Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 17 November 2008

No "new section" button pleaseIn order to keep the references listed at the bottom, please don't use the new section tab above, and please don't use the "click here to start a new topic" below. Instead, please create new sections by hand, just before #References.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 7 days

There is a page Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing this article.

OR tag removal and reversion

This comment is about the dispute over {{SectOR}} tag on Chiropractic #Evidence basis. The underlying dispute is over content, but the dispute about the tag is not about content; it is about procedure.

I see now that QuackGuru removed the tag, that Levine2112 reverted the removal, that QuackGuru re-reremoved the tag, and Levine2112 re-reverted the removal. This is getting fairly close to an edit war, I'm afraid.

This dispute is over whether we should tag Chiropractic's citation of reviews of spinal manipulation (SM) as constituting original research. A minority of editors say that the research is tainted because it is partly based on data generated by non-chiropractors. Most editors say there is no OR here, as SM is directly relevant to chiropractic. My own view is plain: it is standard practice, among both mainstream chiropractic and mainstream medical and scientific sources, to cite SM reviews when talking about the effectiveness or safety of chiropractic. Only a fringe subset of chiropractors argue that chiropractic SM significantly differs from general SM. Though we should mention the fringe opinion, we should not let it dictate our mainstream coverage of the effectiveness of chiropractic.

This dispute has been going on for months. Advocates of the tag have not suggested specific wording changes to the text, but have simply continued to repeat arguments about keeping the tag up. This sort of activity is an abuse of the dispute-tag system. Dispute tags are not intended to symbolize a minority's disapproval of article text: they are intended to reflect an ongoing dispute that is intended to result in an improvement to the article. Leaving the tag in for months, without specific attempts to fix the alleged problem with consensus, is a misuse of the tag.

For this reason I am reluctantly coming to the opinion that we should simply remove the tag and move on. Of course this will not resolve the underlying content dispute, which will continue and which (I hope) will result in further improvements to the article; but the tag itself (or any tag like it) has proved to be counterproductive to the article.

Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed that after all this time, you still have the dispute all wrong. First off all, we are not dealing with a minority of editors. I would say that overall, things have been split down the middle in terms of numbers. Second, this has nothing to do with research tainted by the inclusion of non-chiropractic SM. This is about using research that does not draw any conclusions specifically about chiropractic. We cannot go ahead and use such research to draw conclusions about chiropractic. That is blatant OR. After months of this debate, I think it is time that you addressed this point and not try and divert our attention. Here is what we know:

• There is no agreement in the research community that all spinal manipulation research is directly related to chiropractic. We have seen arguments both ways from chiropractic and from medical researchers.
• We are currently using conclusions from several pieces of research to discuss the efficacy of chiropractic even though these pieces of research do not discuss chiropractic in their conclusions.
• Using a source in a manner which was not intended by the author is a blatant violation of WP:NOR.

Address these points and these points alone, and maybe we can begin to get somewhere. -- Levine2112 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I was clear, so please understand that this will be the only warning you receive. Obviously you do not agree that the studies on SM may be used to discuss Chiropractic. However, the most recent RfC (and others) have shown that the consensus of editors disagrees with you. You are welcome to discuss any other objection to the material or specific changes you believe need to be made, but any more posts claiming that SM is WP:OR in this context will result in a week ban from this article and talk page. Shell 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the RfC:

1. This RfC is NOT about "research" (we are discussing that elsewhere), only the "subject" of spinal manipulation and its relation to the chiropractic profession. More discussion of that matter can occur after and outside of this RfC.
2. This RfC is NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation. We are also discussing that elsewhere. More discussion of that matter can occur after and outside of this RfC.

I am talking about research above. The RfC was not about research. This is rather clear. What isn't clear - and is an entirely different matter - is your claim that there was some kind of consensus reached there that is applicable to this dispute. -- Levine2112 23:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comments don't address the topic of this thread, which is about procedure, not about the underlying content dispute. Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is original research in that section. Specific problems have been pointed out above (Johnson 2008, Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Bronfort 2004). The tag hasn't proved itself to be counterproductive, as you say, however it has not resulted in a conclusion of the dispute. It SHOULD remain, so that readers know that the section "may contain original research". You don't state how removing the tag is going to result in improvements in the article, and that certainly doesn't make intuitive sense. DigitalC (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The specific problem about whether Johnson 2008, Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Bronfort 2004, etc. justify a claim about the low quality of spinal manipulation research is quite recent and is not why the tag is there. It is a relatively minor technical dispute that can be resolved either by adding sources or making minor changes to the wording. I would like to spend some time resolving it, but right now am bogged down in these higher-priority discussions (including mediation). The existence of the tag is causing us to waste time in endless circular discussions that are irrelevant to the evidence basis for chiropractic; this would be time better spent in resolving minor technical disputes, as well as improving the article in more-important ways. Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the tag is not causing us to waste time. Circular debates are causing us to waste time. I have asked you some specific questions which you have refused to answer and thus the circle continues. Hopefully in mediation you will be more inclined to answer these questions with straightforward responses. -- Levine2112 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring tag without discussion is not helpful

I see now that DigitalC has restored the tag without any discussion that addresses the above points. This is not helpful behavior. Eubulides (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. Tagging isn't constructive. -- Fyslee / talk 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-re-re-re-removed the tag. We now have a pretty good list of the editors who are most problematic and continue to make false claims of (no) consensus. It's time for administrative action to be made against them. I recommend submitting to WP:ANI a list of the offenders. What do the administrators monitoring this page think? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever consider that the amount of editors adding the tag back in indicates that there is no consensus? -- Levine2112 06:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in hearing opinion from administrators about the topic of this section. Again, it is a procedural issue, not a content issue. Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive tag reverts without discussion

An editor restored the tag without presenting any evidence of original research. QuackGuru 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to resolve this would be to determine what particular phrases or statements the editors restoring the tag feel are OR and find a way to address those concerns? There are clearly a number of editors who dispute the tags removal. Shell 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They dispute the removal of the tag but do not provide any reason for restoring the tag. QuackGuru 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) QuackGuru is right. MaxPont reinstalled the tag without any discussion here. This is after TheDoctorIsIn reinstalled the tag, again without discussion here. As per WP:TAGGING #Removing tags adding tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive editing, which should be discouraged. Editors, please address the points made at the start of this thread, and please do not indulge in driveby reverts. For now, I reverted MaxPont's driveby revert. Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MaxPont has previously contributed on the talk page, stating that he felt that the text (using general SM research to discuss chiropractic) should be removed. There is no need for him to further explain his rationale. For you to ask him to re-explain that he feels there may be an OR violation is in fact a violation of WP:IDHT. Although, strangely, his input to this page has been ignored before, and I have a feeling it wasn't counted towards the "consensus" that "exists". DigitalC (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MaxPont hasn't contributed to the talk page for over a month, and as far as I know has not expressed an opinion on the tags, much less the topic of this thread (the procedure being used for tagging). MaxPont's reverting now (while not contributing to the discussion now) was a driveby revert, which was disruptive editing. Similarly for TheDoctorIsIn, I'm afraid. Eubulides (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not dismiss my comments EUbilides. . . that is rude. . . my reverting was just. . . the disagreement continues and we need a tag there to say so.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC has been informed that spinal manipulation is directly connected to chiropractic but has not responded. QuackGuru 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the retention of the tag. There are clearly several editors whom believe the tag should stay for the moment, and its removal without consensus is disruptive. --Surturz (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz has intentially ignored the evidence that spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. Part of consensus building is collaboration. QuackGuru 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five editors who in the last day or two have supported keeping the tag in place (all of whom who have given their reasons and evidence of why they feel the tag is necessary). Given this, I'd say that there is no consensus to remove the tag. Let's leave it in place and see how mediation goes. I'm busy today but will try to put together my response at the mediation page. -- Levine2112 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has not replied to my question about spinal manipulation and has not replied to my request to discuss his edit me. QuackGuru 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• How about we make "What specifically needs to be changed to facilitate removing the OR tag?" the first thing to focus on in the mediation? P.S. Anyone interested in joining the mediation is welcome to hop over there and put in their opening statement to help us get started. Shell 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good thing to focus on, yes. Sorry I didn't see that suggestion before writing my initial post there, so my initial post there is a bit unfocused. I assume at some point you'll repeat that suggestion there? Eubulides (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A tag is to inform other Wikipedians about any possibility of OR and not to inform a reader. At this point, most or all involved editors are aware of this particular content diuspute. QuackGuru 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR Tag edit war score

Removalists

• QuackGuru: 2
  
• Eubulides: 2
  
• Fyslee: 1
  
• ScienceApologist: 3
  

Inserters

• Levine2112: 2
  
• DigitalC: 2
  
• TheDoctorIsIn: 2
  
• MaxPont: 1
  

COMMENT: This is ridiculous, you are edit-warring over a TAG. --Surturz (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen this tally before. . . Surturz, you make a good point. . . I added one to my score. . . maybe this should stop now?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of arguments and community discussion to determine consensus

Up to this point there have been numerous community discussions on this issue, both on the talk page of the article and at various noticeboards. The most pertinent of the discussion threads are at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_18#RfC:_Effectiveness_of_chiropractic_care, Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_22#RfC:_Effectiveness_of_chiropractic_care, Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/noticeboard/Archive_4#Chiropractic_section_on_evidence_basis, Talk:Chiropractic#RfC:_Is_the_.22subject.22_of_spinal_manipulation_relevant_to_chiropractic.3F and recent discussion at Misplaced Pages:OR/N#Outside_views_needed.. I find it troublesome that in many places, the editors most involved in this dispute spend a great deal of time arguing with each other instead of allowing editors outside of the situation to comment. However, when those outside opinions are reviewed, a strong pattern emerges:

• All of the outside editors who commented on the RfCs felt that spinal manipulation belonged in the article and was integral to understanding chiropractic.
• All but one of the outside editors felt that general spinal manipulation studies were appropriate; a single editor suggested that studies should be specific to chiropractic spinal manipulation.
• All of the outside editors felt that spinal manipulation should be covered in detail at its own article, but that an overview of pertinent information was necessary in this article as well.
• In the areas reviewed, none of the outside editors agreed that the use of spinal manipulation studies in this article was original research.

There are several involved editors who feel very strongly that material on the efficacy of spinal manipulation is not appropriate for this article and they have argued extensively to this point. However, a review of these many discussions over the past months shows that despite the variety of arguments they have been unable to convince other involved editors, or even those editors who are not so involved. In Misplaced Pages parlance, this means that a general consensus has developed. So, unless there are additional reasons for the OR tag in the Effectiveness section, it needs to be removed. Shell 10:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Some overlooked discussions: , . And RFCs: , . Please consider these and refactor your thoughts about the "consensus" if applicable. -- Levine2112 02:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Public health

Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices. Chiropractors' attempts to establish a reputation for public health are also compromised by their common recommendations for endless chiropractic treatments. Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination, one of the most cost-effective forms of prevention against infectious disease. Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects, claiming that it is hazardous, ineffective, and unnecessary. Some chiropractors have embraced vaccination, but a significant portion of the profession rejects it, as original chiropractic philosophy traces diseases to causes in the spine and states that vaccines interfere with healing. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease. The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.

Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors, some of whom continue to oppose it as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Recently, other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health.

Comments on Public health

Here is an improvement for the public health (vaccination) section. QuackGuru 17:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Probably don't have time to go through the entire thing, but the first line is taken out of context. The quote from the source is "Podiatrists became active members of the American Public Health Association (APHA) as far back as the 1950's, embracing and contributing to the advancement of accepted public health initiatives, in cooperation with others involved in public health. Podiatrists slowly gained an image as proponents of public health, at a time when many chiropractors aggressively (and dogmatically, without evidence ) opposed many public health measures such as vaccination and water fluoridation.". This would support that Chiropractors opposed public health measure in the 50s. The article does go on to suggest that "those chiropractors who dogmatically oppose common public health practices, such as immunization and public water fluoridation, cease such unfounded activity", which implies that only some chiropractors oppose such measures - which is not what is implied by the proposed text. The inclusion of "unfounded activity" in the proposed text also reads ackwardly, some sort of rearrangement might make it flow better - it currently suggests that immunization and water fluoridation are unfounded activities.
• It continues to include unverified text, "one of the most cost-effective forms of prevention against infectious disease"
• It continues to violate NPOV, stating that "Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects", without noting that a minority of chiropractors produce these writings (which was sourced and included in old versions of the vaccination section).

118.208.237.133 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs)

• The only things that are changed in QuackGuru's proposal are title, the proposed new 1st sentence, and the proposed new last paragraph, so I'll comment on these. I agree with DigitalC's comments on the new material, in DigitalC's first bullet. (The old material, discussed in the other two bullets, has already been discussed at length, where my opinion hasn't changed, and I'd rather not repeat that discussion again now.)
• The title should be "Public health" not "Public Health", as per Misplaced Pages style guidelines.
• The hatnote should also mention the fluoridation controversy, like this:

Further information: ] and ]

• The first sentence "Chiropractors are opposed to common public health practices, such as vaccination and public water fluoridation, which are unfounded activity" has several problems:

• I don't know what the phrase "which are unfounded activity" is supposed to mean. It sounds like it's asserting that vaccination and fluoridation are not founded in science, which is surely not intended.
• It is not true that chiropractors in general oppose vaccination and fluoridation. From surveys, we know that a minority of chiropractors support vaccination, and a minority opposes it. It's not accurate to summarize this position by saying "chiropractors oppose vaccination", or anything like that. I wouldn't be surprised if fluoridation was similar.
• The first sentence makes it sound like chiropractors oppose public health measures other than vaccination and fluoridation. But the cited source mentions no public health measures other than these two.
• I suggest replacing the first sentence with the following:

"Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices. Chiropractors' attempts to establish a reputation for public health are also compromised by their common recommendations for endless chiropractic treatments."

• The second paragraph cites the ICA website, a fringe primary source; it'd be better to stick with sources in refereed journals, preferably secondary sources, and to summarize their points. I suggest replacing the 2nd paragraph with the following, which tries to address the above comments:

"Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors, some of whom continue to oppose it as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Recently, other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health."

• (Also, I made minor changes directly to the draft, to spruce up its citations.)

Eubulides (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I made these changes to the proposed draft. I think we should keep the last sentence or move it to a subarticle: "Many chiropractors are aggressively against water fluoridation." QuackGuru 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose we've discussed this before and there was no consensus for this stuff. ICA website is not WP:RS --Surturz (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The updated draft does not cite the ICA; perhaps Surturz's comment is about the earlier draft, which I also criticized for citing the ICA? Anyway, I have some further comments about the updated draft:

• The initial phrase "A prevalent portion of chiropractors" makes little sense to me; I don't see what prevalence has to do with portions. Let's just stick with the simple and accurate "Some chiropractors".
• The final sentence "Many chiropractors are aggressively against water fluoridation" is duplicative of the earlier phrase "some of whom continue to oppose it". Also, the final sentence is not supported by the cited source: its "many chiropractors aggressively" is talking about long-ago history, not about the present day. Let's omit the final sentence.

Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the thread itself, I'll comment on the attitude about citing the ICA. It is a notable and reliable source for straight chiropractic opinion. This article covers many aspects of the subject, some of which require documenting straight chiropractic opinion, and then the ICA is fine to quote. -- Fyslee / talk 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I made this change to continue moving the draft forward. QuackGuru 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see just one remaining problem: that draft begins with "A significant minority of chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation". However, the cited source (Murphy et al. 2008, PMID 18759966) nowhere says that a "minority" of chiropractors oppose vaccination and fluoridation; for all we know from that source, it could be a majority. Also, the cited source nowhere says that the fraction of chiropractors opposing vaccination and fluoridation is "significant". Let's just say "Some chiropractors" rather than "A significant minority of chiropractors"; that's good enough and is well supported by the source. A later sentence already says that "a significant portion of the profession" rejects vaccination, and we needn't repeat that in the topic sentence. Eubulides (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I made this change. I think it is ready for inclusion in the article. QuackGuru 01:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work; it looks good to me too. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested to Vaccination

I request an edit to the Vaccination section. Simply, replace the Vaccination section with the draft Public health section. QuackGuru 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(This request is referring to #Public health above.) Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of 118.208.237.133 (DigitalC?) and Surturz and would request that this change not be implemented until these matters can be resolved. In particular, the last two bullet points mentioned by 118.208.237.133 have not been addressed but merely glossed over. We have unreference text and an NPOV violation. In short, the proposed text:

• continues to include unverified text, "one of the most cost-effective forms of prevention against infectious disease"
• continues to violate NPOV, stating that "Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects", without noting that a minority of chiropractors produce these writings (which was sourced and included in old versions of the vaccination section).

This text remains in the proposed version, un-cited. I don't see the rush to implement this substandard version when there is clearly still some work to be done. -- Levine2112 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC concerns were about an earlier version. Surturz commented about the ICA. This version does not have the ICA reference. Everything is resolved at this point. Making vague comments to stop the improvements is not helpful. Levine2112 has not made any specific objections to the current proposal. QuackGuru 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The last two bullets by DigitalC is not about the newly proposed improvements. QuackGuru 03:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments is a non-argument. Levine2112 has not made a specific objection to the current proposal. QuackGuru 03:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112's objection is not about the current proposal. The text Levine2112 is disputing is already in the article. I hope an admin will review the current proposal and not get confused by Levine2112 objection which is not about the newly proposed text. QuackGuru 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112, do you have any specific objections to the current proposal? QuackGuru 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The text Levine2112 is against is already in the article. There is no specific objection to the newly proposed text. QuackGuru 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• QuackGuru is correct in that no arguments have been presented yet against the proposed edit. The criticisms presented in this section are about a different topic in the existing text, a topic unaffected by the proposed edit. The proposed edit merely adds text about fluoridation; the last two bullets of DigitalC's comments, which Levine2112 echoed, criticize only vaccination-related text in the existing article. Vaccination-related changes can be discussed separately and need not derail fluoridation-related improvements.
• This raises a more-general question: is the article currently frozen against changes proposed on the talk page and for which there is consensus? (This more-general question is independent of whether consensus exists for this particular edit.)

Eubulides (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was only locked to prevent edit warring over the OR tag. If everyone here could agree to keep talking things out instead of reverting, the article can be unlocked so that normal editing can continue. Shell 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I recommend that the first time somebody adds the tag back in we go immediately back to protection to avoid it starting again. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the addition of fluoridation stuff. In fact, I don't see why Public Health comments from individual chiropractors is relevant to the article. What next? Some chiropractor somewhere claims that tinfoil hats are useful for protection from orbital mind control lasers and we use that as justification to write off the entire profession as conspiracy theorists? Surely we should be concentrating on what is actually taught as part of the profession ie. treatment methods taught in chiro courses, and also in post-grad chiro education courses. Vaccination and Fluoridation are neither. --Surturz (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the references it is relevant. I don't see any specific objection to the newly proposed text. I don't understand why would you oppose an improvement. Can you be specific? QuackGuru 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Chiropractic is not merely about what is taught in chiropractic school (though of course that's important); it's also about how chiropractic is actually practiced and what chiropractors actually do.
• The International Chiropractors Association (the leading straight group) is officially opposed to fluoridation, so at least they think fluoridation is notable and relevant.
• Chiropractic's current opposition to fluoridation is not as notable as its opposition to vaccination. Historically fluoridation was a bigger deal, but that's history. As per WP:WEIGHT fluoridation shouldn't be mentioned as heavily as vaccination is. We can put more fluoridation details into History of chiropractic.
• There does seem to be a good case for briefly mentioning fluoridation here, as we have multiple reliable sources on the subject, published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
• Perhaps the proposed wording could be trimmed a bit, but that's an argument for improving it further, not for omitting it entirely. A simple way to go about this would be to install the proposed text and then improve it further. Another way would be for someone to suggest further improvements now, and then to install the improved version.

Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the addition of the fluoridation text and thus have removed the editprotected template, which as Shell says below, should only be for non-controversial edits. --Surturz (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What are your objections? -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No specific objections have been made by Surturz and Surturz was previously asked what is the specific objection. It is not helpful to continue to object to an improvement without any specific objection. QuackGuru 06:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} is not only for noncontroversial edits, but also for edits that have consensus. Surturz has opposed the change but has given no reason for objection. The other objections raised have been about existing text (which would remain unchanged), and are not relevant to the change. I see that QuackGuru has restored the {{editprotected}} template; I am taking the liberty of moving it to just before the actual request, as its previous location was confusing to someone not following the discussion closely. With luck, an administrator with some free time can take a look at this request soon, as well as the other {{editprotected}} request on this talk page. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, ignoring the comment is not collaboration. I have asked for a specific objection or a way to improve the section. At this point, we have consensus for the newly proposed text when non-specific objections are being made. QuackGuru 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I removed the editprotected template on the grounds that it clearly states that "this template should only be used to request edits, to fully protected pages, that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus." and this is clearly not the case. Please do not put the template back into this talk page until consensus has been reached. I would hate to see edit warring on the talk page leading to the talk page being locked! Ask an admin to reinstate it if you feel strongly.

Opposition to fluoridation is not a chiropractic specific issue and it is therefore undue WP:WEIGHT to include it here. You don't have to look far to find other research/health professionals (e.g. Arvid_Carlsson) that oppose fluoridation. Even pro-fluoridation doctors acknowledge that there is an ethical difference between public health ethics and private doctor-patient medical ethics (doi:10.1097/01.PHH.0000324563.87780.67). Chiro opposition to vaccination, fluoridation or any other public health measure stems from this difference. Chiros do not treat all diseases, and public health planning is not really within their demesne (although of course individual chiropractors, or even groups of chiropractors, may take an interest in public health issues).

By all means include a mention of chiropractors/chiropractic in the water fluoridation article, but to include it here implies that it is either part of the chiropractic profession (it isn't) or that almost all chiropractors would immediately tell you to stop using fluoridated toothpaste and to drink only filtered water immediately upon entering their clinic (they won't). It undermines the authority of this article and the reputation of wikipedia for us to allow such blatant anti-chiro POV pushing in the article. --Surturz (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a wiki-legitimate reason for keeping this out of the article. Deletionism isn't helpful, especially just to eliminate something because you don't like it. This is a misuse of the weight argument. The question to ask is: Is it sourced properly? If so, then find a way to include it. Chiropractic, like most of alternative medicine, has more than its fair share of promoters of POV that deviate significantly from mainstream medical practice and public health measures. This needs to be noted. And before you once again raise the false charge that this is an accusation against all chiropractors or the whole profession, it isn't. It just happens to be a significant enough detail to have been noted by various sources, and thus it needs to be mentioned. It should of course be written in such a manner as to not give the impression that all chiropractors support such POV. Please help in such endeavors instead of just deleting what you don't like to hear about what actually happens within the profession. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, thanks for your comments. However, the references are relevant to this article. The edit request template is for admins to review. QuackGuru 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to thank Surturz for coming up with a specific objection. It's not yet clear whether there is consensus, even with the objection (after all, consensus does not equal unanimity), but further discussion should help us discover this.
• It's not generally the role of an administrator to insert an {{editprotected}} template; suggesting that we wait for an admin to do so is roughly equivalent to suggesting that we wait forever to make the change.
• It is true that opposition to fluoridation is not specific to chiropractors. But it is also true that lots of other things are not specific to chiropractors, including spinal manipulation (SM). Clearly Chiropractic should discuss SM, which is core to chiropractic. Now, fluoridation is not as central to chiropractic as SM is; but one cannot dismiss fluoridation because it "is not specific to" chiropractic, any more than one could dismiss SM for the same reason.
• The International Chiropractors Association's official positions on public health mention only vaccination and fluoridation, which suggests that fluoridation is relevant here. That is, opposition is not limited to individual chiropractors.
• By my count, the proposal would add 46 words about fluoridation. Perhaps we could compromise by adding fewer words. For example, we could omit the phrases "as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom" and "and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health". These phrases could be moved to Opposition to water fluoridation. This would shrink it down to 27 words, thus helping to allay any WP:WEIGHT concerns.

Eubulides (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Specific objections have been made before, and ignored. Again it required admin involvement before they were addressed.

• If you can't convince an administrator that you have consensus over the objections of a single editor, then you don't have consensus. Adding the editprotected template is fine, but if an editor removes it, it is disruptive to add it back immediately... consensus should be gained first.
• "The SM is relevant to chiropractic therefore we should have text about non-chiro SM" is a tenuous argument that has been much argued on this page. Making the same argument about fluoridation borders on the absurd. The wearing of hats isn't specific to chiropractors, yet many chiropractors wear hats... does this mean we also need to mention hat wearing in the article? Of course not.
• We have already established that the ICA website is not a WP:RS. Quoting it is WP:OR.
• If you really, really, want to insert the fluoridation stuff, I'll give you my support if you can trim the entire section (vaccination+fluoridation) down to half the current visible word count or less. I count 145 words currently... if you can get your "public health" proposal down to 73 words or less, it will (somewhat) alleviate my WP:WEIGHT concerns for the section. Obviously, you can't just move the text to other sections, it must be actual reduction. --Surturz (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ok guys, I've removed the edit protected request *again*. Please remember that this request requires either uncontroversial edits or consensus - neither of which are the case here. I don't usually comment on the disputes themselves, but since this is more style than content - when I was looking at the paragraph above, I couldn't understand the second sentence - is it saying that chiropractors give unnecessary treatments or that the treatments are a public health issue or that their marketing undermines their credibility? Anyways, it was confusing to me, so it might need reworded for clarity. Shell 11:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment; many other medical procedures also lack rigorous proof of effectiveness.

The second part of this sentence is a bit awkward. Perhaps we can rewrite it to be easier to read and more understandable. QuackGuru 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more a problem as to the appropriateness of blatent special pleading in an article not about the subject of "other medical procedures". We don't normally allow such things. If the matter of "the efficacy of chiropractic treatment" is presented in an NPOV manner, special pleading is unnecessary and amounts to editorial "weight" shifting to detract from the original point. If there is any question as to the sourcing or NPOV presentation of the subject, the solution is not to add editorial special pleading, but to NPOV it. That last phrase should be removed, regardless of the good source, since it doesn't belong here. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the edit history of the article may be a better version than the current version in the article. Editors tweaked the original sentence and now it has lost its original meaning. Hopefully we can improve the second part of the sentence instead of removing it. QuackGuru 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if the subject matter in the second half isn't related to chiropractic at all, it shouldn't be included here. It's still inappropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence was the result of extensive discussion by Dematt, Coppertwig, and myself back in May; please see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 22 #"Rigorously proven" for details. Briefly, the 2nd half is there because of a common theme in many sources that although chiropractic care has not been rigorously proven, in this respect it's in the same boat as many other forms of medical treatment. That's an important point, which should be made. All too often, chiropractic critics say "the science isn't there" without noting that the science isn't there for many other forms of medical treatment, too. Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Being more specific

Right now the introductory sentence to that section starts with:

• "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment;..."

We need to be more specific, since "chiropractic treatment" is vague and includes myriad methods. Since we are dealing with chiropractic's primary method (used during virtually every treatment session, with rare exceptions) I suggest we add a few words to "sharpen the point of that dull pencil":

• "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic's main treatment method."

If we end up dealing with other methods, then it can be tweaked at that time. -- Fyslee / talk 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this introductory sentence completely misrepresents the reference. The abstract reads:

Spinal manipulation has been used for its therapeutic effects for at least 2500 years. Chiropractic as we know it today began a century ago in a simplistic manner but has developed into to a well-established profession with 33 colleges throughout the world. During the initial, bumpy years, many people thought it had little more value than a placebo. Nevertheless, there have always been satisfied recipients of chiropractic care during the years, and the profession slowly gained prominence--mostly by word of mouth. More recently, personal opinions based on isolated incidents have given way to the results of numerous clinical and basic science studies, primarily regarding low back pain. As of 2002, 43 randomized trials of spinal manipulation for low back pain had been published with 30 showing more improvement than with the comparison treatment, and none showing it to be less effective. Other studies have shown that chiropractic care compared with medical care is safer, costs no more and often costs much less, and has consistently greater patient satisfaction for treatment of similar conditions. Consequently, there is now better public and professional opinion of chiropractic with coverage by insurance companies and government agencies. That trend is likely to continue.

The final sentence reads:

Inasmuch as studies consistently indicate that chiropractic treatment, at least for back pain, is as effective and safe (if not more so) than medical treatment, that the cost of chiropractic care is not more (and often is considerably less) than medical care, and that patients receiving chiropractic care are on average more satisfied with their care than patients receiving medical care are with theirs, it is not surprising that positive public and professional opinion and use of chiropractic are increasing.

How one derives "opinions differ" when the reference says "consistently indicate" is beyond me. I suggest the WP article text be replaced as follows:

"Studies consistently indicate that chiropractic treatment for back pain is effective and safe."

--Surturz (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there no other references used in that section? Me thinks the introduction sums up the results of looking at all those references. -- Fyslee / talk 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The cited source (DeVocht 2006, PMID 16523145) says "Nevertheless, there are different views concerning the efficacy of chiropractic treatment, which is not surprising. Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish definitive, unarguable, and conclusive findings regarding much in the healing arts despite the millions of papers that have been written about presumably scientifically sound studies. Because of this difficulty, numerous medical procedures have not been rigorously proven to be effective either."
• As can be seen from this quote, it does not support Fyslee's proposed rewording, as it talks about chiropractic treatment in general, not about spinal manipulation.
• DeVocht 2006 is a bad source for claims about the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic treatment for back pain. It is far inferior to the sources that are already used. DeVocht is more of a high-level opinion piece; it is not a review, much less a systematic review. It is adequate for high-level points about opinions differing, and about the difficulty of conclusive findings; but that's about it.
• Please see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 22 #"Rigorously proven" for more details about this wording and this citation; the current discussion on this topic is duplicating the earlier one, and it'll save us all some time to read the earlier one.

Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two edit requests for admins

Here are two requests to admins to fix what should be obvious and noncontroversial bugs in the article:

• At the top of Chiropractic, the little image of a green lock, with alt text "This article is move-protected due to vandalism", is not quite right, as the article is currently protected against all edits. The little image should be a gold lock with alt text saying "This page is protected" or something like that. Can you please change this article source:

{{pp-move-vandalism|small=yes}}

to this:

{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}

• As has been discovered in Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation #Sentence 2a, one of the citations in Chiropractic is incorrect. The text is attempting to cite a 2007 clinical practice guideline of the American College of Physicians, but it's incorrectly citing the next article in the same journal. Can you please replace this article source:

<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2007 |volume=147 |issue=7 |pages=492–504 |title= Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline |author= Chou R, Huffman LH; American Pain Society; American College of Physicians |pmid=17909210 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/147/7/492 |doi= 10.1001/archinte.147.3.492}}</ref>

with this:

<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2007 |volume=147 |issue=7 |pages=478–91 |title= Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society |author= Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V ''et al.'' |pmid=17909209 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/147/7/478}}</ref>

Please see this diff in my sandbox for the exact request that is being made here. The result of this change should be to alter this citation:

Chou R, Huffman LH; American Pain Society; American College of Physicians (2007). "Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline". Ann Intern Med. 147 (7): 492–504. doi:10.1001/archinte.147.3.492. PMID 17909210.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

to this one:

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V; et al. (2007). "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society". Ann Intern Med. 147 (7): 478–91. PMID 17909209. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

(You might notice that the new citation lacks a DOI, but that's because DOIs don't work with that journal; the DOI for the wrong citation is itself incorrect and does not work for the wrong citation.)

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins please do NOT replace the reference as Eubulides asks, it is quite inappropriate for Eubulides to ask for this change when the section is currently being discussed a the mediation page. The existing reference is highly relevant and I am quite disappointed that Eubulides is displaying more WP:OWNership of this article when there seemed to be a new spirit of cooperation at the mediation page. You should be making the text fit the reference, Eubulides, not the other way around. Deciding on text and then looking for references to fit is the slippery slope to POV-pushing. --Surturz (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation is clearly in error. The citation is indeed relevant to the subject, and this is being discussed in mediation and may result in further text being added, but there's no dispute that the citation is the wrong citation for the text that it currently sources. The citation was put in by mistake as a sort of off-by-one error (the adjacent journal article was meant to be cited). All this being said, if there is opposition to correcting a clear error then administrators should of course feel free to leave the error in. Eubulides (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done on the first part. It appears the second request is controversial, so I'm going to wait for consensus on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What is controversial about fixing an error? QuackGuru 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious error that should be fixed. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone disagreed with it, and the reason was decent, so I waited. It does appear that is consensus for it, objection or not, so I'll be making the change presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we have both references? They are both relevant and were published as a pair. --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to change the text and to cite both sources, and this topic is currently under discussion at Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation. New text like that typically takes some days to gain consensus, though, if only to give editors enough time to read and think about it. In the meantime, as per WP:V it was relatively urgent to fix the obvious error in the citation to make it match the current text. Eubulides (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of references

I would like the following two references removed from the article:

• 1. How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry
• 2. Vaccinations: how about some facts for a change?

I would also like the associated article text removed. These two references are opinion pieces. Certain editors of this article are misusing them to present the opinions in those articles as established fact, in a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the chiropractic profession. This is in violation of WP:NPOV --Surturz (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PMID 18759966 (How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry) is a review written by five expert authors, published in a specialist peer-reviewed journal. I think this is an excellent reference to include in the article and use to support factual statements. The other article, by Ferrance on vaccinations, is used to reference the statement that "Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination". This does not seem a controversial statement to me, but this reference isn't as high-quality as the review, and the use of this citation could therefore be improved by attributing this as an opinion of the author. An additional reference on this point would be useful, such as PMID 15530683 or PMID 10742364 Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with TimVickers on both sources.
• The stronger source (Murphy et al. 2008 (PDF), PMID 18759966) is indeed an opinion piece, and its advocacy should not be stated as fact here; but its discussion of facts can be cited here as facts, which is what Chiropractic is doing.
• The weaker source (Ferrance 2002 (PDF)) is there because of a longrunning controversy over whether vaccination is controversial within chiropractic:

• Surturz objected to the former lead sentence of Chiropractic #Vaccination, which said that vaccination "remains controversial within the chiropractic community" (citing Busse et al. 2005, PMID 15965414), on the grounds that Busse et al. used neither the word "controversial" nor the phrase "chiropractic community".
• After a long discussion involving Surturz and other editors (see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 26 #Topic sentence of Vaccination and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 26 #Topic sentence of Vaccination should summarize the section), the phrase was eventually changed to its current form "Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination", citing Ferrance 2002. Ferrance 2002 was brought in not because it was a better source, but because its lead sentence's phrasings correspond more closely to the phrasing used in Chiropractic.

• I agree with TimVickers that Russell et al. 2004 (PMID 15530683) and/or Campbell et al. (PMID 10742364) would be better than Ferrance. Of the two, I'd prefer Campbell et al. as it's a review not a primary study. However, Busse et al. would be even better than Campbell et al., as it's newer and focuses on today's attitudes rather than focusing on a historical perspective.
• With the above in mind, perhaps the best approach would be to cite both Busse et al. and Campbell et al., instead of citing Ferrance. That is, we could replace this:

<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |year=2002 |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=167–72 |title= Vaccinations: how about some facts for a change? |author= Ferrance RJ|url=http://jcca-online.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/Issue+46_3/$file/Pages167-172.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>

with this:

<ref name=Busse/><ref name=Campbell/>

• This would remove the reference to the weaker source. A possible objection to this change would be that neither Busse et al. nor Campbell et al. support a claim that there are significant disagreements about vaccination within chiropractic, but I don't think this objection would be a reasonable one, as both sources clearly establish the existence of the controversy.

Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural note - I've removed the actual edit protected template for the moment - the template should only be used for something completely uncontroversial (like spelling or grammar errors) or when the consensus already exists. It looks like things are headed in the right direction to get a consensus going, so as soon as there's a solution everyone would be happy with, feel free to pop the template back up there. Shell 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix for awkward wording in Philosophy

As discussed without objection last week in what is now Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 28 #Awkward wording, please replace the 2nd and 3rd sentences of Chiropractic #Philosophy with the following, which is a minor rewording of those sentences.

A philosophy based on deduction from irrefutable doctrine helped distinguish chiropractic from medicine, provided it with legal and political defenses against claims of practicing medicine without a license, and allowed chiropractors to establish themselves as an autonomous profession. This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method, and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science.

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• This change was made. For what its worth, that section makes a lot more sense to me now :) Shell 11:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"D. D." vs "D.D." and likewise for B.J.

In most cases Chiropractic spells D.D. Palmer's and B.J. Palmer's names without a space between the initials, but I just now noticed that there are two instances of "D. D." and one instance of "B. J.", with spaces between the initials. Whatever convention we use, we should be consistent. The majority of uses are avoiding the spaces now, so let's remove those three spaces. Here are the sentences that should be fixed:

• "D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s and his son B.J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century."
• "Straight chiropractors adhere to the philosophical principles set forth by D. D. and B. J. Palmer, and retain metaphysical definitions and vitalistic qualities."

Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the common practice, IOW no space between. -- Fyslee / talk 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, article should be consistent.. no spaces is better. --Surturz (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2008 (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.

(The following resolve otherwise-dangling references: )

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• A-Class Alternative medicine articles
• A-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles