| Revision as of 05:37, 15 April 2006 editRolinator (talk | contribs)2,296 editsm →Removal from category:pseudoscience: sp← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:13, 15 April 2006 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,334 edits Much editing based on a misunderstandingNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| ] 02:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | ] 02:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Much editing based on a misunderstanding== | |||
| Much hard work and sincere editing efforts are being wasted. | |||
| needs citations, or should be edited and some deleted: | |||
| A number of added here. They deal with chiropractic, but not specifically VS, and thus don't belong in this article, and in fact, after much discussion about too many links at the chiropractic article, don't belong there either. | |||
| The editing starting , while interesting and often correct, reveals a confusion between the subject of this article - VS - and chiropractic. They are two different articles. The editing from that point onwards needs to be greatly reduced, redone, and much deleted as inappropriate for this article, which isn't a textbook in chiropractic procedures, but an overview of VS. | |||
| Another that is irrelevant to the content of the article. | |||
| The of the pseudoscience category tag is explained well, but reveals a confusion between the subject of ''chiropractic'' and ''VS''. They are of course intertwined to such a degree that VS is the very foundation of chiropractic, but it is VS, not chiropractic, that is pseudoscience, and thus the tag belongs at this article, but not at the chiropractic article. | |||
| Another good link, but also , in keeping with comments above. | |||
| Should be removed. | |||
| does not belong in this article. The chiropractic article would be the place for it, but much of it has been or already is there, and such large edits would violate the collaborative efforts to create the article. Sometimes one sentence at a time is easier to manage, and even small changes of wording can create edit wars and much wasted time. | |||
| Your efforts and sincerity are appreciated, but I fear that your misunderstanding of the purpose and very specific subject matter of '''this''' article has led you to do a lot of editing to no avail. I suggest that you revert back to where you started, and - keeping in mind the problems I've pointed out above - that you proceed very slowly. Keep in mind that this is a collaborative effort. If you make too many changes at once, the only way for other editors to ensure that problematic ideas, wording, or other aspects don't get introduced is to simply delete everything you've just added, and that would be too bad, because you have used a lot of time and energy on editing the article. | |||
| I'm not interested in an edit war here and would rather that you do the reverting, and will welcome discussion here. Just stayed focused on VS, not generally about chiropractic. Here is a logical | |||
| The Pseudoscience category tag also needs to be restored. It's VS, not chiropractic, that is the pseudoscience. | |||
| Another thing to keep in mind is that this article and the ] article must not be blended together, which would create confusion. They are two different things. This article deals '''exclusively''' with the ''chiropractic'' concept. As such the article is allowed here at Misplaced Pages because of the subject's historical nature and because it is the foundation of a whole profession. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be legitimate to have an article on it here at Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages forbids the publication of ''']'''. If a subject isn't ], then it doesn't belong here at Misplaced Pages, and VS hasn't been proven to exist as yet. It is only allowed here because of its significant position in chiropractic. | |||
| Here are some tidbits (chiropractic sources) you might find interesting. It might be good to read them before editing: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Other significant articles on the subject: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Good reading! -- ] 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:13, 15 April 2006
The title should be Vertebral (not Vetebral) subluxation.
Sebastjan
Is v. subluxation the same as spondylolisthesis??
yes and no, spondylolisthesis is a medical condition (not "chiropractic") where one vertebrae has moved anteriorly in relation to the one below it. depending on one's definition of chiropractic, this would be a subluxation in the classical sense of the word
- Unless I'm mistaken (and I've had anterior vertebrae, but I might be wrong), what you've mentioned is just one part of subluxation. A subluxation can be one of several things, though this is one of the more painful forms I've had. -- ConSeeDed
Merge discussion
See here. -- Fyslee 22:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
"Paraphrasing"?
- "I think it is missing the point by paraphrasing. This is a bit better." - Levine2112's edit summary.
There was no paraphrasing at all. On the contrary, there was a careful choice of passages expressly approved by Tedd Koren, ultraconservative chiro and arch enemy of Stephen Barrett. He was amazed I could get right to the point, leaving out the (for this article) unnecessary "fluff," and that I even understood it. I happen to know chiropractic theory, philosophy, and history so well that I can argue on both sides of these issues as well as or better than most chiros, so this was a piece of cake, and he approved the quote as I contributed it, and he gave no permission for the use of other parts of the article. By (especially without authorization) adding more you draw attention away from the point (is that your intent?) and also make the quote unnecessarily long.
You may find it surprising that I, with my viewpoints, can cooperate with Koren, who is at the opposite end of the chiropractic spectrum (in fact he just won a case with Barrett), but that's no problem for me. I'm interested in finding the facts and viewpoints and making sure they get represented for what they are - viewpoints and opinions. They must be presented, but - per NPOV policy - neutralized, IOW they must not argue the point as if it were true, but simply present it as an opinion. In contrast with many common chiropractic viewpoints, the scientific viewpoint is the majority viewpoint, and is thus per Misplaced Pages policy automatically NPOV. Other, especially unusual, viewpoints, bear a stronger burden of proof, and cannot be allowed to stand alone unchallenged and without opposing viewpoints. -- Fyslee 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would help mightily if, as you seem to claim to be able to do, you could come up with some fairly robust references and definitions about Chiro. Rolinator 09:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Anything particular you have in mind? Just ask. -- Fyslee 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- There were and are paragraphs and sentences left out in between what you selected from the article. I consider that paraphrasing. I like very much what this article is saying. I feel that the idea that "subluxation" is a useful theory to explain the effects of adjustments is a good one but it is a very confusing notion. The references to gravity, atomic theory, et cetera help clarify what Koren is saying. That's why he included it there. Levine2112 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Paraphrasing is where one uses one's own words to express another person's quote (and a citation must still be given, otherwise it's called plagiarism). I knew that Koren had expressed the concept better than anyone I know of in chiropractic. Since I couldn't have said it better myself, I consulted him and he approved of the choice of sections to quote. He did not give permission for the use of other parts, and since too long a quote wouldn't be very proper here, the quote is short enough to still get the point across. The other stuff is fine in his original article, but it's not essential or needed here. We need the essential part, and he not only approved of it the way it is, but was amazed that I had gotten to the "gist of the matter."
- I'm rather surprised that you aren't tickled pink that I give Barrett's arch enemy and conservative chiropractor number one a chance to voice his views here. Of course I could just delete the quote entirely, but that would be too bad, since no one says it better (and he was very pleased I chose to quote him). I could also choose to quote Jarvis, Barrett, or Homola. Since they are nationally recognized as experts on quackery and chiropractic, they have much to say about the matter, but I doubt that you'd appreciate them being quoted here....;-) -- Fyslee 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want a semantic debate over the definition of paraphrasing. That's great that Koren gave his approval. I'm sure he would give his approval for that other paragraph that you keep deleting (which I believe is essential in understanding what Koren is describing). He is calling Vertebral Subluxation a theory that explains the results of a chiropractic adjustment. Well, I don't (and neither would the average Wikipedian) fully understand Koren's implication without the example he makes to the other scientific theories... gravity, etc. If it help to explain a complicated supposition (and it is a direct quote that was stripped out of the direct quote that is there know), I really don't see the big deal in adding it. And please don't threaten me with what you may or may not add to the article. It makes you seem like a WikiBully. Levine2112 18:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Tag
Replaced two tags with one. The article is filled with false anatomical chiropractic POV. It needs to be documented and sourced. The article needs heavy editing to remove this stuff. If any of it is preserved (as it could be) it should be accompanied with qualifiers to make sure no one happens to believe this as if it were fact. -- Fyslee 21:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Removal from category:pseudoscience
Chiropractic does not meet the qualification of pseudoscience. My reasoning is as below;
- Chiropractic, while a descriptive and holistic treatment for an admittedly vaguely described 'illness' (ie; Vertebral Subluxation, hereafter VS) meets the standards of the scientific method, namely
- It is descriptive; chiropractic describes symptomatic manifestations and interprets these as being due to VS
- Predictive. Chiropractic treatment s proven to be effective at alleviating some symptoms, such as back pain. Treatment is given, and research is conducted, to discern the effects of VS in secific areas of the spine on various symptoms
- Control over symptoms is proven, even if it is qualitatively proven by interviews with patients.
- Understanding of the symptoms and their treatment is gained; even if this is not fuly understood. Chiro doesn't pretend to know everything and, as scientists, neither should conventional medical practitioners portray their profession as having all the answers even to well understood diseases. Ergo, chiro is of equivalent scientific merit to a lot of symptomatic treatments offered by the medical profession (analgesics to treat migraine pain, not the underlying cause)
- Chiropractic meets the criteria of being a scientific profession in that it has
- Peer reviewed journals. Even if other branches of the scientific profession do not agree with the conclusions and practice of chiropractic, similar to arguments about intelligent design, simply the presence of controversy does not invalidate chiropractic's arguments or theories. Additionally, those from outside a profession and unschooled in a profession may not offer substantive peer review (for instance, engineers reviewing medicine) because it requires a certain level of knowledge of the subject in order to critically examine and review within a field.
- Standards of ethics and conduct; even if they are not always maintained as this is no different than any other profession maintained by human beings, least of all the medical profession.
- Chiropractic is taught as a degree and diploma level accredited course within medical and science faculties at recognised and accredited institutions; it is a recognised effective alternative medical treatment, similar to acupuncture. However, reiki and aromatherapy are not taught to a disciplined level and do not adhere to peer review, ethical standards, nor any hint of the scientific method.
I can see why people think that chiropractic is pseudoscience.
Firstly, there's the demarcation dispute between orthodox medicine and complementary medicines, in which either side vies for market share via slanging matches and misinformation.
Secondly, there's the history of Palmer and the early chiropractic profession. However, we should not forget that in the 1700's and 1800's the medical profession was still treating phrenology and craniometry as very real medical science, that leeches were still used to treat fevers, and that the ideas of "innate intelligence" were hardly an invention of Palmer and were hardly much different than "swamp humours" and other such theories used to categorise and explain medical phenomena. If chiropractic gains the tag of pseudoscience due to its 19th century origins, medicine itself should be classified as pseudoscience for the same reason.
Thirdly, much medicine has as little to do with science in its common daily application, or even less so, than chiopractic. Chiropractic diagnosis is more rigorous than most medical diagnoses done at a general practitioners, where often the only diagnosis performed is an oral query of the patient and then assessment of symptoms. Nerological and biomechanical assessments performed by chiropractic are at least as rigorous, and the nly difference is in interpretation.
Finally, the majority of correlation between chiro and pseudoscience, on the web, is associated with American websites and discourse, which means it is primarily a single cltural artefact of the American political and cultural landscape. I cannot reasonably speak of other nations and cultures with much authority, however in Australia chiro is considered a viable complementary therapy and alternative medicine and is not branded "pseudoscience". So, although there's certainly an element of tinfoil hat brigade driving the POV here, I do not believe it is valid, due to the above.
Rolinator 02:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Much editing based on a misunderstanding
Much hard work and sincere editing efforts are being wasted.
This edit needs citations, or should be edited and some deleted:
A number of irrelevant links added here. They deal with chiropractic, but not specifically VS, and thus don't belong in this article, and in fact, after much discussion about too many links at the chiropractic article, don't belong there either.
The editing starting here, while interesting and often correct, reveals a confusion between the subject of this article - VS - and chiropractic. They are two different articles. The editing from that point onwards needs to be greatly reduced, redone, and much deleted as inappropriate for this article, which isn't a textbook in chiropractic procedures, but an overview of VS.
Another external link that is irrelevant to the content of the article.
The removal of the pseudoscience category tag is explained well, but reveals a confusion between the subject of chiropractic and VS. They are of course intertwined to such a degree that VS is the very foundation of chiropractic, but it is VS, not chiropractic, that is pseudoscience, and thus the tag belongs at this article, but not at the chiropractic article.
Another good link, but also irrelevant, in keeping with comments above.
More of the same. Should be removed.
Much of this content does not belong in this article. The chiropractic article would be the place for it, but much of it has been or already is there, and such large edits would violate the collaborative efforts to create the article. Sometimes one sentence at a time is easier to manage, and even small changes of wording can create edit wars and much wasted time.
Your efforts and sincerity are appreciated, but I fear that your misunderstanding of the purpose and very specific subject matter of this article has led you to do a lot of editing to no avail. I suggest that you revert back to where you started, and - keeping in mind the problems I've pointed out above - that you proceed very slowly. Keep in mind that this is a collaborative effort. If you make too many changes at once, the only way for other editors to ensure that problematic ideas, wording, or other aspects don't get introduced is to simply delete everything you've just added, and that would be too bad, because you have used a lot of time and energy on editing the article.
I'm not interested in an edit war here and would rather that you do the reverting, and will welcome discussion here. Just stayed focused on VS, not generally about chiropractic. Here is a logical place to revert to.
The Pseudoscience category tag also needs to be restored. It's VS, not chiropractic, that is the pseudoscience.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this article and the Subluxation article must not be blended together, which would create confusion. They are two different things. This article deals exclusively with the chiropractic concept. As such the article is allowed here at Misplaced Pages because of the subject's historical nature and because it is the foundation of a whole profession. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be legitimate to have an article on it here at Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages forbids the publication of original research. If a subject isn't verifiable, then it doesn't belong here at Misplaced Pages, and VS hasn't been proven to exist as yet. It is only allowed here because of its significant position in chiropractic.
Here are some tidbits (chiropractic sources) you might find interesting. It might be good to read them before editing:
Other significant articles on the subject:
Good reading! -- Fyslee 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)