Talk:Craniosacral therapy
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Craniosacral therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Craniosacral therapy.
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe this sentence in paragraph 2 under "Effectiveness and Safety" - "As of 2018 at least two deaths had been reported resulting from CST spinal manipulation." Should be removed as it is unsupported by citations provided.
The source cited (11) does not support the statement I believe should be removed. In the source cited, only spinal manipulation is dicussed. The death cited in source 11 is cited from a different source. Though that second paper uses the term craniosacral in the title, the death was actually after spinal manipulation so would fall more into either chiropractic adjustment or other broader osteopathy.
The second source: Holla M, Ijland MM, van der Vliet AM, Edwards M, Verlaat CW. Overleden zuigeling na 'craniosacrale' manipulatie van hals en wervelkolom [Death of an infant following 'craniosacral' manipulation of the neck and spine]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009 Apr 25;153(17):828-31. Dutch. PMID: 19469218. 50.39.222.133 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia follows sources, not the original notions of editors. Bon courage (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying - the source cited does not support the statement. If there is another source that does support that statement, that should be cited instead. 2603:3004:2E:A400:2840:EED3:A050:D45 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I actually looked into this further. Maybe you want to promote your own brand of misinformation, who knows. If not, and would like to provide citations that support the claims on the article you've been editing, I would recommend looking up the Quackwatch article on craniosacral therapy. Their article cites two deaths that related to craniosacral therapy and provides actual sources that support those claims.
- Will I provide the links to those sources? No, because you were snippy and didn't do your due diligence and I am petty. 50.39.222.133 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Altogether too dismissive an article edit
There's something worthwhile in this practice. The article is too negative. Similar to the article on paracetamol. 2A00:23C8:9FF6:DC01:7018:A24B:DE2D:E3F8 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not done Good sources say it's a load of rubbish; so Wikipedia follows. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023 edit
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is a very opinionated portrayal of CST. The points about its veracity or effectiveness need to be stated factually as “it is alleged that this practice is focused on non existent criteria or that the existence of such and such are questionable according to some sources 2603:7000:8F0:8BF0:DA4:4F71:95BC:911F (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done See WP:YESPOV. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Wildly biased article edit
someone needs to review this. It literally calls CST "quackery". 76.168.165.192 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes CST could be considered a more subjective experience for some but there has been extensive research throughout the world to support rhythmic changes in the body. This review is not only biased but equally misleading when the therapy supports thousands of people around the world. This reflection is one sided, ignorant and dismissive to a 3 dimensional therapeutic support system. RN Bc. Talking 113.163.156.102 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)