User:Ocaasi/chiro2

See also: Talk:Chiropractic



Use this talk page to summarize changes, with header titles of the same name as the corresponding article section.

General direction
This is a complex and controversial subject, but the article doesn't need to read like one. My biggest issue is the way that simple descriptions are constantly immediately contextualized with current controversy. Rather than separating these aspects into separate sections or even just paragraphs and sentences, there is a truncated counterpoint structure, like statements can't stand for a minute before being immediately knocked back down. It doesn't tell a story fully, and it leaves the impression that the controversy is the subject more than the content. That's what I'd like to fix, primarily.

I think others want to bring some balance and perspective to the evidence section, especially building the full picture around which E.Ernst is certainly a big part. The current article, however, is a bit Ernst-centric, and that doesn't reflect the full spectrum of research, or the responses that Chiropractors have had to these developments.

Otherwise, please leave thoughts and comments in the discussion sections. Once we have sections improved, we'll move them one by one to the Chiropractic talk page as proposals. Ocaasi (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion

I can understand your concern about the counterpoint style, but that's largely because of the history of the article's development. For several years several prochiro editors blocked any criticism so it ended up with that style. (Note that it started out as very critical, so it was unbalanced, but it ended up the other way, as a sales brochure.)

It's also because we try not to have a criticism section, but spread it throughout the article, so it's actually somewhat logical that it's that way. The article must reflect the whole subject, not from the POV of the chiropractic profession, or of the skeptics, or of the public, but from RS.

The public has been shielded to quite a degree from the controversy that has raged for more than a century (1) inside the profession (straights vs mixers), and from the controversies between chiropractic and the (2) medical world (unscientific claims), (3) skeptics (unscientific claims and unethical practices), and the (4) insurance industry and law (widespread fraudulent practices). Those things now come to light in the article because RS tell that story. That's the great thing about Wikipedia's mission and its articles. They tell the whole story. You can't get that anywhere else because pretty much all other articles tell the story from one POV.

Since so many things in the profession are controversial, there has to appear a counterpoint on each one of those things because the literature tells us that the controversy exists. It can hardly be any other way since the profession has been the most controversial major (in size and promotion) healthcare profession. I get Google Alerts on many subjects and key words, and "vertebral subluxation" always brings up numerous chiro websites and statements of the most ludicrous nature touting the deadly effects of VS and how some chiropractor can "find" and "correct" them. This is 2010 and this shouldn't be happening anymore.

I'm sure there are spots where this can be worded better, but it can't really be removed without violating NPOV and writing a whitewashed sales brochure. It wasn't until User:Dematt came that the article really took off, grew in size and quality, and contained both positive and negative elements in a pretty great article. I miss him. A great chiro editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You think the current version reads like a sales brochure? I don't mind the criticism and the counterpoints, just not the counterpoint style.  I think we should present the birds-eye view, telling the chiropractic story and then the medical/establishment perspective, and then the criticism and controversy...just not in the same breath. Didn't know Dematt, but sounds like a great editor.  The article is not bad, I just don't like it's style.  Do you want this article to read clearly for or against like the Aspartame controversy article, as in, the debate's over and Chiro lost? Ocaasi (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. It has, but not now, and we shouldn't go in that direction. It should be written so that neither chiros nor skeptics are happy with it. Only Wikipedia editors and the public will like it.


 * We are supposed to avoid controversy sections and are supposed to spread out any criticism throughout in the logical spots where it applies. That's the consensus Wikipedia-wide, and also on this article after many discussions over the matter. That automatically means some back and forth. Since the MEDRS references (the nitty gritty medical details, not the controversies) will often back up the medical establishment, it will appear that chiropractic lost to some degree on those points, but on other points it may show that there are some good things, and in other areas it will show that matters are still inconclusive. Medical science develops and there are some areas of uncertainty. The article will show that too. We should just follow the sources. In spite of some unscientific ideas and practices (the negative aspects), chiropractors still do some things that help people and they are popular with some parts of society. The article will show that too.


 * The other areas of legal and political controversy will draw on non-MEDRS refs and will show the controversies and disagreements. It will show that in spite of criticism, chiropractic has succeeded because of a good bedside manner and aggressive marketing. It will also show that chiropractic utilization has been waning, even though more and more chiros have been educated and graduated, resulting in numerous chiros not being able to make it and leaving the profession. The last matter is partially well-documented and partially poorly documented, but it's there. The situation is also reflected in the fact that chiropractic has by far the largest default rate on federal student loans. Like I said, a good article will contain elements that don't please either the pro or con crowds, but NPOV requires that we include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that all sounds fair. I don't want criticism sections, more like criticism sentences and paragraphs as opposed to criticism clauses at the end of each statement.  I think the current draft captures most of what it should regarding the medical status, but definitely it's a bit short on: a) good parts relating to its reputation and generally positive user experiences; b) sports chiro and its role in athletics/dance; c) business aspects, including profitability issues and advertising, etc. Ocaasi (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro

 * add details about scope of profession
 * add sports chiropractic
 * reorganize for presentation, flow, and coherence
 * rephrase vaccination controversy
 * rephrase AMA history
 * rephrase risk-benefit to reflect all recent reviews


 * Discussion

Philosophy

 * moved the 2008, current state of Chiropractic/most mixers incorporating science paragraph to the end of the section, to follow the historical development.


 * Discussion

Safety



 * Discussion

Codes for draft
I think these codes should be added to the top of the draft and possibly this page:



Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ocaasi (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)