chiropractic, and even thought a large portion of this article was copied over from Chiropractic history. The article serves to highlight negative viewpoints/facts, and has avoided positive viewpoints/facts to the point of editing them out of the article and blocking their addition. DigitalC (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is of a type that is specifically approved for two reasons:
  • Keep. There's definitely room to improve the article by tightening the prose regarding D. D. Palmer (that narrative is rather lengthy in comparison to its importance, though it does bear mention as a well-referenced example of many of the practices that have been criticized, or which were controversial). (I don't really see that as a duplication of chiropractic history—the emphasis in this article is clearly more focused on Palmer's opinions and conduct, and reactions to those things.) And perhaps, the vaccination/fluoridation section could be improved by finding a broader range of sources to describe the prevalence and consequences of that particular branch of chiropractic. (These are minor cleanup issues, and not major problems with the article.) However, in general, my comments from the first AfD still hold true. The article is well-sourced, with reference to both assenting and dissenting views, and definitely meets the notability burden.

    I was actually discussing criticism articles earlier today, and my opinion here is similar: criticism should be discussed within the main article (in proportion to its importance), but when the volume of coverage of criticism is sufficient to warrant a more thorough discussion—and especially when the state of the Wikipedia article is such that editors have contributed more properly-sourced information about criticism than support—it's perfectly appropriate to summarize in the main article, and fork it and write a standalone article about the criticism. (This actually mitigates the emphasis of criticism in the main article, deservedly or not.) Of course the tone of the article should be neutral, but that doesn't mean that limiting the scope of the article to the discussion of "negative" things is inherently non-neutral or undesirable. TheFeds 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article appears somewhat too elaborate and I am not sure what the added value is above the parent article. However, an article that articulates the artificial controversy surrounding this alledged "cure" -i.e. Simon Singh- might be warranted. Furthermore, the notion that we should be presenting both sides equally is laughable at its face. Do we consider AIDS-denialists, Flat Earthers, et cetera comparable to actual scientists?--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely enough the articles you cite support the Flat Earth analogy. So, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Second, during the Simon Singh controversy it became abundeantly clear there is no scientific basis for this "therapy." Unles you can produce an article from any reputable journal in medical literature, which the BCA could not!, we can safely assume there is no scientific basis and any positive coverage is in the form of testimonials, i.e. pseudoscience.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 23:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the "Simon Singh controversy", it was about treatment for non-musculoskeletal symptoms, ie - asthma, infantile colic, blood pressure, etc. Further, did you read the BMJ article I linked above? I'll quote some here for you to make it easier: "For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management". If you "assume there is no scientific basis and any positive coverage is in the form of testimonials", you obviously haven't looked at the article on Chiropractic, let alone looked at the research. DigitalC (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that would involve loss of content. With every paragraph having valid sources, any shortening of information would involve a significant loss in encyclopedic content. And, as others stated, this article is a content fork, not a POV fork. The entire length is the actual reason why we think it is valid to have a separate article. SilverserenC 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not consider chiropractic mainstream but fringe. Nonetheless our treatment of it has to be balanced. This article is not. to the extent I think it would be inappropriate to even merge it. Since I came here, I have always been dubious about our insistence on not forking, though-- a pro and con approach seems the obvious way to to cover some topics. But whatever I thin, it remains the policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SilverScreen, I looked at your userpage, and it said you work on overhauling articles up for deletion. I'd move my position to keep if you would undertake the effort to change the article, as I think it is save able. If you do decide to do it, good luck! Old Al (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to know what exactly you think needs to be added and any reliable sources that you have for the information. SilverserenC 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any links that are pay for viewing (i.e. the science journal ones, or any not viewable to the general public) should not be included, and some counter arguments would be nice too. And thank you for not being a dick. Old Al (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...no problem? ^_^; Actually, paywall sources are fine to use, via PAYWALL. Users jut have to be able to verify that they are from reliable sources, but they don't necessarily have to have ease of access to read them. That's entirely separate. So those sort of paywall sources we can use with impunity. Counter-arguments sound good though. You have any sources with them? SilverserenC 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the D Palmer information, I don't see anything else that is copied. And the Palmer information has been reworded and has sources, while the original information in the history article either doesn't or has much weaker ones. SilverserenC 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix it in the chiropractic article. It is more appropriate there. The story is obviously being repeated purely for the shock and titilating value. It is repeated for in 4 chiropractic articles. enough already. But that's not the only problem. Look at the article and try to find something that is not critical - like some balance? Why bother using the word Controversy? Just rename it "criticism of chiropractic". stmrlbs|talk 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can clearly see balancing viewpoints in the article. There are numerous quotations from current chiropractors in there that balances out the negative criticism. SilverserenC 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be largely a content dispute (POV issues), and it seems too large to be merged into the main article. I can't see any reason why it should be deleted right now. —fetch·comms 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could all be merged back to the articles where the information came from, mostly Chiropractic history DigitalC (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which would cause undue weight to be focused on criticism without extreme removal of content information from this article. SilverserenC 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps rewrite/retitle to include controversy/criticism as well as positive views on the topic (to better balance out the POV). Negative POV issues can sometimes be best resolved by adding a +1 to -1 rather than removing the -1. If improvements to the article have indeed been blocked as the nominator says, that's an issue for dispute resolution. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137706062"