Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Money Money Money

Why if I open my local yellow pages do I see that chiropractors are apparently the 3rd most numerous profession in the phone book, after lawyers and dentists. They take out huge ads that out claim to treat back pain (possibly reasonable), headaches (hmmmmm.), ear infections (?), carpel tunnel syndrome (??), allergies (???), ADHD (??????), provide "holistic healthcare", "nutrition", etc. Somehow, none of them fail to mention that they take insurance, auto accident injuries, and workman's comp claims. I think I see now. --Kvuo 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) edited --Kvuo 00:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Neck 911.com

I wouldn't say this is a bad site, however not only is neck911.com biased but it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this chiropractic article. Therefore I believe it has no place in the links section here. -- Drdr1989 04:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree. Chiropractic involves many different things, but this website seems to address criticisms of spinal manipulation. I wouldn't object to it being put in that article. Edwardian 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Subluxion Claims

Proponents for subluxions should quote the scientific literature supporting their existence, rather than modifying the statement saying that their is 'no' scientific eviden ce for this existence. Maustrauser 03:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chirobase, Skeptic's Dictionary

External links removal: These sites only serve one opinion, have an obvious agenda, and are not peer reviewed.

Although there are some peer-reviewed sources in the latter, I suppose that upon reviewing them a second time they are biased like you say. Drdr1989 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Chiromed and Chirobase both serve one opinion, have an obvious agenda, and are not peer reviewed. Also, citing sources that cite the original source is not acceptable, nor is allowing a link to that source. It apprears that Chirobase and Chiromed are attempting to acquire backlinks to build there rankings.

Lack of neutrality is not a criterion for deleting an external link. If the external site can give the reader an insight to the topic that the Wikipedia article can not, that's all it needs. We can include links to biased or even blatantly factually incorrect sites if they offer an insight (e.g. while you might not learn about Chiropractic from a biased or incorrect site you can learn about the controversy surrounding it), and we can even add notes to the external links section warning the reader that the external site approaches the subject from a certain angle. See for example the Creationism or Iraq War articles. Joe D (t) 08:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case, this will not be acceptable. I can see that Chirobase and Chirotalk are really trying hard to keep their advantage, but Wikipedia is not a spring board for these particular individually owned sites to gain advantage in the search engines.

Removal of external links is not vandalism, especially when they fraught with agenda. I like the concept of organizing the links, but the article is already too heavily weighted with negative anti-Chiropractic bias, so the addition of your so called skeptic links will not be allowed. Also, I am not saying that Chirotalk, Chiromed, and Chirobase have used all "10" of their supporters to attempt to keep these links going (for all I know you could all be the same person using different log in and I.P. addresses); however, what I am saying is that they all support the same negative agenda and viewpoint. For example, the fact that they keep choosing Chiromed as a source, when there are much more reliable organizations that have more than a few supporters and actually have peer reviewed articles and studies, clearly demonstrates an agenda that does not fit with Wikipedia's mission. Therefore, these external links will continue to be removed.

It is not appropriate to include biased links without denoting it as such (i.e., like how it is listed now in the article). Without such denotation it is inappropriate to include "insight" that would lead the reader from an otherwise neutral article to a link that sways either way from the middle. In other words, the way that our OH friend has organized it as of now appears OK, even though he didn't quite succeed to substantiate such in prior attempts. Drdr1989 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon, please demonstrate why the links do not add to the article than whining about POV, which as explained is not applicable here (and incidently is grounds to removal all the other links which present only the opposite POV). If you demonstrate for example that the sites are not notable, or that there are more extensive and useful skeptical sites we could link we should go right ahead and update the article. But your complaints of POV and selective targeting of skeptical sites is why I jumped to the conclusion that you are simply trying to push POV by omission.
Please also familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia operates before telling us what "won't be allowed". Joe D (t) 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Here are the links anon above has been deleting. The first two are notable, relevant and useful:
www.Chirobase.com] — Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices
(24,500 results for "chirobase" on Google)
skepdic.com/chiro.html Skeptic's Dictionary: chiropractic]
(Published on dead trees)
chirotalk.proboards3.com/ Chirotalk: A Skeptical Discussion Forum About Chiropractic]

OK, the anon now know as "Wikismart" is now in the realm of the 3rr and continues to hypocritically delete links "with an agenda", without further attempts to justify the actions within the terms of Wikipedia. In my book this is vandalism. Joe D (t) 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No More External Links to Gain Personal Advantage: There is a difference between citing a source and inclusion of an external link. This external link is not necessary and obviously a part of the agenda to gain site popularity. The section of "skeptical" Chiropractic links is also unnecessary considering the already negative tone of this article. Finally, here is the most important issue: If these so called "skeptical Chiropractic" sites are allowed to use Wikipedia to gain advantage in the rankings through an increase of back links and direct Wikipedia traffic, we will sending a message that Wikipedia can be used to further a site's rankings. This could spawn further individuals to do the same and thereby not allow Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (how do you think that chirobase gets so many results on Google). While it may be good Search Engine Optimization techniques on the part of these sites, it is not good for Wikipedia's credibility. I have taken out the external link so these sites will not receive that advantage. However, I left the URLs so that a person could choose to take a look at these sites. If Chirobase, Chirotalk, Quckwatch and Chiromed really believe in their cause, they will be happy to just make their statements known to the world, without the external link advantage.--Wikismart 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added my User for the last paragarph because I forgot to log on that time.--Wikismart 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I could say exactly the same about the links to chiropractic organisations. It really is hard to resist WP:POINT right now. And the external link in the sources section is there so readers (and editors) can check it's correct. Deleting that link makes you look like somebody who is only here to remove links to sites you don't like to reduce google results. I have been using Wikipedia for two and half years, made probably less than a dozen edits to the Chiropractic page (all vandalism reverts), all in the last few months. Accusing me of being here to promote these websites is laughable. Looking at the contributions of your account and IPs however backs up my suspicion that you care a lot more about reducing the google rankings of a few websites than the quality of Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S., I have returned the external links to this page, they are here so other editors can evaluate the sites. Do not edit other people's comments. Joe D (t) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my I.P. addresses, I just have more than one location and have done nothing to hide this. Can you say the same for everyone else? Your accusations are as thin as your attempts to hide your affiliation with these sites. As far as the external links go, any editor can copy and paste, so I will delete them once again. Besides, I have nothing to gain from removing these links, but some individuals obviously stand to gain from it being remaining there. p.s., previously I never said you have an agenda, but as they say: "If the shoe fits, feel free to wear it."--Wikismart 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Although the sites removed are, once again, biased I still don't understand Wikismart's rationale for removing them. Although the sites should be denoted like I've mentioned above, keeping them on just provides an option for users to gain easy access to these "con" sites more than it does to promote the site. Besides, thousands of links, not one, are required to boost a ranking in Google. On the other hand, leaving these links out doesn't hurt the article; I'm really on middle ground here. I just don't think the rationale provided for removing them makes any sense.Drdr1989 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe you underestimate the power of links from a source like Wikipedia. The real problem is that if we allow external links to be used by individuals to gain this advantage in the search engines, Wikipedia become a target for this type of behavior. For example, a search engine marketer may reference his or her site on every talk page that is relevant just to gain advancement in the search engines, as well as the extra traffic it garners. I wouldn't mind seeing Wikipedia get rid of external links all together, but if this does not happen, then at least we can monitor against the kind of self promoting we are seeing with Chirobase, Quackwatch, chiromed and chirotalk.--70.32.198.143 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)--Wikismart 05:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your philosophy regarding external links, and I certainly know how popular wikipedia is to have an influence (Alexa ranking, Pagerank) on sites having links to them - not to boost rankings really, but to increase traffic somewhat. I do agree that if we don't do something now then wikipedia will be the source of excessive linkspam. And I sort of side in your opinion regarding getting rid of external links due to the linkspam potential, although there should be some "further info" section similiar to that provided in books, etc. I just didn't see what your reason had to do with removing "con" sites when there was a seperate heading for them, especially since someone else other than the promoter possibly put them there, and also since that rationale for removal is not much different if one applies that to the other two sections there. Drdr1989 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In general you may have a good point, but if you really evaluate this situation you will find that the article itself has very little cited references, and the ones that it does have mostly reference the same view points that these so called "skeptic Chiropractic" sites share. Combine this with the fact that there are a few very passionate users who are working very hard to keep a these "skeptical chiropractic" sites linked from this article and talk page and you can easily draw the conclusion that there is a vested interest in promoting an agenda outside of Wikipedia. --Wikismart 04:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few users working hard to keep these sites in because you are unilaterally deleting them, are working passionately to delete things from the Chiropractic page alone (that's what the IP comment above was about, please don't pretend you have Wikipedia's interests at heart), and have so far only provided a few irrelevant conspiracy theories as the reason for doing so. Perhaps if you showed a commitment to anything other than deleting Chiropractic skeptical links from Wikipedia we could believe it wasn't simple vandalism with "an agenda". Joe D (t) 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice try Joe, but you forgot one thing; there can be no such thing as an "irrelevant conspiracy," as no conspiracy could possibly be irrelevant. Secondly, I have only just begun, so don't get too concerned that I won't be contributing anything further. Although, for you to think that link monitoring isn't important, perhaps you place too low of a priority on the reputation of Wikipedia.--Wikismart 07:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Way too many qualifiers

The intro on this is way to loaded with qualifiers: "claims", "asserts", "some", "commonly refer to themselves". I'd fix it but I have little time to delve into the reasons of the NPOV tag, read the history, and figure it all out for myself. I presume there are people that care about this article more than I — a casual reader of it. In essence: the intro reads as someone slapped in qualifiers because they didn't agree with what it said and the intro ended up being so NPOV-ish that it's distracting. FWIW to whom cares. Cburnett 15:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractic philosophy

I added this section because I believe it needed to be stated plainly what exactly is at the heart of chiropractic philosophy. It's nothing magical. It nothing spiritual. It's nothing cult-ish. It's basic biology. However, as there is controversy over this issue, I was sure to add to my text qualifiers such as "chiropractors believe" and "chiropractic claims" and such - to let anyone coming here for research know that this philosophy may not be an absolute fact. I am certainly in no way dismissing that there are chiropractors who adopt more New Age practices that can be viewed by Western eyes as quackery. I am simply stating the basic science at the heart of chiropractic. It wasn't mentioned on this page and I think it is important to get to the core, defining characteristics in a Wiki article.

Levine2112 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChiropractic_Archive_5_3e69.html"