User:Fyslee/Sandbox Critical link summaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Critical link summaries

Dear Dematt and Gleng (whom I have invited to join me here),

You have both done an admirable job here with the summaries to the critical external links. I haven't even commented on them, and have been afraid to make any changes for fear of starting some kind of edit war, where the deletists and POV suppressors might start trying (again) to delete as many of the links as possible, or at least attempt to suppress any criticisms in the criticisms. They've done this many times before in the chiropractic articles, so I now seek your support. I have finally decided to approach you for a collaborative effort to revise one of them:

Original:

A 1991 editorial from chiropractic trade magazine, Dynamic Chiropractic, where Joseph C. Keating Jr discusses his concerns for advertising products before they are scientifically evaluated.

Revised:

A 1991 letter to the editor of the chiropractic trade magazine Dynamic Chiropractic, where Joseph C. Keating Jr challenges the claim of the President of the American Chiropractic Association [1], that the idea of "quackery" in chiropractic is a "myth." He then urges a "reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic."

Why have I revised it? Because this is the critical links section, and the summaries should be "pithy" and "direct" (to quote Gleng [2]). There must not be any risk of accusations of whitewashing the source. If it's a critical article (that's why it was chosen.....;-), then it's the critical stuff that should be used in the summary, not the positive stuff (I'm not saying that this is the case here).

What do you think? Are my thoughts and concerns legitimate? Is this fair? I really want to find some solution that will improve this one. Let's work together on this here. I trust your judgment and fairness. I am not only asking for your help, but also ask that Dematt make the change if he approves of the final result. If I do it there will just be trouble. -- Fyslee 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course your concerns are legitimate. I'd pause a bit though, because this is properly part of a broader issue of misuse of advertising - I guess I was reminded of this through the link of toothpaste advertising with pseudoscientific claims, and then recalled soberly that promotion of conventional drugs is a pretty dirty business that has led to increasing anger and concern.
Several things then; this article is 15 years old now - has there been any response by way of regulation of advertising claims? Is this a problem in the USA only? _ I think in the UK there is generally sharper regulation of claims (though maybe not for toothpaste). Is this issue really to do with chiropractic - or is it an inevitable, general problem with all free market services that lack tight regulation? Is this a problem of weak internal regulation or weak external advertising standards -
I.e. Yes this obviously (well I don't know but i'm accepting this) has been a pretty dodgy area - but is it either specific to chiropractic or to the nature of chiropractic, or just the sort of excesses that occur before regulation of standards is established?
So you see my reservation? Yes this should be covered - but is the best way to cover it in a broader based article about the ethics of advertising health claims? Or is it a particular feature of chiropractic as it might be because I understand that DD was highly innovative in advertising so maybe the problems were (are) worse here than elsewhere?
If there is another article (even a stub) it might be better. I agree that there should be no whitewashing, again a historical approach might be the neutral answer, with the history of advertising of chiropractic and the (perhaps slow and gradual, and imperfect) emergence of regulation.
Again, as before, there is a way both to celebrate (in retrospect) DD's use of advertising to establish chiropractic while acknowledging the downside for the profession in later years in hitting its credibility. Hard to do this fairly within the existing article - but linking to a new one might do the criticism justice. Criticisms seem unfair when the context is not given.
I know I'm answering by saying maybe the answer is more work from you guys....
I think if there is another article on The History of Advertising in Chiropractic, I think the wording as is would be fine with a "See also" link.
Am I right that Advertising in Chiropractic is indeed historically notable?
 ??????????????????? Gleng 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It is historically notable, and partially for the reasons you mention: BJ Palmer was a renowned marketer and very directly stated that he was not training chiropractors on a professional basis, but on a business basis. He emphasized advertising in all things, and the profession has no other legacy, so it can't be any other way:
  • "Our school is on a business, not a professional basis. . . . We manufacture chiropractors. . . . Give me a simple mind that thinks along single tracts, give me 30 days to instruct him, and that individual can go forth on the highways and by ways and get more sick people well than the best, most complete, all around, unlimited medical education of any medical man who ever lived." Fountain Head News, Nov. 1, 1919.
I fear that you are missing an important point by focusing on advertising. Keating uses it as an example, but his choices of examples show that he understands the true nature of quackery, which is over promotion, especially of unscientific or undocumented ideas. The claims made in the advertisements is the point, not the advertisements themselves (although they are bad enough!). Such claims should not even be believed, much less advertised. The fact that such is common to this day in that same magazine (I receive the paper edition) is very telling. Hardly a page is free from some quack device, get-rich-quick scheme, or practice building salesman.
He doesn't focus solely on the magazine, but on the profession of chiropractic itself:
  • "reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic."
He is dealing with a long "tradition of unsubstantiated claims." It's nothing new, and there is very little self-regulation. Even when specific examples are brought to the attention of chiropractic state boards, they do nothing. (But if it gets in the newspapers, they can act quickly!) The worst kinds of quackery are still practiced and go unpunished. This subject isn't even dealt with in the article yet, and yet it is so large a subject that it could be a whole article with loads of documentation. No list of quackery anywhere fails to list chiropractic as a classic example, the "flagship" of the fleet, and we can thank BJ Palmer for that.
Not only could there be an article on "The History of Advertising in Chiropractic," there could be another one on "The History of Quackery in Advertising." They would naturally be interconnected, but the one would be on the promotional aspects, while the other could place more focus on the practices themselves.
Many ordinary and sensible chiropractors may not even realize what I'm really talking about, simply because they and their immediate friends don't do such things, but far too many other DCs do. All professions have "rotten apples," but the chiropractic profession of today has so many “bad apples” that it can’t be the result of chance. It is the inevitable result of fundamental flaws in the profession: its birth, history, philosophy, attitudes, techniques, marketing and education.
Keep in mind that I'm not even speaking of manipulation itself. (There is some documentation for it in certain situations.) I'm thinking of a whole lot of other practices and claims, in addition to the many extravagant and unscientific claims associated with adjustments. -- Fyslee 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that I was concerned that the article title, taken as a bare statement, looked like an offensive and opinionated rant that didn't deserve considered attention. The description of it was deliberately understated to compensate, in the hope that chiropractors and others would be encouraged to read the article for its serious and balanced message. OK this is my personal preference coming through, to strip away the emotive rhetoric and deliver the substantive message coolly. I think if you use the word Quackery in the title and then repeat it twice in the summary it is OTT. :)Gleng 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It is in the summary only once, and essentially as a repetition of the title of the article, but with the quotation marks accurately reflecting what Downing wrote. -- Fyslee 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would not object at all to this: I have removed only a sentence whose meaning is implicit in the word "challenged". It does duplicate the word Quackery, but also describes the context better than our original, and referencing the ACA letter itself adds balance. Sorry to discuss this at excessive length :)Gleng 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A 1991 letter to the editor of the chiropractic trade magazine Dynamic Chiropractic, where Joseph C. Keating Jr challenges the claim of the President of the American Chiropractic Association [3], that the idea of "quackery" in chiropractic is a "myth." He urges a "reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic."
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only change I can find is the deletion of the word "then." ??? Did you get distracted before you got finished here, or am I indeed missing something? -- Fyslee 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You missed this:)
These are the laws that allow for the discipline and regulation of DCs and MDs in North Carolina. Interesting; check out number (6) under the medical discipline. That must be what allows them to use alternative methods legally, too.
Advertising as a form of marketing could certainly be considered an issue for chiropractic, but we have to keep in mind that marketing is an issue for everybody. We have to consider that the AMA and pharmaceutical companies do a much better job marketing for MDs than the ACA can do(and obviously DCs don't have a billion dollar industry to direct patients to them) so chiropractors rely on advertising and community service type activities. Advertising itself is not the bad guy.
So, really, the issue is what the advertising says, right? And this gets back to claims that were made in the days of BJ (and remember the AMA also had a radio station back then and the Hygene Magazine) when nobody knew how to treat cancer and diabetes - and we have to allow DCs time to find out that adjustments were not the best way to treat these. (Also note that DCs reduced their theory once this became evident - an issue with PS) Claims of cancer, diabetes, etc.. treatments should not be seen anymore (and if they are, that DC should be in big trouble with the law).
However, claims of low back pain, neck pain, improved health, better living, decreased stress, etc.. - are these things that could be advertised without being considered quackery? Who decides? The AMA? The ACA? Me or you? Certainly we all know the advertisements for better living through chemistry - prozak, viagra, paxil, etc. And don't forget Tylenol sinus and Tylenol migraine and Tylenol PM. I only mention these because they are marketing techniques that build huge practices and most of it claims to improve health, better living, decreased stress, etc. I am not saying that quackery (overpromoting a product)is not a problem with chiropractic, but it is with all of healthcare.
So, while I surely have no problem presenting chiropractic in the most open manner, how do we handle this in a NPOV manner when the reader is just reading the chiropractic article? If we handled it in the article itself, we could compare and contrast in a NPOV way, in the criticism section, we can't. What do you think? --Dematt 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/y/s/User%7EFyslee_Sandbox_Critical_link_summaries_27a7.html"