Talk:Philosophy of Chiropractic

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy of chiropractic

A WP:MEDRS compliant look at the philosophy of chiropractic. DVMt (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the disruption here [1] by User:Gregbard despite consensus here in depth analysis here [2]. Unfortunately this seems to tedentious editing and not listening to other editors. DVMt (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you linked does not show a consensus for anything. There is a formal process (WP:RM) that is designed to handle contentious moves. One of you should initiate an RM, and both of you should stop move-warring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg is displaying ownership over the title, plain and simple. He does not get to determine the name of the article for an entire profession globally just because he doesn't like it. DVMt (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gorman has indicated the correct process to resolve this issue. Their advice is worth taking. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion noted above. DVMt (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of secondary source, a systematic review

Bobrayner [3] and BullRangifer [4] have both deleted a systematic review by Cramer. Why are you both deleting a systematic review? DVMt (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste

Did the creation and expansion of this article derive from a copy and paste of sections from Doctor of Chiropractic?FiachraByrne (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is some overlapping material however. Suggestions? DVMt (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Philosophy of Chiropractic

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Philosophy of Chiropractic's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "History-Primer":

From Chiropractic: Joseph C. Keating, Jr., Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16. A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From History of chiropractic: Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Chiropractic controversy and criticism: Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16. A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content, redirect

Bobrayner and Gregbard have deleted the content and redirected the content without proper discussion or consensus. per BRD; DISCUSS your bold changes first. DVMt (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that we do not have consensus for this title. Period. Now it seems as though the references do not even support it. Either merge it into Chiropractic, or find some other title that covers this content. Greg Bard (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. The article was created as a POV fork to cover what chiropractors think about chiropractic without all that irksome criticism from independent sources. A side-effect of this attempt to constrain the remit is that DVMt created a topic which fails the notability guideline. It's bizarre that DVMt cites WP:BRD as a reason to recreate the POV-fork, since my previous attempt at raising this concern was brushed off. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen brother.Greg Bard (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg we went over this in detail and there was no consensus for either a merge or a deletion or a rename. Stop trying to own philosophy titled articles. What is bizarre is that neither of you have provided any evidence why it should be redirected or blanked. If you can provide with a solution, I'm all ears. DVMt (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for it to be redirected... apart from the fact that its a blatant POVFORK and it fails the GNG, yes...? DVMT complains about lack of any discussion despite having been involved in a lengthy earlier thread about exactly this problem....in that thread, other editors agreed that there was a problem but DVMt just ploughed on regardless. How much longer must we put up with the deception, distortion, and contempt for other editors? bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are presenting conjecture and not evidence of consensus or evidence that the redirect was agreed upon, let alone the deletion of the article. Bobrayner I advise you to discuss the content (once again). Quit vandalising. Greg, I would be open to a merge as it was requested previously by another editor but it got reverted on the main page stating there was no consensus. DVMt (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that an RfC would be a good idea to decide the future of this article rather than any one or two editors working to force through a particular outcome. The article is rather substantial in size, not poorly written and has a lot of sources. I think some kind of preservation would be in order - also a kind of respect for the person who has spent their time and efforts writing it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- There already has been a de-facto RfC; it was when the article was created and assessed at rating at WP:MED (B). There's not much else to say except that Bobrayner and Gregbard seem to be engaged in either some kind of suppression/censorship of chiropractic-related material, or have a personal issue with me, reverting and deleting my contributions here and elsewhere for months now. The sad part is, while I contribute to wikipedia by some editors such as Bobrayner seem to delete any content on CAM that they don't agree with, including mass deleting any research pertaining to effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, any basic sciences research in biomedical journals, etc. Their behaviour is either tendentious at best, or being phallic at worst. Jimbo wouldn't endorse this type of academic censorship; and given that the 2 editors in question don't have any declared expertise on the subject it makes for trying times for any editor who would ever even want to get involved in editing these types of articles. DVMt (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think an actual RfC might be better than a de facto one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact Jimbo about the issue. I recall another promoter of psudoscience doing so, I don't recall how it ended. Make sure you mention your "defacto RfC" based on the assignment of a WP:MED rating. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD? — raeky T 05:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Philosophy of Chiropractic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophy of Chiropractic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Chiropractic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]