Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Chiropractic

Who are the involved parties?
User:Arthur Rubin, User:CorticoSpinal, User:CynRN, User:DigitalC, User:Eubulides, User:Fyslee, User:Jefffire, User:Levine2112, User:Orangemarlin, User:QuackGuru, User:SmithBlue, User:TheDoctorIsIn User:Dematt

What's going on?
Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 18 presents a claim of bias in Chiropractic and a proposed fix. There has been significant discussion but no consensus on how to proceed.


 * Update. A new version of the above section was produced as the old one was archived. The new version is in Talk:Chiropractic ; it contains further discussion.

What would you like to change about that?
Come to a consensus.

Mediator notes

 * There has also beenTendentious pushing which needs to be addressed as well. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give this a proper go-over tomorrow. Until then, would you mind summarizing what the dispute is about etc.? Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 00:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version of Chiropractic cites four studies of the effectiveness of chiropractic care, along with other material, all dated and all highly supportive of chiropractic.
 * The claim is that this coverage gives undue weight to minority views and presents an overly rosy picture of the effectiveness of chiropractic care.
 * The proposed fix is a draft Scientific investigation section that would replace (diff listing) the allegedly biased coverage with text supported by sources that are more recent, higher quality, and fairly representative other points of view, notably the viewpoint of mainstream medicine. This draft says that opinions differ, that there is no overall consensus on effectiveness of chiropractic care for many conditions, and that scientific evidence of effectiveness is lacking for many conditions.
 * Many comments on the proposed fix are available. Arguments against the fix include claims that the draft cites a noted critic of chiropractic too heavily, that the draft includes some research on spinal manipulation done by non-chiropractors, that the draft does not sufficiently emphasize sources written by chiropractors. and that Chiropractic should insted deemphasize or discontinue its coverage of effectiveness.
 * Eubulides (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The real problem is that the sources do not address the effectiveness of chiropractic, they address the effectiveness of some of treatments provided by chiropractors. It is hard to suggest an effective analogy, however I would suggest that it is similar to proposing the effectiveness of medicine - instead you would look for effectiveness of a particular pharmaceutical for a particular condition, or the effectiveness of a particular surgery for a particular condition. Chiropractors use a large variety of treatment modalities, and the proposed section does not include data for all of these modalities (Laser, Ultrasound, Orthotics, Exercise prescription, Ergonomic advice, Soft tissue therapy, interferential current, etc.). The majority of the data available is on the effectiveness of SMT (Spinal Manipulative Therapy), which belongs on the article for SMT. If enough sources on the effectiveness of the Entire Clinical Encounter of Chiropractic (that is, not reducing to studying one of many modalities) are found, then I whole heartedly agree that a section be written with these sources. DigitalC (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple analogy perhaps would be that this is like reporting on the safety and effectiveness of MDs by way of a discussion about the efficacy of intravenous drugs; and, on top of that, to cite safety and efficacy research which don't actually distinguish among drugs administered by MDs and those administered by DOs, Nurses, and Drug Addicts, but then to go ahead and make general claims in the Wikipedia article about the safety and efficacy of MDs using such references. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are way too many problems to address. The POV problems are numerous and article wide. I suggest a league of editors participate at the talk page. This will take years to resolve and it is a huge amount of time to work out. This won't be simple. Thanks.  Q ua ck Gu ru   03:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm only interested in working out individual instances of poor referencing and improper wording. I don't really consider myself involved in the disagreement detailed in this case. Jefffire (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't seem that difficult. Form a discusion on the chiropractic talk page, which seems to be almost complete, and one bold editor can revise the article according to the draft. Then again, I may not be the best mediator, since I don't know much about the issues here, but I think it really has to do with one user being bold and acting according to concensus. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We've tried that, and I'm afraid it hasn't worked. There has been a discussion on the talk page for weeks. Every now and then an editor makes a bold edit, a revert war ensues, and the page gets locked. A revert war is happening right now; for example, the most recent edit reverted the previous edit  which in turn reverted something before that. This edit war is over material that was not discussed on the talk page before it was added; see Talk:Chiropractic . I expect Chiropractic to get locked sometime soon, alas.
 * I can certainly understand your not wanting to wade through the 50,000-or-so words of talk-page text that have been generated in week this mediation case has been open. On the other hand, if you don't have time to follow the discussion about this controversy, perhaps we should try another way to resolve it? Perhaps, QuackGuru suggested above, this controversy is too big and too entrenched to be resolved by informal mediation?
 * Eubulides (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what the problem is. There is too much discussion and not enough editing. Proposing a draft creates an endless discussion on the talk page for this particular article. It is much better to add any improvements directly to the article. For example, a new cost-benefit section should be done in articlespace and not the talk page.  Q ua ck Gu ru   21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, informal mediation may be in plae here, and in the result of a minor edit war, there's always WP:ANI. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean by "in plae"? Do you mean informal mediation is the thing to do, or that we should try something other than informal mediation, or what? Eubulides (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my mispelling of "in place". I'm a horrible typer. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but what does "informal mediation may be in place here" mean? Does it mean informal mediation is the thing to do, or that we should try something other than informal mediation, or what? If informal mediation is the thing to do, what should we be doing next? We've already tried the suggestion of discussing things on the talk page, and that isn't working. Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it customary to add a disputed section (effectiveness) that has no consensus and is under mediation review to be railroaded into the main article space? CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A certain editor likes to make a lot of reverts and has been uncivil in his edit summary. ANI? Possibly.  Q ua ck Gu ru   21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure that's one way to look at it. The other way is to recognize that I was reverting a massive edit of yours done not just without but against a standing consensus. And that I called you out on you accusing me of edit warring in the very war you started, it should come as no surprise that I feel such action constitutes harassment. I think to the reasonable observer, your intention was to make Wikipedia an unpleasant environment for me. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:HUSH as the kind of behavior you were demonstrating may actually result in a block. This is no way to act if we stand any chance of Mediation working. Please just be nice and don't be reckless and we may find that we can all work together cooperatively. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Levine2112 is within his right to revert until we have reached a consensus. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion does not show any sign that informal mediation is helping. On the contrary, it may be hurting. The mediator's involvement is minimal, even cryptic; and the disputants are merely continuing their dispute. I suggest that we try some other method of dispute resolution. Formal mediation seems to be next on the list of things to try, no? Eubulides (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually we should give it more than the 1 day that Editorofthewiki has been involved, what's the rush? The page is locked until May 26/08 anyways so it wouldn't hurt to hammer away here until then, if no forward progress or a majority/plurality consensus can be achieved then I suspect that formal mediation may have to take place.  I hope you aren't suggesting SandyGeorgia's preferred route, i.e. bringing the chiropractic article to be dissected by the medical cabal.  It's not as though mainstream medicine hasn't tried to contain, eliminate, disrupt, subvert and marginalize the chiropractic profession.  In fact, the majority of the allopathic physicians here who edit and opine on chiropractic endorse a view that is not supported by the mainstream of their profession.  CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The mediator has been involved for about ten days, since this edit.
 * I agree that it would be nice to take advantage of the locked page to come to a consensus, before the page becomes unlocked. But this is a complicated case and any mediation can be expected to take quite some time; if we don't get started and make real progress soon, we will not finish before the page becomes unlocked.
 * I was suggesting formal mediation as the next step to try. I've never done formal mediation before; does it involve the medical cabal (whatever that is)? If so, then the medical cabal should be involved; if not, then I don't see why it would.
 * Let's focus on mediation rather than try to refight battles.
 * Eubulides (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that informal mediation should be used here. I apologise for my lack of involvement--I have been rather busy recently. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, but I'm afraid "informal mediation should be used" is not a concrete suggestion. What, specifically, should we do next? So far, there have been two concrete suggestions from the mediator:
 * Summarize the dispute. That's been done; see.
 * Try to talk things out on the talk page. We had already tried that, for many weeks, long before this case was opened; we did not come to a consensus then and we are not coming to a consensus now.
 * Are there any other concrete suggestions? Without specific and useful suggestions, I'm afraid that informal mediation will be a bust. Again, I realize I am asking for a lot; that being said, if informal mediation isn't helping, we should try something else. Eubulides (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistakenly added the "in". I don't know what I was thinking! Anyway formal mediation may be good, since I'm doind a horrible job at this and I may be more of a pain than a help. I am terribly sorry. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, then I guess I should propose formal mediation. First I'll have to read up on it; I've never done it before. Eubulides (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorofthewiki, it's probably just an experience thing. Rather than us jumping at formal med; perhaps it might be helpful to bring in a more experienced mediation editor who can guide you (and us) here so we can all learn from this process.  Perhaps admin Vassyana might want to step in and take a choice, or admin Swatjester?  They both have had limited but recent experience with Chiropractic and may be more aware of the the situation there. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No further comment, so I plan to close this informal request and look into formal mediation. Eubulides (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)