Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backin72 (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 7 February 2008 (WebMD - new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:20, 7 February 2008 by Backin72 (talk | contribs) (WebMD - new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2

WP:POVFORK

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines. Let's make sure that this article doesn't become that. -- Levine2112 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If that happens, I'll support a AfD. I have also removed the homeopathy article probation template because no one is discussing homeopathy here. If that happens, it can be replaced. -- Fyslee / talk 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, you just mentioned the H-word. Everybody get out their ban-sticks! ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the template for the same reasons. It is not a template for any and all alterntive medicine articles, but only those where homeopathy is being discussed or edited. That's not the case here. This is a focused and unrelated discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WebMD

I restored the WebMD material. Since Lundberg is involved and gives it his blessing, I think we can safely say it's a V RS, particularly since it cites a journal article (which, per Arthur, is even better for us to use). Maybe the language should be tweaked (although it appears to stick close to the source), but by no means should it be deleted. Given Lundberg, I don't think there are any weight problems with having its own section, though here it would be better to organize the sections by topic, not source. (An exception could be if some source had really amazing weight, like a sci-consensus statement, but we don't have that here.) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)