Talk:Chiropractic

Attribution

I reverted the removal of attribution of an opinion, that can clearly not be documented as fact. DigitalC (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution is a violation of WP:ASF policy when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources (an objective fact that is not a serious dispute). WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require in-text attribution, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not unnecessary attribution. At wikipedia, if something is an opinion, we attribute the opinion. I agree that "requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources" would be wrong, however I dispute that this information has a widespread consensus. Please stop treating wikipedia as a battleground over this issue. Multiple editors have discussed with you that your interpretation of WP:ASF is wrong. You come off of a topic-ban for disruptive editing, and you head straight back at it again. The WP:BRD cycle is supposed to stop at "discuss", until some sort of a consensus is formed. Instead you have gone right back to edit-warring, reverting my reversions. DigitalC (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of what DigitalC wrote was "I agree that "requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources" would be wrong, however I dispute that this information has a widespread consensus." You "dispute that this information has a widespread consensus" but you did not provide any sources that disagree with the current text. Every time an editor disagrees with the source does not mean we should include in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not given a reason why it is required to have in-text attribution in this case.

See WP:ASF. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible."

When the information is not seriously disputed among reliable sources it is not required to include in-text attribution. No editor believes we should add in-text attribution when a contrarian reader insists the text is an opinion. On Wikipedia, we assert facts, including facts about opinions when no serious dispute exists. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please do not insert material into an article that says things like "...they [subluxations] do not exist". That's an opinion; there's controversy about it. There are reliable sources presenting the chiropractic point of view that there are subluxations. Wikipedia doesn't state things as fact if there is controversy about them. Believing something to be fact yourself isn't an excuse for editing a Wikipedia article to state it as fact. Controversial statements are given prose attribution in Wikipedia articles: that means not only a footnote, but also something in the sentence like "source X states that ..." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ASF: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." When it is not seriously disputed it is considered a fact according to Wikipedia's ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please show how this piece of information is controversial (serious disputed). When is is not seriously disputed we assert it as fact without requiring in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

QG, repeating yourself will not convince anyone. It is your edit that is controversial. Your current attempt to change policy to allow you to remove very valuable attribution is a very dubious attempt to manipulate Wikipedia. You are returning to your previous behavior with this incessant repeating yourself. The dispute is right here, and you need to deal with it. Others are objecting to your edits that definitely do not have a consensus behind them, regardless of your opinions on the subject. I'm going to restore the valuable attributions. Stop the disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any serious dispute among reliable sources. The serious dispute has not been presented here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor does not want to discuss this issue any further. This does not imply who is right or wrong but other editor may want to read the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you have multiple editors here, telling you that your interpretation of WP:ASF is wrong, should be a clear signal to you. That other editors give up in trying to resolve an issue with you should send a clear signal as well. DigitalC (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[1][2][3] In a similar content dispute at Vaccine controversy multiple editors disagreed with intext-attribution. In another article that is similar to this content dispute this edit was rejected as against ASF policy too. I have given a detailed explanation why attribution is not appropriate based on ASF policy. This is not a subjective fact like the Beatles is the greatest band. This is an objective fact that is not seriously disputed among reliable sources.

"Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients, and in many circumstances the focus seems to be put on economics instead of health care." If it was required intext-attribution for this sentence then numerous sentences in this article would have attribution. Simon-says attribution was discussed before for other text in this article but was rejected. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 27#Simon-says and DeVocht. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether something has a reputation or not is an opinion, unless it has somehow been objectively measured. To determine if there is consensus that "Chiropractors have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients", I performed this google search which returned no hits that seemed relevant. DigitalC (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there was a lot of debate about attribution and ASF involving this article I think editors may be interested in this discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Objective fact differs from a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Baby colic

• Ernst E (2009). "Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials". Int J Clin Pract. 63 (9): 1351–3. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02133.x. PMID 19691620.
• Husereau D, Clifford T, Aker P, Leduc D, Mensinkai S (2003). Spinal Manipulation for Infantile Colic (PDF). Technology report no. 42. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. ISBN 1-894978-11-0. Retrieved 2008-10-06.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Reviews have found no evidence of significant benefit for baby colic. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These reviews are not about the "entire clinical chiropractic encounter", unlike the Hawk et al. review. This was clearly stated in my edit summary, and it is clear from the text of the article that that sentence is talking about the clinic encounter. These two reviews are only looking at spinal manipulation, which is only one treatment provided by chiropractors. If you yourself read WP:MEDRS you will also see some information on recentism. DigitalC (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for infant colic. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence for this claim. Four databases were searched and three randomised clinical trials met all the inclusion criteria. The totality of this evidence fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of this treatment. It is concluded that the above claim is not based on convincing data from rigorous clinical trials." This is from a 2009 review (PMID 19691620). According to what information from which source you came to your conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am not being clear here QuackGuru. The reviews which you have linked above are looking at the topic of spinal manipulation as a treatment for infantile colic. Spinal manipulation is one treatment type provided by chiropractors. The Hawk review looked at "the entire clinical encounter of chiropractic care (as opposed to just SM)". Since they are not studying the same thing, one cannot be used to remove another. DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heck, even if they WERE studying the same thing, it still wouldn't justify saying "other reviews have found no significant evidence for baby colic", because it would be ignoring the review that DID find significant evidence for baby colic in favour of the more recent reviews, which we should be careful about, as it is not giving parity. This quote from WP:MEDRS is relevant: "Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, one of the sources you looked at specifically mentions in their conclusion that they were looking at "spinal manipulation alone", (aka not the entire clinical encounter, or spinal manipulation in combination with soft tissue therapy, etc.). "There is no convincing evidence that spinal manipulation alone can affect the duration of infantile colic symptoms." DigitalC (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

According to what information from the Hawk review you came to your conclusion. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have previously read the review by Hawk, at a time when it was freely available. I no longer have access to the entire document. However, the abstract states "Evidence from controlled studies and usual practice supports chiropractic care (the entire clinical encounter) as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic. Evidence was promising for potential benefit of manual procedures for children with otitis media and elderly patients with pneumonia.". DigitalC (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When newer 2009 MEDRS "Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials" specifically concluded that baby colic is not an effective chiropractic treatment then it can't generally be an effective or promising chiropractic care treatment at this time according to this latest review. We can use common sense in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By stating "newer", you are specifically ignoring WP:MEDRS content about recentism. You are also ignoring that Ernst's study looked at "Chiropractic spinal manipulation", and not at the entire clinical encounter. In analogy, a study that finds that dietary intake of oranges doesn't decrease your risk for cancer does not refute a study finds that a variety of fruit in your diet decreases your risk for cancer. DigitalC (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What study found that dietary intake of oranges doesn't decrease your risk for cancer. This could be a new subject I could edit on Wikipedia. I found that "Fruit and yellow-orange vegetables, particularly carrots and selenium, are probably associated with a moderately reduced risk of bladder cancer." See (PMID 18815914).

A major part of the entire clinical encounter is spinal manipulation. I previously explained the study concluded that baby colic is not an effective chiropractic treatment. When it is not specifically an effective chiropractic spinal manipulation treatment then it can't generally be an effective or promising chiropractic care treatment. We can use common sense in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have bolded the "In analogy" part to make it more clear to you that it was an analogy. The rest of your comment does not make any sense, and as such I can't reply to it, as I can't understand what you are trying to say. DigitalC (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this quote from Dr. Hawk about the study might clarify the issue for you:

"An important distinction should be made betwen the terms "chiropractic manipulation" and "chiropractic care." The term "chiropractic care" refers to the entire clinical encounter in a chiropractic setting which may include many nonmanipulative therapies such as dietary advice, nutritional or herbal supplements, posture correction, therapeutic exercise, physiotherapeutic modalities, and behavioral counselling."

The sum is more than the parts, and whole-systems research does not use a reductionist approach. DigitalC (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

User:QuackGuru removed sourced information from the article. The information comes clearly from the source, but he believes that newer research that looks at "chiropractic manipulation" instead of "chiropractic care" allows for the removal of content. I disagree, and believe that the older information and the newer information are looking at two separate concepts. A third opinion request has been filed. More information is available immediately above this subsection. DigitalC (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the (long) section above, and useful for editors not well-versed in the subject, "The term 'chiropractic care' refers to the entire clinical encounter in a chiropractic setting which may include many nonmanipulative therapies such as dietary advice, nutritional or herbal supplements, posture correction, therapeutic exercise, physiotherapeutic modalities, and behavioral counselling". DigitalC (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the third opinion on this dispute. I and another editor agree with the the placement of baby colic. Three editors are involved in this dispute, not two. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You weren't the 3O by the 3O standards. First, the discussion above is between you and DigitalC, so you can't be the third opinion in an argument in which you're involved. Second, you've been active on this page since at least mid 2009, so you're heavily involved in the topic. Wait 'til another uninvolved person comes along. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Chiropractic and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I've read with moderate care (i.e. neither a close reading nor a quick skim) all three articles in question. (The Wolf Hawk article is, BTW, available through EBSCO Academic Search Complete, which many public libraries make available online to their cardholders.) The asserted superiority of the Ernst article due to its recency is meritless. While Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence does recommend the use of studies 2–5 years old, it is to be noted that all three of these studies are meta–analyses, studies of studies, not reports of independent research, and all three evaluate some or all of the same studies. The 2009 Ernst article only considers one study (out of only three evaluated by Ernst), a 2008 study by Browning, which is more recent than those studies considered in the other two articles and dismisses it for not being a comparison of the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment vs non-chiropractic treatment, but instead being a comparison of two different forms of chiropractic manipulation. In effect, therefore, Wolf Hawk, Husereau, and Ernst are all different studies of essentially the same evidence. The recency of the 2009 Ernst study simply does not justify giving it any more weight than the other two. The attempt to make a distinction between "chiropractic manipulation" and "chiropractic care" is, however, also meritless. To suggest that the 2009 Ernst study focused entirely on manipulation whereas Wolf Hawk took into consideration the entire care package supposes that the manipulation studies evaluated by Ernst were performed in an environment where the patients received no chiropractic services other than manipulation. That ignores the fact that the two studies evaluated by Ernst, other than the dismissed Browning study, were also evaluated by Wolf Hawk. In other words, the Ernst study cannot be distinguished from the Wolf Hawk study on the basis of the manipulation/care distinction because both looked at the same evidence. This, then leaves us with this: these are three studies which look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions about it. Unless one or more of them is unreliable for some reason or can be distinguished on some other basis — neither of which I've attempted to evaluate and about which I express no opinion — then the disagreement should be noted in the article with something like, perhaps, "meta–analyses of clinical studies disagree on whether chiropractic provides effective treatment of infant colic."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

self-whack! Hawk -> Wolf preditor substitution correction made (thanks to DigitalC for catching my senior moment). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree that a statement such as what you have suggested is appropriate, with the multiple references used. My only concern is that it is possibly original research to state that these reviews are looking at the same thing, when one author states they are looking at Chiropractic manipulation, and the other author explicitly states that they are NOT looking at just manipulation, but rather the whole encounter. I am actually quite confused as to how the same studies could be used to look at two different concepts, because they studies they looked at would presumeably only be looking at one or the other. DigitalC (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First, if my analysis of the studies were to be put into the article, it would indeed be WP:OR, no doubt about it, but what we do to evaluate sources is different than what can go into the article. Wikipedia:MEDRS makes it clear that sources must sometimes be weighed and analyzed in choosing what to use in an article. Second, your confusion comes, first, from the fact that while the goal of the Hawk study was to "evaluate the published evidence on the effect of chiropractic care, rather than spinal manipulation only, on patients with nonmusculoskeletal conditions" it is difficult to find anything in their paper which says how they attempted to judge that distinction in regard to colic. See their discussion section and conclusion sections on colic, below:

• (Discussion:) "A variety of SMT techniques were used among the 8 studies, most specifying a modification of force to accommodate treating infants; 1 study used instrument assisted SMT (Leach). Both full-spine and localized SMT were utilized. Results were consistent in the direction of improvement with SMT; 1 systematic review judged the evidence insufficient, whereas the other indicated that, although SMT did not appear to be superior to placebo/sham treatment, it appeared that the delivery of chiropractic care resulted in improved parent-reported outcomes."
• (Conclusion:) "Evidence from both controlled studies and usual practice is adequate to support the “total package” of chiropractic care, including SMT, other procedures, and unmeasured qualities such as belief and attention, as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic."

In their discussion they, thus, make two evaluations: "Results were consistent in the direction of improvement with SMT," i.e. spinal manipulative therapy, which is irrelevant to the distinction that they were attempting to make, and more to the point, "1 systematic review judged the evidence insufficient, whereas the other indicated that, although SMT did not appear to be superior to placebo/sham treatment, it appeared that the delivery of chiropractic care resulted in improved parent-reported outcomes." In short, they based their conclusion as to colic on one study. "The other" study, when you look in their Table 12, was "Hughes S, Bolton J. Is chiropractic an effective treatment in infantile colic? Arch Dis Child 2002;86:382–384."

I pulled and read the Hughes study and it reaches a significantly different conclusion than that drawn from it by Hawk: "The first [Wiberg 1999] study is a study of effectiveness—it is pragmatic. Parents taking their child to a chiropractor clearly report a significant improvement. By eliminating parental bias, the second study [Olafsdottir 2001] is an efficacy study of chiropractic intervention. Chiropractic itself does not appear to be efficacious. ... CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE: The evidence suggests that chiropractic has no benefit over placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. However, there is good evidence that taking a colicky infant to a chiropractor will result in fewer reported hours of colic by the parents." (Hughes 384, emphasis added.) (Wiberg and Olafsdottir are, notably, the two studies which are common to all three of Hawk, Husereau, and Ernst.) The difference between Wiberg and Olafsdottir was this: in Olafsdottir the parents of the infants did not know whether their child was receiving chiropractic treatment or not, whereas the parents in the Wiberg study — and apparently all other studies mentioned in Hawk — knew one way or another (or no other form of therapy was being provided). Since these were infants, the evaluation of the treatment results depended on the parent's perceptions and, thus, what Hughes is, rather gently, saying is that when parents know that their child is receiving chiropractic treatment then that treatment is, indeed, effective, but not because it benefits the infant in any way — that it does not was shown by Olafsdottir, implies Hughes — but because it makes the parents feel like something has been done. That interpretation is further confirmed by examination of Hughes' topic and conclusion,

• (Topic:) "Mrs A presents with her 6 week old baby, complaining of his excessive and uncontrollable crying behaviour, particularly in the evening and at night. The ... child is exhibiting typical colic behaviour. There are clear signs that the continual and excessive crying behaviour is impairing the mother–child relationship, and you consider the child might be at increased risk of harm (or neglect). In discussing the treatment options, Mrs A tells you that her chiropractor has offered to treat her baby for the excessive crying behaviour. She herself has been treated by this chiropractor in the past for back pain, and it is obvious she has considerable confidence in him. She asks your advice."
• (Conclusion:) "In this clinical scenario where the family is under significant strain, where the infant may be at risk of harm and possible long term repercussions, where there are limited alternative effective interventions, and where the mother has confidence in a chiropractor from other experiences, the advice is to seek chiropractic treatment."

Thus, Hughes is in effect saying that if the infant is at risk of abuse or neglect because the crying is driving the mother mad, if she believes in chiropractic, and if there's not much else that can be done to relieve the colic, then sending the child to her chiropractor isn't going do do the child any direct good, but may prevent the child from being abused or neglected by causing the mother to falsely believe that the chiropractic treatment has helped the child. That is quite different than what is implied by Hawk's carefully–worded statement that "that the delivery of chiropractic care resulted in improved parent-reported outcomes" and in no way supports Hawk's conclusion about colic.

Thus, in short, if Hawk's conclusion insofar as it relates to manipulation vs totality is founded entirely upon Hughes, as it seems to be, then it is based on a house of cards. Your confusion results from the fact that Hawk fails to do what it sets out to do, at least in relation to colic, partly because it almost entirely fails to address the manipulation/totality issue in reference to colic and partly because it misinterprets Hughes' results to the minor extent that it does attempt to address that issue. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Hawk, D.C., Ph.D. - Cleveland Chiropractic College, Kansas City, Missouri, and Los Angeles, CA.

Anthony J. Lisi, D.C. - University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT.

Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, Ferrance RJ, Evans MW (2007). "Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research". J Altern Complement Med. 13 (5): 491–512. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.7088. PMID 17604553.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This favorable study seems to be headed by chiropractors. Chiropractors know what they are doing. Do there own research and get it published. Does this study meet MEDRS policy? QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I answered DigitalC's question, I'll take a shot at answering yours as well: Take a look at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_independent_sources. That's the closest thing I've been able to find; it's up to you to decide whether it applies in this situation. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawk's paper is a peer-reviewed scientific article. It is absurd to think that we should not use articles written by Chiropractors on an article about Chiropractic. Would you propose that we not use articles by MD's on a more medical-related wikipedia article? DigitalC (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It was implied that this study had bias conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"It was implied" (by whom?)

OOH, weasel words 71.161.198.124 (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico allows chiropractors to prescribe medications

http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title16/16.004.0015.htm http://www.rld.state.nm.us/Chiropractic/PDFs/RuleChanges/NMAC%2016.4.15.pdf Refs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar tone and phrasing in opening paragraph

"Many studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. Collectively, systematic reviews of this research have not demonstrated that spinal manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment of back pain."

This passage is phrased with the apparent intent to discredit the effectiveness of spinal manipulation, however it resolves with the admission that "back pain is a "possible exception" This is akin to a passage in an article about Heart Surgery reading as follows:

"Collectively, systematic reviews of this research have not demonstrated that cardiac surgery is effective, with the possible exception of treatment of heart disease"

Spinal Manipulation is - as a rule - used to treat back pain. Why this is noted as "an exception" in this regard is mystifying to me. 71.161.198.124 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the intent is to discredit it, but to summarize the results of research, which has the effect of discrediting the claims made for it as a cure all for nearly every disease known. The research shows that it might have some effect in the treatment of back pain, but not better than other treatments. In fact, DD Palmer did claim it could cure 100% of diseases. Note that the "opening paragraph" is what's called the lead section, and there are special rules as to what it should contain. It is a summary of the whole article, and it doesn't necessarily have to include any references, since its content must be based on sourced content in the body of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a patently outrageous claim that the overwhelming majority of chiropractors would not hesitate to dismiss. There's no need to smear the reputation of an entire medical profession based on the absurd claims of a handful of quacks. Using a man who has been dead for nearly a century as an example supposedly representing the modern profession of chiropractics is equally absurd, It's like claiming contemporary psychiatric practice strictly adheres to the ideas advocated by Freud.

Indeed the claim that "it could cure 100% of disease" should rightly be treated as nonsense. But it would be much more appropriate in a "history" or "controversy" section than in the article's lead. Contemporary chiropractics advocates spinal manipulation exclusively for the treatment of back and neck pain, and not to attempt to "cure" other illnesses. Granted you will find a few quacks who may claim they can treat other illnesses, but unfortunately there are crackpots and incompetents in every branch of medicine. On the other hand, if the consensus of research is in fact that Chiropractics is ineffective in treating back pain, than that certainly should be noted in the lead, but it would seem prudent to include several reliable sources for that, as it is a very significant point, and likely to be considered contentious. 71.161.204.87 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see we are in total agreement about the ridiculous nature of the claims of straight chiropractors, so don't get mad at me, get mad at the straights. Where we might differ is in how many there are and the degree of their influence. They are still very noticeable and their influence is much greater than their numbers, a fact that chiropractic commentators have noted. The profession needs to do something about them, but it can't really be very effective when several straight schools still exist, including Life University, the largest chiropractic school in the world. Many leaders are also straights, which also makes it hard to get rid of this historical baggage that continues to affect the profession. Keep in mind that the profession is still largely made up of older graduates, not those who have recently graduated from non-straight schools. Note that in 2000, Ronald Carter, DC, MA, Past President, Canadian Chiropractic Association, wrote that belief in subluxations was killing the profession: Subluxation - The Silent Killer. Things have changed a bit since then, but not enough. It is very telling that we have to link to the NLM website for this article, because the CCA removed it from JACA, but not the commentaries and heated letters against it. I have repeatedly requested them to restore the article, but they won't do it. That's very odd behavior. Why the censorship? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead changes

Changes were made to the lead that does not summarise the article. See WP:LEAD. I would like to gain talk page consensus to restore the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus would be required to make such changes in the first placem so I have restored the previous NPOV lead that was developed according to the guidelines at WP:LEAD. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead, seeing as the infobox and the rest of the article is quite clear that it's not a mainstream discipline. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a sentence in the lead that says "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),[2] a characterization that many chiropractors reject.[3]" Inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead was duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily - I feel that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chase me..., I suspect you forgot "not" in "that it's [not] a mainstream discipline". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) *blushes* 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead says "It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),[2] a characterization that many chiropractors reject.[3]" Inserted the word 'alternative' in the lead was duplication.

Not necessarily - I feel that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science.

You did not explain how it is "Not necessarily" duplication. You think "that we're not giving enough weight to the fact that it's not real science." Whether or not it is not real science is a separate issue and irrelevant to this discussion. The word alternative and not real science are different topics. An unattributed opinion is a violation of WP:ASF. See WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." When there is a serious dispute it is considered an opinion according to ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution problem and reworded it to avoid wordiness. The first mention is appropriate for the summary description in the first sentence. The next mention deals with documenting the categorization fact and also that many chiropractors reject it. That should take care of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not fix the attribution problem and you reworded another sentence is irrelevant to the attribution problem. The first mention is clealry not appropriate for the summary description in the first sentence. It is still an unattributed opinion that is a violation of WP:ASF. Instead of improving the article, the edit made things much worse. This edit did not remove the duplication. Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative[1][neutrality is disputed] health care is an unattributed opinion. I made this change because the sentence violates ASF and the other reworded is not neutral in tone. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's attributed to the chiropractic source, Chapman-Smith. Don't you know who he is? He's the next-to-the-top dog in the profession. It's his statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Weight violation

The article says "In 2008 and 2009, chiropractors, including the British Chiropractic Association, used libel lawsuits and threats of lawsuits against their critics.[94]"

This change is a weight violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is any problem there, it's probably that the first mentioned sentence is separated from the newer content. Maybe they can be merged and the sourced still used. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this was dicussed before and it was rejected to have this amount of coverage of this subject. This was a violation of WEIGHT according to past discussion on a similar paragraph. I made this change to the disputed paragraph. The paragraph should not be merged. It should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I get it now. You finally graduated from chiropractic school and are now engaged in whitewashing. That explains everything. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Summarise Scope of practice

Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry. I propose summarising Chiropractic#Scope of practice in the WP:LEAD. This edit is an unattributed opinion in violation of WP:ASF but this proposal will clarify in the lead that chiropractic is not necessarily a primary health care provider. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The attribution problem is fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The attribtuion problem is not fixed. You have not commented on the above proposal. So far no specific objection was made to the proposal in this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)