Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonstead technique


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gonstead technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious ability to stand alone in an article in and of itself (a redirect to Chiropractic would be reasonable), this article, however, is right on the border of being deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion: It fails utterly to provide a coherent definition of the subject, and the sources linked seem unable to define it either. There's a source to show that it's a buzzword in chiropractic circles, with over half of American chiropractors surveyed saying they use it, but a coherent definition of it seems beyond anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A3 no content would certainly not apply, sorry. There's far too much content for that, even as a short stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That would require presuming this was a coherent definition. It is not (see below). Though I gave my reasoning explicitly in the nomination. Quite simply, this appears to be more of a buzzword than a coherent technique, and all the sources reflect this in their vague definitions, full of "may include" and "might include", with the things meant to be definitional appearing to be standard chiropratic practice for at least half a century before Gonstead. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chiropractic from what I can tell, if this technicque is practiced by the majority of chiropracters then this technique is synonymous with chiropractic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

. Chiropractic Techniques. American Chiropractic Association. August 2003. Valoem  talk   contrib  06:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, I am interested to know what avenue of research the nominator took to determine lack of sources? There are an overabundance in regard to this technique. According to the American Chiropractic Association this technique is used by 58.5% of chiropractors from this source. The technique has gone under clinical trials A Profession Seeking Clinical Competency: The Role of the Gonstead Chiropractic Technique, another trial here from Robert Cooperson Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, and another study here . has listed numerous sources regarding the founder of the technique here. Additional sources were provided by 009o9 on this founder's AfD. This subject clearly passes out GNG guidlines for inclusion. The article need expansion not deletion.  Valoem   talk   contrib  00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the term can be defined using one of those citations, it's a buzzword more than the subject of an article that can stand on its own. Again, it's quality of sources that matter, not simple mentions in sources, or vague collections of traits ill-linked to a coherent system of practice. Don't give me the result of a google search, give me one concrete source able to define the supposed technique. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right here, "This is a specific chiropractic technique and is a variation of the Diversified technique that utilizes manipulation/adjustment by hand that usually results in joint cavitation. X-ray analysis, palpation, and temperature gradient studies may be used in clinical decision-making (i.e., what segment(s) to manipulate/adjust)."
 * And how does that differ from standard practice? "Manipulation/adjustment by hand that usually results in joint cavitation" is pretty much a definition of chiropractic. Is there any chiropractor that doesn't do that? The other half of the definition is qualified by "may", so doesn't serve to distinguish the technique. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)\
 * So you are denying the definition? It is a tweaked version of diversified technique with the implementation of new tools such as X-rays. Valoem   talk   contrib  13:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It says it "may" include diagnostic techniques. That's not necessarily usage. Secondly, and more importantly, History_of_chiropractic makes it clear that: "B.J. also worked to overcome chiropractic's initial resistance to the use of medical technology, by accepting diagnostic technology such as spinal X-rays (which he called spinography) in 1910." - that's long, long before Gonstead. Using techniques chiropractors have used since 1910 does not uniquely define a technique. Give me a coherent definition. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A secondary problem is, even if we can get a coherent definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I don't think this could ever get beyond those. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * delete or smerge, meaningless fictional nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "fictional"? You're claiming the Gonstead technique or system doesn't exist? Because a Google search immediately confirms that it does. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rooted in the fictional part of chiropractic. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - nomination seems to be a solid WP:IDONTLIKEIT Artw (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that it's sufficiently synonymous with the practice in general to merge, but this "fictional" swipe is very disappointing coming from an administrator here, who ought to have read WP:NOTFORUM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather object to your characterization. I'm asking for a coherent definition that separates it from standard chiropractic practce, and not getting one from anyone. I hardly think nominating what's basically an undefined term (at least, in a way that separates it from standard chiropractic) is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you think I'm wrong to say it's defined, please explain how it differs, but attributing motives not in the nomination while utterly ignoring the problems raised is a bit much. A term that's basically synonymous with chiropractic doesn't deserve its own article unless we have good sources discussing it as a term. If there is a definition that separates it from standard chiropractic, then we can discuss whether to merge or not, but, as it stands, this just isn't enough. (One further alternative for dealing with vague definitions is to contextualise it: move to List of chiropractic movements or the like, and cover all of them, trying to differentiate them as best as one can. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have a proper deletion rationale, sorry. Also as you discuss how the article might be salvageable here but appear to have put no work into it. AFD is not cleanup, and if you want to start a merge discussion start a merge discussion, don't come here. 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're saying WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't apply? If we cannot define it separate to chiropractic - indeed, are seemingly unable to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
 * It doesn't seem like a good rationale for deleting this article, no. And reign in your shitty tone. Artw (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have tens hundreds of thousands of articles on "fictional nonsense". It's established policy that we cover pseudoscience--and worse, and do it objectively. I & a number of other science editors left Citizendium7 years ago in part because they insisted on covering chiropractic as an establish medical science;not covering it all would be just as foolish.  Merge would be rather foolish also: We cover each particular drug or distinctive surgical technique,  though even in the same specialty some physicians avoid using some of them and prefer to use others, even for the same conditions.  Another of the  arguments for merge would be a good argument for not including Asepsis--after all,  every   surgeon for 150 years has used it. .   DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * it might be salvageable, if sources that define it in some coherent way that isn't just "Chiropractic" can be found. We may cover every surgical technique, but we don't have separate articles for, say, heart and cardiac. Merging covers this situation completely. However, there is nothing in this article that is at all useful. It seems to be a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning behind it - and no-one not one of the people voting keep has been able to provide a coherent definition separate from chiropractic as a whole. 'This simply isn't a stand-alone article subject, and cannot be without sources.' Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  Page 252 has a section about the Gonstead Technique. The book notes: "Gonstead Technique uses engineering principles to analyze and..."   The book notes: "Gonstead Technique Potential advantages of the Gonstead technique: This technique provides multiple options for patient placement, such as prone, seated, and knee-chest positions.Specific short-lever adjustments are incorporated.<li>Force potential is variable.</li><li>Motion into specific segmental areas is introduced.</li></ul>Potential limitations:<ul><li>Knee-chest table may not be suitable for elderly patients with decreased flexibility.</li><li>Some patients may prefer noncavitating methods.</li></ul>"</li> <li> The book notes: "There are a wide variety of chiropractic techniques available to restore normal range of motion in patients. A modified Gonstead technique is likely the most commonly used in animals. This technique involves the application of a low-impact, high-velocity thrust at a specific contact point in a specific line of drive to gently increase the range of motion to hypomobile areas. In spinal areas, the restoration of range of motion has secondary effects, including improved nerve conduction, improved nutrient delivery to intervertebral disks, and increased toxin clearance from tissues."</li> <li> The book notes: "There are various types of chiropractic. The Gonstead technique uses high velocity-low amplitude thrusts directly on the locus of impeded movement."</li> <li> The book notes: "Individual chiropractors use a range of techniques based on their education and personal preference. Some of the more commonly used treatments involve the Thompson technique (which relies on a drop table and detailed procedure protocols), activator technique (which uses a spring-loaded tool to deliver adjustments to the spine), Gonstead technique (which emphasizes evaluation of the spine along with specific adjustments that avoid rotational vectors), and diversified technique (full spine manipulation)."</li> <li> The book notes: "The 'Gonstead' technique is one in which the chiropractor relies upon x-ray to diagnose spinal rotation. He then places the patient, using the hand, either in a kneeling, side-lying, or prone position on a flat table. He places his hand on a small ..."</li> <li> The book notes on page 235: "Gonstead technique A chiropractic method developed by Clarence S. Gonstead, D.C. of Wisconsin (1898-1978), in which x-ray analysis, paraspinal temperature readings, static palpation, and motion palpation are used to characterize the upper cervi- ..."</li> <li> The book notes on page 239: "Gonstead technique. System of correcting pelvic and sacral 'subluxations' to correct secondary subluxations elsewhere in the spine. The alleged problem areas are located by motion palpation and skin-temperature instrument measurement ..."</li> <li> The article notes: "He specializes in the Gonstead method, a specific style of chiropractic. It's based on an idea developed by engineer-turned-chiropractor Clarence Gonstead that uses full-spine X-rays and heat sensors along the spine to produce precise adjustments. 'Gonstead looked at the body like an 80-story building. If you're off a little bit in the middle or at the base, think of what it will look like at the top,' said Jerome McAndrews, a former professor at Palmer Chiropractic College in Davenport, Iowa, who is now a spokesman for the American Chiropractic Association. Because few chiropractors practice the Gonstead method exclusively -- although many have studied it and use it as part of their general chiropractic repertoire -- Steiner's patients sometimes travel long distances to see him."</li> <li> The book notes: "Now Michaels practices a technique that originate in Mount Horeb, Wisconsin. It's called the Gonstead System, named after Clarence Gonstead. Michal's says the technique really took off in the '60s and '70s. 'He (Gonstead) was getting massive groups of chiropractors to make these trips out, and at the height of the Gonstead clinic there was a big hotel that was built next to the clinic, which is still there today, actually,' Michals said. 'There was even an airstrip that was built in Mount Horeb for people to fly in from around the world.' The Gonstead System is now practiced around the world, and it brought Michal's from the Twin Cities to Rhinelander. He will one day take over a Rhinelander practice."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Gonstead technique to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Fringe theories says: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." The Gonstead technique (also known as the Gonstead system and the Gonstead method) has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you're giving really misleading quotes, I'd hardly considder most of those substantial. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, per User:DGG. He's right. We don't really give a flying f##k whether it can be defined by normal methods. There are myriad RS which describe and list it as a major chiropractic treatment technique for dealing with the fictitious chiropractic vertebral subluxation. We document far worse shit than this all the time.
 * David Goodman ("User:DGG") is one of our most esteemed and experienced editors. In real life he is a librarian, and here he is an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee. Here is his wiki inclusion philosophy:


 * "[I have a] distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." — User:DGG


 * Goodman points to a very real problem: attempts by certain skeptics to delete quack articles are a form of deletionism which violates the principles of the NPOV policy, as well as the notability policy (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to an article here). This is very biased editing. Since articles on fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream point of view, the quack point of view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. The bias in favor of the mainstream should be clear, because that is the bias found in the best sources, and in most reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote that passage many yeas ago here, and i still stand by it.  DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's true this kind of thing is worth documenting, I don't think there's enough concrete information behind it (separate to chiropractic) to justify a stand-alone article. This is a terrible precedent, whereas, say, List of chiropractic techniques would contextualise and (as a lot of them are defined relative to other techniques) better explain the topic. We shouldn't delete just because it's alt-med, but nor should we keep merely because it's related to it: I don't think this article, framed as it is now, will ever reach any sort of coherency. The term's simply too vague, too mixed in with chiropractic as a whole, and too defined in opposition to other techniques. It's like pulling one chapter - or even one page - out of a book on chiropractic so you can file it under a more precise Dewey decimal/Library of Congress reference number. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then try to fix it. We try to preserve content here. I agree that it needs improvement, so you should have contacted the creator and gotten them involved in such an effort. Even if it never gets beyond a stub, it can just sit here. I'm going to ask the creator to do more. As far as the mainstream perspective, find something. Like most chiro techniques, this is aimed at treating a fictional "lesion", so that should be mentioned, and then something about VS might be appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * After some considerable thought, I'm going to have to go with keep. Here's the problem: there comes a point in writing about medical subjects where you have to rely on medical sources. Likewise, one would think that in writing about chiropractic there would come a point where you would have to use chiropractic sources. There are plenty of such sources which are independent of Gonstead himself (after all, he has been dead almost forty years) and indeed it wasn't hard to find survey papers (in chiro journals, of course) comparing its use with other techniques. And my survey of the chiropractic sources is that the field does make distinctions between a set of different "techniques" (meaning, in context, different systems of manipulations: it's confusing because the word "technique" leads one to think of one particular manipulation). If it's too hard to make a clear picture of what this technique involves, at least there needs to be a list in the main article of the different techniques, for this to redirect to. It's clear that nobody in field thinks of this as being basically synonymous with chiro as a whole, and I'm not on board with the "it doesn't work anyway so who cares" sentiment. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.