Jump to content

Talk:Chiropractic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.38.24.65 (talk) at 02:19, 6 June 2014 (→Strange comment in the Practice Guidelines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Tag restored against CON again

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. Consensus has changed and you have addressed none of my concerns as above. NPOV tag stays and that is seconded by a current editor, Jayguru as well. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors are against having the NPOV tag. You got no CON. I tried explaining to you secondary sources are preferred. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current discussion, I don't see any consensus whatsoever. The opposite actually. You don't need to explain secondary sources because I understand them full well. Why are you trying to censor a paper that clearly identifies the 81% of DCs who practice NMSK? How about we go to an independent noticeboard and get a broad consensus? DVMt (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple. Use secondary sources. Problems solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it were that simple, James. The reliable source isn't being used to make a medical claim, it's been used to identify factions within the profession. Are you stating this source cannot be used under any circumstance? Yes/No. DVMt (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I originally made the mistake of adding the primary source to the article. I self-reverted my own mistake and clearly explained in my edit summary it was a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, every single primary source in the article needs to be deleted. Do you agree? DVMt (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WP:CON for the current sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no con. The current sources includes numerous primary sources. We can't cherry pick to remove sources that we don't agree with. DVMt (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CON does not have to be unanimous. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a good source and I can add it to the article ASAP. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, captain obvious. You've done nothing to try to build any consensus. Time for ArbCom take a look here. You refuse to to acknowledge the massive problems here, refuse to accept there is evidence-based chiropractic, refuse to accept that 4/5 DCs practice primarily MSK, refuse to accept that only 10% of DCs treat non MSK cases, refuse to compromise, or build consensus through collaboration but rather impose your rigid interpretations and lobby accusations against editors who disagree with you. This behaviour isn't specific to chiropractic either. All alt-med articles. Didn't your bans teach you anything? DVMt (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was an WP:IDHT violation. The answer is simple and you were told about using reliable sources before. Do you understand now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me that there is a strong consensus here that the tag should stay. You violated WP:3RR QuackGuru. It's all in the diffs above. The source discussed here, as long as it's no making any claims on medical efficacy, IMO a primary source can be used. Therefore, there should be no problem with that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that QuackGuru violated WP:3RR, go file a report at WP:AN3, if not, drop it. Your continual attempts to poison the well and use bullying tactics to change the article is starting to be annoying. When you have a minute, you should also review the policies on primary and secondary sources because you don't seem to understand them.--McSly (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if McSly was editing here and not doing a random drive by, he/she would understand that QG has been disruptive and tendentious in this whole process. DVMt (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are wrong. I would explain it to you but 1) this section is already way outside the WP:TALK parameters and 2) I feel it would be a complete waste of my time so I won't bother.--McSly (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe pushers with obvious COI do not a consensus make. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feed the trolls DVMt (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for the tag. You can't continue to restore the tag when others object.[1][2][3] QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who object? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided diffs on your talk page who objected. User:Bobrayner,[4] User:Jmh649,[5], User:Arthur Rubin[6], and QuackGuru objected to the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest a RfC next time. Also, it'd be nice if QuackGuru would accept us to collaborate rather than be at odds all the time. Do you? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category

This is the preferred categorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative_theoretical_formulations. The time has come. Chiropractic management is primarily for MSK disorders and back and neck pain specifically. The fringe faction or specific traits of those practitioners are clearly delineated now, and there is no doubt that chiropractic care for MSK is not fringe. DVMt (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? because it looks to me that the crazy is alive and well in the chiropractic world.--McSly (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be considered fringe. You seem to be conflating what constitutes 'mainstream chiropractic practice' (MSK) and fringe chiropractic practice (non-MSK). Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The questionable source in the article supports "minority", not "fringe". 15% is a bit large for "fringe". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were to write a separate article on MSK chiropractic, that might not be pseudoscience. Any article including the history should note that it was pseudoscience when it started, putting it convincingly into the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chiropractic is full blooded Pseudoscience. No question about it, and fringe pushers cannot change that. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting proposal, Arthur. MSK chiropractic is essentially evidence-based chiropractic since that's where the majority of the research lies. Unorthodox, or fringe constitutes 19%. Dissidents is another word. What I do know is we can't label the whole profession 'pseudoscientific'. What about my proposal about alternative theoretical formulations? Roxy, spoken like a true extremist. DVMt (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vertebral subluxations (or nonallopathic lesions; you can't eliminate non-science just by renaming the terms) are still pseudoscience, although some orthopedic subluxations do exist. I wouldn't go as far as Roxy, but there are enough "mainstream" (as generally observed) chiropractors who use the "subluxation" lingo that the field still fits into pseudoscience. If the governing boards and most schools completely rejected "subluxations", I might agree it might no longer be pseudoscience, although it's still not entirely evidence-based. Mainstream medicine isn't entirely evidence-based, so I wouldn't reject chiropractic solely on that basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the elephant in the room. Mainstream chiropractic views subluxation as a synonym for joint dysfunction or a mechanical problem with the spine segments. Fringe chiropractic views it as interference with the life force and is a cause for disease. The current subluxation article doesn't reflect both views. Regardless of who provides the manipulation, be it a DC, DO, PT they are all attempting to restore mobility and reduce pain at a specific part of the spine, hence the term 'manipulable lesion' or IOW that site that you're applying the manipulation. The difference between a chiropractic subluxation (aka joint dysfunction) is that there is no structural damage to the corresponding joints and soft and connective tissues. It's a functional problem. Orthopedic subluxations are literally unstable joints that are hyper mobile with structural damage and an absolute contraindication to manipulative techniques. I should point out that the ICD-10 recognizes the subluxation complex as a diagnosis under the musculoskeletal section under biomechanical lesions [7]. This, again, reinforces the MSK aspect that is considered 'mainstream' unless we don't consider the ICD-10 and the WHO credible sources. DVMt (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), do you have anything to add? DVMt (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it could be established by mainstream (and I mean generally recognized as mainstream, without assuming that Chiropractic is mainstream) medical reliable sources that spinal joint disfunction, not amounting to orthopedic subluxations, can cause damage to the body, and (even from Chiropractic sources), that "straight" chiropractic are no longer accepted by the profession, then there would be some justification for removing the pseudoscience characterization. You have provided plausible evidence for the first, but there's still none for the second. At best you have provided evidence that "straight" chiropractic forms a small minority, but that doesn't show they aren't accepted within the profession. A profession which accepts pseudoscientists is still pseudoscientific, even if their numbers are few. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), take a peek in my sandbox to see spinal joint dysfunction research --biomechanics, theory, etc. As a scientist you know well that there is continuum in science --pseudoscience -> junk science ->fringe science, etc. It's not really fair to 4/5 practitioners that practice "mainstream" (defined as primarily spinal/MSK based) to be labelled pseudoscientific bc of a rogue faction that has no support within or outside the profession. Hence, the proposal for alternative theoretical formulations. Or, even having two categories, but so long as we clearly delineate what specific aspects of clinical practice are considered fringe. I'm open to suggestions. DVMt (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Arthur Rubin's comments, there seems to be the initiative to further the discussion. Where would be the best place to have such a discussion? Here, WP:FRINGE talk, etc. DVMt (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. The article as is does not follow MEDMOS for specialties [8]. I'm going to reorganize the headings so they are consistent with this. DVMt (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This [9] discussion is relevant here. Here [is a 2013 status report of the profession from the WFC to the WHO. It provides evidence regarding what conditions patients are presenting to chiropractors. The primary reasons patients consult chiropractors are back pain (approximately 60%), other musculoskeletal pain such as pain in the neck, shoulder, extremities, and arthritic pain (20%) and headaches including migraine (10%). About 1 in 10 (10%) present with a wide variety of conditions caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders (e.g. pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome.) [10].

The text is sourced

The tag is bogus. See Chiropractic#Controversy.

""Straights" tend to rely exclusively on spinal adjustments, to emphasize innate intelligence, and to subscribe to the notion that subluxation "is the leading cause of disease in the world today."42[11] The text in the body is also sourced. For example: "“Innate intelligence” evolved as a theological concept, the representative of Universal Intelligence (=God) within each person.36 D.D. Palmer was convinced he had discovered a natural law that pertained to human health in the most general terms. Originally, manipulation was not a technique for treating spinal or musculoskeletal problems, it was a cure for all human illness: “95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints.”37"[12]

Palmer DD (1910). The Chiropractor's Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners. Portland, OR: Portland Printing House Co. OCLC 17205743. A subluxated vertebra ... is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases ... The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.

This is a commonly known fact and there are many sources that can verify the same text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race.[10][214][original research?]
The source does not state this. This is a misrepresentation of the research. What else did you take liberties with paraphrasing? This is very concerning indeed. DVMt (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The “straights” religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer's notions of the “innate intelligence” and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease" Straight out of the first source under the 'Internal Conflict' section. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that part. The text is sourced and it is accurate. I think the tag can be removed now. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To remain IMHO. Who are you mystery ip-man? I think {{pp-sock|small=yes}} might do the case. What do the other editors think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The low level details about the date 1910 is unnecessary and is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't provide the date (1910) then there is no context. Considering that leaving at is suggests there's been no change in 104 years, that seems misleading. DVMt (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also misleading in the sense that it suggest the profession has not changed/evolved from its origins, namely that subluxation is the cause of diseases which is given tremendous weight here. This tertiary source Bergmann, T.F., Perterson D.H (2011). Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. Elsevier. ISBN 9780323049696. clearly states that " This monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession" and this 2012 systematic review states that "preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in a "web of causation" along with other determinants of health. Henderson, C.N.R (October 2012). Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 22 (5): 632–642.[13]. These sources changes everything because it refutes the myth that QuackGuru is trying to perpetuate in 2014: that the profession still thinks that subluxation is the sole cause of disease for the human race. The more I dig into the sources of the articles, the more I am seeing critical errors in QG's interpretation, which was also noted by other editors [14] at the Electronic Cigarette.
Those sources do not change what Daniel D. Palmer said. The text (According to Daniel D. Palmer) makes it clear it is according to the founder not the whole profession. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing what was published in 1910. It's the fact that you're not providing context by not including when it was published. WP generally prefers sources within 3-5 year range and we are still using a text from 1910, out of context. I don't have a problem with using this in a historical context, and User:BullRangiger is technically wrong that a textbook is primary source, as it is a tertiary source. So, let's try to find a compromise here and work together on this minor detail. DVMt (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are using a 2008 review. The 1910 source was not needed to backup the content. Where in the 2008 source or the 1910 source did it say when Daniel D. Palmer made the claim. I don't know the actual date when he made the claim. Please provide a direct quote from the source. What is your specific proposal or compromise? QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment in the Practice Guidelines

A 2006 study suggested continuing education enhances the scientific knowledge of the practitioner.[76][Unreliable fringe source?]

Seems disembodied and irrelevant. The study itself is a nondescript workshop evaluation that somehow seems to be published in a journal. Shall we get rid of it? 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious mystery ip-man suddenly popping up. A sock puppet? Anyway, it's relevant source. To remain IMHO. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained it is a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.38.24.65, I recommend you open an account so you can start editing this article. This article is semi-protected. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're on a very slippery slope if you're going to cherry pick which primary sources you're going to attempt to delete. Also, there is nothing in WP that states that primary sources can never be used under any circumstance. So, if we are trimming the tree, let's make other suggestions. "The practice remains at a crossroads between science and ideological dogma.[32]" It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.[22]." "While 84% of respondents considered nurses' ethics "very high" or "high," only 36% felt that way about chiropractors. Other healthcare professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, to 62% for dentists, 69% for medical doctors, 71% for veterinarians, and 73% for druggists or pharmacists.[35][185][186][187] Similar results were found in the 2003 Gallup Poll.[188]"
Jayaguru, your accusations of sock-puppetry are unbecoming. I am not a sock-puppet, I edit other wikis considerably and wikipedia only occasionally; I have no desire to sign up for an account (no offense meant to anyone). Even if I was a sock puppet you could still attempt to address the argument rather than attack the man which, although my knowledge of WP policies is perfunctory at best, used to be a core tenet here.
Regarding the sentence in question, it doesn't bother me that it's a primary source, it's just that it is basically saying 'studying science makes people better at understanding science' - a blindingly obvious statement that is not relevant to the preceding paragraph. The referenced study is a simple training evaluation, one that might be conducted after any number of minor training courses delivered around the world. Nothing about that sentence is interesting or relevant which is why I thought it would be an easy one to remove. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing, asking. What other wikis you have been editing? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the usual suspects. Have you read my comments above - what are your thoughts? 203.38.24.65 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources should not be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Primary sources should not be used to refute secondary sources. There's nothing in WP:MEDRS or anywhere else to say they cannot be used. Stop gold-plating the rules.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:FergusM1970. I've been trying to understand why Doc James refuses to clarify his position on primary sources. Maybe it's because there's more than meets the eye.

This will be the last time I talk about this, but it seems that some non-sequiter argument about primary sources has hijacked a good faith attempt to improve the article. Look at the source - what does it have to do with the paragraph, what does it add to the article, why is it there? Can anyone answer these fundamental questions? Some of the players on this page need to drop the battleground mentality. 203.38.24.65 (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources by QuackGuru

"The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult"[15].

The article is being misrepresented by QuackGuru. The topic is about public health with the abstract stating " an overview of primary chiropractic issues as they relate to public health. This collaborative summary documents the chiropractic profession's current involvement in public health, reflects on past barriers that may have prevented full participation within the public health movement, and summarizes the relationship of current chiropractic and public health topics. Topics discussed include how the chiropractic profession participates in preventive health services, health promotion, immunization, geriatrics, health care in a military environment, and interdisciplinary care." The focus of the article is not on the AMA or its relationship with chiropractic. Considering that there was already proof that QuackGuru has misused sources as of last week at another article [16] and was blocked for the disruption it caused, I have concerns of other inappropriate use of sources that are not used in proper context. DVMt (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paper says "A policy passed by the AMA House of Delegates in 1966 stated: "It is the position of the medical profession that chiropractic is an unscientific cult whose practitioners lack the necessary training and background to diagnose and treat human disease" Looks like his text reflects well the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that it's OK to cherry pick a specific reference from a paper that has nothing to do with the conclusions of the paper and present it out of context? Do you not think that the 1966 portion is relevant? DVMt (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant for the history of the profession? Yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored my point, so I'll repeat it again: Are you saying is that it's OK to cherry pick a specific reference from a paper that has nothing to do with the conclusions of the paper and present it out of context? Because that's what occuring. DVMt (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that your question is malformed. I do not see an issue with the text except that a date is needed which I added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't malformed, it's about the nature of properly using sources and not using them out of context. Unfortunately you don't seem to see any problems with QuackGuru edits here despite the evidence [17] [18], [19]. DVMt (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the disputed content? “The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966[29] and boycotted it until losing anantitrust case in 1987[30]”. The claim that the AMA “boycotted” chiropractic care until 1987 seemed kind of hard to believe, so I spent a few minutes researching it, and it appears this claim is not correct. AMA policy on chiropractic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1349822/
--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BMC. I wasn't disputing that the claim was true, I was suggesting that cherry picking one quote from a paper that does not deal with the topic directly leads us to a very potential slippery slope in how the sources are used. The primary topic of the paper was about musculoskeletal public health initiative that the chiropractic profession should be/are involved in. It's being used out of context, and doesn't provide the other half of the idea which was the AMA was found guilty of a conspiracy to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. I don't think cherry picking a specific reference from a paper that has nothing to do with the conclusions of the paper and presenting it out of context is a good thing. DVMt (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DVMt, I originally posted this with a typo that reversed the meaning. I have since edited "not incorrect" to "not correct" above. Sorry for the confusion. Apparently, the AMA did not boycott chiropractic until 1987, but as early as 1978 were allowing chiropractic referrals and in 1980 were allowing professional collaboration with chiropractors. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much BMC. My understanding was that the AMA ended the boycott in 1987, and was finalized in 1990 when the AMA lost the appeal. I'm going to include those dates though, they are significant and provide more context. Thanks for helping out! DVMt (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the whole paragraph is horribly biased and imbalanced. All mentions of chiropractic's medical recognition amid the mainstream medicine have been left out systematically. For example, chiropractic is accepted among the current care guidelines both in Finland (Käypä hoito) and Europe (European guidelines) for conditions such as chronic low back pain. Chiropractors are also required to complete an adequate university degree in order to qualify as medical practitioners. Still, these both have been dropped out from the lede completely. It seems there is only room for criticism, even for something as trivial as some comments from 1966 (!?!).
As far as I am concerned, such trivial pieces of information would better fit into a history section etc. But if people insist to include it in the lede (!), then including some of the aforementioned would be appropriate as well. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest imbalances is the weight on history vs. contemporary. For instance, to further your point this [ status report prepared for the WHO states "Whereas most chiropractic schools in the USA are in private colleges, most of the newer schools internationally are within the national university system (e.g. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK). In some of these programs, for example, at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense and the University of Zurich in Switzerland, chiropractic and medical students take the same basic science courses together for three

years before entering separate programs for clinical training" [20]. So, the facts verify that things have indeed changed dramatically since 1966. Unless the Swiss and the Danes universities and their respective medical faculties are cool being trained along side an "unscientific cult".  ;) DVMt (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMA policy on chiropractic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1349822/ - primary source
This source discussed above is a primary source. We should not use a letter to the editors to argue against a review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Letters to the editor are not good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's using letters to the editor? DVMt (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of sections

User:Jmh649 reverted a change made regarding the ordering of the sections here [21] stating 'Not sure why the change in ordering of sections'. This is tendentious. I clearly stated 'Re-organize per MEDMOS [22] in the diff [23]. I had discussed this earlier today at the talk page [24] but I guess Doc James isn't listening. Why, specifically did you revert the changes when the summary was clearly listed as indicated in the diff? Please extend good faith and let other editors than QuackGuru and other skeptics edit this article. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your change did not reorganize per WP:MEDMOS. Thus I reverted. I see no consensus for the edit here. You placed your comment under the heading "Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have created a proper section for this discussion as it of course has nothing to do with the previous heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so chiropractor is a medical specialty. Chiropractic is a treatment IMO. Doc James (talk ·
The problem here is that Jmh649 is not a skeptic. He is a cynic operating under the grand delusion that he is a skeptic. Skeptics are open to evidence which completely belie what they already hold to be true. A cynic makes up their mind and just says "no" to everything else. Editors like this are truly as bad for WP as all the woo pushers. What's worse is that they cast all of the true skeptics down with all of the woo pushers, because they don't like anything positive ... Nay ... Neutral written about a subject which they have prejudged to be entirely woo. This article doesn't have any woo pushers AFAICT, just moderate editors who want to write a neutral article, and cynical editors who want only to present the subject in the most negative light as possible. I challenge these cynics to disengage from this article for three months to see if their worst fears come true – that the article would be completely overhauled into a complete marketing, puff piece or (and I'm betting this is more likely) a fact-based, truly NPOV article finally emerges. I encourage Doc James and the likes to accept this challenge. If I lose my bet, well good on you. Your cynical POV pushing is needed here after all. But if I win my bet, just think of all the time you will save knowing that you don't have to patrol this article anymore. Challenge accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.178.2 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't about asserting opinions, it's about asserting facts. Chiropractic is a health care profession. It is not a treatment. This is a fundamental mistake. we've been over this. Also, according to this [25] source, it states "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation. The same article also states that "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Furthermore, it is stated in the lede "and although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry." [26]. The evidence is compelling. The onus is on you to prove that it is not a profession, or medical specialty, since you're making the claim. DVMt (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also used to mean a form of alt med as per our first sentence of our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is rather bizarre and you're conflating things. Please address the literature above, with literature to rebut. You seem not to like it, but that doesn't change the fact chiropractic is a profession and not a treatment. Please use peer-reviewed literature to support your claim, your personal opinon [27] isn't relevant in this matter. DVMt (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chiropractic is definitely a profession and not a technique. I have presented the evidence here before, but it is good to review it whenever the discussion arises: There is legislation to recognize and regulate chiropractic as a profession in 48 countries [28] and in some of those countries the profession/technique debate has even been settled in court. For example, in Brazil a Federal Judge ruled that: "chiropractic is a profession and not a technique". The WHO defines chiropractic as "A health care profession concerned with..." and, in the US where chiropractic is most prominent, the NIH/NCCAM describes chiropractic as "a health care profession that focuses on...". Most importantly, the bulk of mainstream secondary sources discuss chiropractic as a profession. For example: 1)"Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in..." and 2)"Chiropractic is the best established of the alternative health care professions.... Moreover, according to our article and published analyses of the profession, the 'techniques' are joint manipulation, soft-tissue manipulation, therapeutic exercise, ergonomics, etc.Puhlaa (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chipping in User:Puhlaa. The evidence is rather overwhelming, but not surprising. What I am surprised about is such a fundamental error (technique vs. profession) can be perpetuated. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've established, yet again, that chiropractic is a profession and not a technique, does anyone have any specific objections to re-ordering the sections per MEDMOS The lede clearly states that the profession shares more of attributes of a medical specialty, like dentistry or podiatry and we have multiple sources that confirm this. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current ordering of the sections per MEDMOS is okay. The previous drastic re-ordering of the sections was confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not ordered per MEDMOS [29]. That's the purpose of the discussion to make it compliant with MEDMOS. Also, please don't fall into the the same old habits of of not listening. It's tendentious. Lastly, please provide evidence to support your position. These discussions need to be based on facts, evidence and not asserting opinions. Thanks, DVMt (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&oldid=611765980"