Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Chiropractic medicine
Yikes. I just happened upon this one myself. It needs serious help (looks like part of it is disputed as NPOV as well); there's a much better article to be done here. Chiropractic medicine -- Knowledge Seeker? Feel up to it? · Katefan0(scribble) 18:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Is this the appropriate forum to offer suggestions on the chiropractic medicine article to the taskforce? If so, please recommend an outline for the article and consider deleting the "Quotes" section. Thanks! Edwardian 01:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, you can put suggestions here, or on Talk:Chiropractic medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Dmcdevit, you think you could help out with some factchecking and referencing? I know little about chiropractic medicine, and I probably have a science- and evidence-based bias. Copying this to User:Dmcdevit/Desk. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Put on User:Oliverkeenan/Desk. The whole POV thing is confusing to me. I have done, and will do some copyeditting, but that's about done. Oliver, you think you could take a look at what needs to be done? --Dmcdevit 00:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Dmcdevit. Sorry for the delay in replying - I'm a little busy. I don't feel I'm able to provide a NPOV on this one I'm afraid for two reasons, firstly I am biased against alternative medicine due to my training in conventional medicine/nursing and secondly I don't know enough about chiropractic medicine to comment. Oliver Keenan 14:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC) (I've moved it back to User:Dmcdevit/Desk, as I wasn't able to find anyone more appropriate to cleanup.
- I've done copyediting, and the language looks okay to me. --Dmcdevit 05:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing more I can really do—I added a little bit about what studies have shown and such but the rest is outside my expertise. I'm placing it on User:Tony Sidaway/Desk to see if he can help the article at all. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've been making some edits here and there mostly to the Criticism section which didn't seem to reflect the evidence of the critics. I apologise that I have done these edits largely without participation on the Talk list. However they seem to have stood, dispite the torrent of edits that happen on this page. :-). I just made one more edit to the "Scientific Evidence" section mentioning how case studies are classified. I really mean no disrespect to Chiropractic but when you read a pile of case studies it makes it look like there is this mountain of evidence for treating these diseases which AFAIK aren't even part of standard Chiropractic medicine. In retrospect it might be a better idea, to create a stub article linking off the term "case study" to short description of how these things are classified. Any ideas folks?
205.211.168.10Jonathan Graham