Talk:International Federation of Sports Chiropractic

fail to identify significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Notability is not demonstrated. Please do not remove the {{Notability}} tag until this is addressed. It appears that the article is not eligible for speedy deletion (though no non-administrator can know that as there is no access to the deleted article), nor does there appear to be a significant COI with the main contributor. ^Bongo_matic 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially different, hence not G4. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo,

You provide no indication the sources are not independant of the organization that the article is about. I fail to see how the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, one of the top 5 internationalised Universities, is not independent of FICS. I also fail to see how the Chiropractors Association of Australia is not independent of FICS.
The Chiropractic & Osteopathy article may be an opinion piece, but it is not a passing mention of the organization, and is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. If the organization was not notable, why would they be mentioned?
"One paragraph description in a book" - yes, a whole paragraph (actually a subsection) is dedicated to the organization. There currently exists that this book is a reliable source, which is currently used 10 times in the article Chiropractic.
Dynamic Chiropractic has been published since 1983 (Library of Congress records) with 26 issues per year, and is the number one trade magazine for Chiropractors. It has a circulation of 60,000 in the United States, with a slightly different edition having a circulation of 6,000 in Canada. It is reliable enough for the New York Law Journal, as well as the Journal of the American Dietetic Association to cite it as a reference. While it is not a peer-reviewed journal, previous discussions at Talk:Chiropractic have reached the consensus that it *IS* a reliable source, and as such it is used 4 times in that article.
The website for the 2009 World Games is certainly a reliable source for the 2009 world games, including the fact that FICS Chiropractors provided treatment at those games.
While I understand that other crap exists, I wonder why the attention on this article? Is this article being held to a higher standard than say, the International Archery Federation, or the Badminton World Federation, or the International Canoe Federation? I can continue with other International sporting organizations that have articles that have much less of a case of referenced notability.

DigitalC (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DigitalC. Thank you for providing your views on the above, as I have mine. I do not care to debate, but rather to make my opinion known. You are the creator of the article, so it is to be expected that you believe the citations to establish notability. I have opposite views. What would be useful is to know if any other (particularly uninvolved) editors have a view.

With respect to other crap, I opine on, or improve, or tag the articles I see, and other articles that are suggested by them or their editors. I'm glad you too are being vigilant with respect to poorly sourced articles or articles on non-notable topics. ^Bongo_matic 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with respect to RMIT, I didn't intend to suggest that the institution was other than independent. Rather, a press release by the institution about a joint effort is not independent coverage. If the Herald Sun commented on the JV it would be different from RMIT issuing a press release. With respect to the book, it is two sentences—simply not significant coverage. The coverage in website for the 2009 world games again is not significant coverage. While as a primary source, it is OK for noncontroversial claims, it does not establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 05:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that the website of the 2009 world games was significant coverage, just that it was a reliable source for the claim it is referencing. With respect to PPofC, we will have to disgree - we certainly aren't going to come to a consensus on that issue. DigitalC (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you dispute the reliability of the RMIT source because RMIT and FICS co-hosted a seminar? The material being used as reference material is "FICS is the international professional sports chiropractic group that organises chiropractors to work at international events such as the Olympics and has developed a professional qualification in sports chiropractic". You really doubt the reliability this information presented by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology because RMIT and FICS co-hosted a seminar? DigitalC (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not a DC, I have another graduate degree, and a long history of an interest in this subject. FICS is a well regarded, well known, World agency which was formed by all the World’s Chiropractic associations in 1987 in London. The idea that this agency is not notable, can only be coming from a medical/economic frame of reference. I have reviewed the references, and they are from respected sources in and OUT of the Chiropractic profession. I vote to remove the flags, and accept that this federation deserves a place in Wikipedia. Waynethegoblin (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial notability

This article seems to more than fill the requirements from Notability for non-commercial organizations. So what's the definition of commercial?

I also notice that the intro to the notability for organizations and companies makes allowances for smaller organizations. In other words they can still be notable even if they don't get the secondary coverage that larger organizations get. I think this organization qualifies for that as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sticky part is where it says that one of the requirements is, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources." So no, a lack of coverage in reliable sources isn't acceptable even by the link you provided. And what it says about smaller organizations is that they aren't discriminated against due to their small size, they just have to show notability through the usual means. -- Atama頭 04:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1988 there was a major article about yours truly, and it certainly prominently discusses my having been elected President of FICS in London. This was in the Bergen Record, a major THIRD party newspaper. I added the reference not because it is about me, but merely to satisfy this third party technicality that ABAMA mentions. (I am kind of tied to the Organization's beginnings)... that was the reason for the COI issue that resulted in DigitalC completely re-writing the article.

There were others too, after the Executive Council meeting in Mexico City, in 1988 there was significant coverage in UnomasUno and Ex Excelsior. There was yet another in a major Paper in Caracas, Venezuela when I spoke at their pentagon. I have all the articles, but can't find them online, because their archives do not go back before 1998..can we just list the references like an out of print book would be listed? Or, I could scan the articles and place them online in a directory on my webserver....what is the community's pleasure? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can just use the Template:Citenews template to enter the references. It does not have to be available online - you do not need to scan them. DigitalC (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

This specific wording is in this article. "Highest Award that can be bestowed upon a sports Chiropractor, Internationally".^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Federation of Sports Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913133225/http://chiropractors.asn.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=International_Chiropractic_Sports_Science_Diploma_ICSSD_1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6571 to http://chiropractors.asn.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=International_Chiropractic_Sports_Science_Diploma_ICSSD_1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6571

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References vs substance

What a great list of references! It vastly outweighs the article though, so can we use some of the stuff in the references to fill in the article? If not we just have superfluous references which should be removed. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Federation of Sports Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503052352/http://www.ifsports-guide.ch/english/navigation/annuaire_en.html to http://www.ifsports-guide.ch/english/navigation/annuaire_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]