Talk:Chiropractic

Revert mass edits

QuackGuru seems to have problems understanding WP:CON. Most of his edits have been rebuffed or challenged on this page yet he has continuously attempted to slowly edit-war them into place. Thoughts? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above threads. All my edits were discussed and no specific objection to my edits were made. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDHT seems oddly appropriate all of a sudden. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any specific objection to the edits. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is evidence that Levine2112 has ignored previous discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You made that edit 2 minutes ago declaring that no specific objections were made. You're being disruptive now by gaming the system. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You still have not provided any specific objection to my edits. Please read the other threads. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, you should be commenting in the appropriate sections above. Those threads will answer your questions. These edits have been discussed and there were no objections, so QG's edits were proper and your reversions are obstructive. Please discuss above, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit much to call those recent edits "mass edits", as the total number of changes is fairly small. It also seems a bit much to call the reversion of these edits "disruptive"[1] in an edit summary. Please try to stay calm and discuss changes here in a reasonable way, before installing anything that's potentially controversial. (See #Brochures below for info on one such installation.) Eubulides (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

imo, since this Wikipedia is a public medium, the full name should be used instead of a Wikipedia acronym whenever possible. I think "Oxford English Dictionary" means much more to most people than OED.

Why did Quackguru remove this?: "A patient-centered approach focuses on the patient rather than the disease, preventing unnecessary barriers in the doctor-patient encounter.[20] The patient is considered to be indispensable in, and ultimately responsible for, the maintenance of health.[21]"

I also think to add something as vague as "Various chiropractic groups distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims." What groups? what claims? too vague.

--stmrlbs|talk 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read previous discussion for the OED bit and patient-centered approach bit. If you think the "Various chiropractic groups" bit is too vague then that what would you propose to make it not vague. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs, you should be commenting in the appropriate sections above. Those threads will answer your questions. These edits have been discussed and there were no objections, so QG's edits were proper and your reversions are obstructive. Please discuss above, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

your kidding! that it is 'obstructive' for someone to revert an edit that they dont agree with? have you ever heard of WP:BRD? just because they didnt discuss it before they reverted it does not make it 'obstructive'. give me a break!

Not kidding. This subject has been beaten into the ground for several years now and no significant new proposals or RS have been brought forward that change the matter. Since you are new here, you are excused for not recognized this push by Levine2112 as obstructive, but he's been beating this dead horse for years, and that is considered obstructive/disruptive behavior here. If new information or RS of a different type had been found, this would be a very different discussion. Until then it's plain disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is on a controversial topic, and as such it makes sense to discuss potentially-controversial changes, preferably before they're made, but at least soon after. This includes reverts; they should be discussed as well. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious IP reverts

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is for discussing possible socks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.172.116 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.166.100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.191.225.235 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.190.79.69 This IP sock seems to be the same IP sock here. This IP sock made a strange statement "Undocumented claim" when the abstract clearly indicates the text is faithfully sourced. And then Levine2112 was quick to support the IP sock with a revert stating, actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk.. This mysterious revert was undiscussed on the talk page by the IP. All these edits made by the IP could not be an editor who forgot to log in. I think the edit by the IP should be completely reverted because no specific explanation on the talk page was given for the revert while other editors have given reasons for their edits. The last edit to the page restored most of the information the IP deleted. There is still a concern for the puffery in the philosophy section restored without discussion on the talk page by the IP. Finally, there is the missing wikilink spiritual inspiration, and a change from the word "among" to "between". QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=289621649 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic_history&diff=289600392&oldid=289414602 Here are two more edits made by IPs. No comment on the talk page has been made by the mysterious IPs. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic_history&diff=prev&oldid=289690250 Here is another IP that reverted an edit when the text is faithfully sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC) IP addresses seem to have jumped out of the woodwork in the recent edit war, which would be a very strange thing if the IP addresses had been acting independently: the page had been quiet for some time. It would help everybody concerned if editors logged in before making potentially-controversial edits (see WP:LOGIN for details). Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.135.140.115 Here is another IP sock. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.49.123.119 [2][3] QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Dude you have been repeatedly asked to stop posting this type of stuff to talk pages where it doesnt belong! Take it to SSP or dont post it at all... just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt make them a sockpuppet... remember assume good faith right? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Specifically, who told Quackguru to stop? If IP's are disrupting the page then it seems like a valid concern. David D. (Talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC) This page has been under probation and we discuss things on the talk page. Admins know of the situation. There is a new account that is a probable sock. Based on the edit summaries I think I know who it is. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Then please report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Things are stale and there is not hard evidence. When an editor is using different IPs a checkuser is useless. After three years, the chiropractic page is finally stable. This is how Wikipedia works. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC) QuackGuru has thrown around a lot of accusations [4], vandalized user pages [5][6]and replaced it with a big Sockpuppet accusation, even though QuackGuru had filed no WP:SPI report. He accused me of being a sockpuppet as well as Levine2112, pasted IPsocks on those IPs saying they were suspected sockpuppets of me.. yet never told me, or filed an WP:SPI report. Odd. All these IPs appear, and Quackguru uses them to hurl accusations at editors he doesn't like. but doesn't file a WP:SPI. Perhaps he really doesn't want Admin checking these new IPs against QG's IP? --stmrlbs|talk 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brochures

A recent pair of edits added this text to Chiropractic #Scope of practice:

"Various chiropractic groups distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims. Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients. In many circumstances the focus seems to be put on economics instead of health care."

This text has little to do with scope of practice, and it contains potentially-controversial text that was added without discussion here. I suggest that it be reverted. It's better to discuss potentially-controversial changes here first, before installing them. Eubulides (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Chiropractic#Treatment of patients above. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this controversial (well, only because certain obstructive editors will dispute its inclusion, even though it is written by chiropractors and is undisputable fact) text should be discussed first and formulated better. It should be included, but the inclusion was poorly formulated and totally unattributed. It can be done better. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am following up here, rather than in #Treatment of patients above. (I suggest that further comments continue to be made here; it is confusing to have these discussions bifurcated all the time.) The revised proposal in that section doesn't address the comments I made above. In particular, the existing coverage of abuse, fraud, and quackery is in Chiropractic #Education, licensing, and regulation, which suggests that this new text needs to be added there too. However, a new paragraph should not be just plopped in there; the new text should be integrated with what's already there. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The largest chiropractic associations in the U.S. and Canada distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims. Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients. In many circumstances the focus seems to be put on economics instead of health care.

I propose we add these two sentences to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like such a minor point in the grand scheme of the subject and I object to it being inserted per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in general. It seems that inserting this is an attempt to further push a negative spin on the subject rather a fair attempt at a neutral article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the specific objection? QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not given a specific reason for excluding it. The text is sourced and neutral in tone. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure I have. Though this text is faithfully sourced, it is extremely POV yet presented as plainly factual. An article should not present opinions as facts. Furthermore, this opinion seems inconsequential in the grand scheme of the subject. We have limited space. Let's leave the petty POV minutia out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained what is not NPOV about it. You believe the text is "faithfully sourced". QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem of unsubstantiated claims being made for chiropractic is a notable one, and it's definitely not a WP:WEIGHT violation to mention it. On the contrary, it'd be a WP:WEIGHT violation if the problem were omitted from the article. Similarly for the problem of unnecessary treatment. However, this proposal doesn't say exactly where the text should be added. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a notbale - certainly not as notable as the proposed text is making it out to be. What about the substantiated claims? Are those too just as notable in your mind? The POV comes in when we ask, "Who is saying that a claim in unsubstantiated? Who is saying that the same claim is substantiated? Who is right and who is wrong? Do we cite these positions as facts or attribute them as opinions?" Until we can honestly address these questions, then the proposed text (IMO) remains in violation of WEIGHT and NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You previously stated the text is "faithfully sourced". Simon says attribution is unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The cited source (Grod et al. 2001, PMID 11677551) says that the claims in question are unsubstantiated. And this is not an isolated source on the topic of chiropractic and exaggerated claims. There is also Gilbey 2008 (PMID 18670471), Sikorski & Grod 2003, and others. For example, Cooper & McKee 2003 (PMID 12669653), writes that chiropractic 'risks damaging its legitimacy in both the public and political arenas by false and exaggerated claims that emanate not only from individual practitioners but also from its major organizations'; and Keating et al. 2005 (PMID 16092955) writes, 'Whether the ACC's subluxation claims have succeeded as a political statement is beyond our concern here. These assertions were published as a priori truths (what many chiropractors have traditionally referred to as "principle"), and are exemplary of scientifically unjustified assertions made in many corners of the profession.' There is no controversy among reliable sources that chiropractors make some claims that are false or exaggerated or scientifically unjustified, and that this is a significant problem.
• The substantiated claims of chiropractic are notable, and are covered quite extensively in Chiropractic #Effectiveness, which is a sizeable fraction of the article. I don't see how one could plausibly argue that substantiated claims are ill-covered in Chiropractic.

Eubulides (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with properly attributing these chiropractic opinions, based on chiropractic research of chiropractic literature. Make it clear this is a notable and uncontroverted opinion of major chiropractic researchers based on very clear and abundant evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

i reverted the addition of such material because it is clearly not NPOV and there are issues with WEIGHT as well, i mean Ernst, a major CRITIC of chiropractic is already cited way too much and we shouldnt be giving more weight to his OPINIONS. You can tell from the edit history of the article too that there is no way there is consensus to add this to the article probably because of these reasons 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was previously explained it would be a WEIGHT violation not to include the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was previously explained why it would be a WEIGHT violation to keep it. I removed the whole section until some consensus on the matter can be reached. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Without prior discussion the entire paragraph was completely removed. No specific reply was given to "Unsubstantiated claims are well-sourced and notable. Substantiated claims are already well-covered."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Either you somehow missed the reams of prior discussion above your comment or you are ignoring the input of editors who disagree with you... lets get real. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no prior discussion above to delete an entire paragraph for no valid reason. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A real discussion has taken place but an editor has continued to ignore the dicussion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

endlessly repeating urself doesnt make a discussion 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No specific objection was made to the real discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOVing Education, licensing, and regulation

A 2008 commentary proposed that the chiropractic profession actively regulate itself to combat abuse, fraud, and quackery, which are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions, violating the social contract between patients and physicians. Unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of chiropractic have continued to be made by individual chiropractors and chiropractic associations. The largest chiropractic associations in the U.S. and Canada distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims. Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients. In many circumstances the focus seems to be put on economics instead of health care. Sustained chiropractic care is promoted as a preventative tool but unnecessary manipulation could possibly present a risk to patients. A study of California disciplinary statistics during 1997–2000 reported 4.5 disciplinary actions per 1000 chiropractors per year, compared to 2.27 for MDs; the incident rate for fraud was 9 times greater among chiropractors (1.99 per 1000 chiropractors per year) than among MDs (0.20).

This proposal is to fix the WEIGHT and NPOV violations. The text is proposed to go in the last paragraph of Chiropractic #Education, licensing, and regulation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WEIGHT and NPOV objections stated above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. Your previous comments was a good reason to include to text, especially when it is faithfully sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

More whitewashing from Levine2112. Is chiropractic controversial? Yes. Why? This is one of the most significant reasons. To leave it out would violate NPOV and WEIGHT. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the proposal to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kusserow noted that, ‘‘overtly aggressive marketing [is]...deliberately aimed at misleading patients and the public regarding the efficacy of chiropractic care.’’135 In fact, unsubstantiated claims regarding the efficacy of chiropractic continue to be made, not merely by overenthusiastic individuals but also by official organizations. For instance, a patient brochure published by the UK General Chiropractic Council (the body that oversees chiropractic in Great Britain) stated that ‘‘chiropractors primarily treat: spine, neck and shoulder problems, joint, posture and muscle problems, sciatica, sports injuries, tension headaches and benefit may also be seen for some types of asthma, digestive disorders, migraine, infant colic, menstrual pains.’’136

This is from Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance chiropractic care is promoted as a preventative measure for both musculoskeletal and visceral problems92 even though ‘‘such unnecessary manipulation might present a risk to patients.’’93

This is from Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the WEIGHT violation. No specific objection was made to the real discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

‘‘Widespread unjustified claims which chiropractors routinely make’’ have become a concern even for some chiropractors.96

The author thought it was important to mention some chiropractors disagree with the unsubstiatiated claims. To have a neutral point of view we can include this which will satisfy NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to address the WEIGHT and NPOV issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor title

Some chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a way that implied they are a registered medical practitioner, when no evidence was presented it was true.[8]

Here is another proposal for the section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's New Zealand, so that should be clear. But this is a minor study and certainly not up to the level set here for sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why it begins with the word "Some". Do you have any specific proposal for improving it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some" is a vague term and frowned upon by Wikipedia GA standards. Try being more specific. Regardless, this is a weak source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any particular wording in mind. You believed a chiropractic promotional website is very reliable for Wikipedia standards. This ref is far more reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for how you are (mis)using it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Please be specific. QuackGuru (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been as specific as one can be. You use of "some" is vague and therefore misleading. Also, the source is weak as this article - by Eubulides' doing - relies on reviews of literature and not one-off studies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Directories

It is not uncommon for a Chiropractor to provide a no obligation and sometimes reduced fee consultation to prospective patients, to find out of Chiropractic may be beneficial to them. There are over 22 000 searches a month for the phrase "Chiropractor" so a directory may be the best first port of call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevloc (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not specifically meant for this article. I have added it to another article for now. The other article is about chiropractic education that covers doctor of chiropractic. You believed a chiropractic promotional website is reliable for Wikipedia. I'll do my best to fix the perceived vague. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many quotes in Vertebral subluxation

A recent edit to Vertebral subluxation added even some more quotes. This section is weaker than it should be, because it uses too many quotes rather than simply stating its points. We should not make things worse by inserting even more quotes. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be quote farms, and there are currently so many quotes in that section that it detracts from what should be an encyclopedic feel. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (WTF?!) I think those quotes would be better suited at Vertebral subluxation. They are so specific to that subject and only tangential to this one. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on Eubulides. I expect this type of obstructive and whitewashing behavior from Levine2112 (which he's doing above as well), but I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't acting more like a good hand sock of his. You make an effective tag team. The quotes happen to directly address the subject in the previous sentence, and are from one of the highest-placed leaders in the profession, hence they are a very significant opinion. Maybe they should be used instead of some other less significant quotes? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The same paragraph seems to contradict itself. It says it is a "functional entity" then another sentence says that subluxation are "not structural entities". This is a bit confusing to a reader who is not familiar with vertebral subluxation. Are there more reliable sources on this. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

being a functional entity is not a contradiction of being a structural entity... for example say someone has altered proprioception in their ankle they have a problem with function but not with structure 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no contradiction. The section just happens to quote from different schools of thought in the profession, so they are naturally meaning different things when they use the word. This may be confusing to readers, and such wordings should be attributed to straights or reformers (mixers who deny subluxations, since most mixers ascribe to them). Straight chiropractors wish to retain the use of the term "subluxation", but they mean something different than when all other members of the medical community use the word. Some mixers (mixers who don't ascribe to subluxations are reformers) are attempting to get the profession to stop using the word as anything other than a historical word, but not as a description of a real, physical entity. They are using the word in its medical meaning - a structural entity. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My objection to the section is not about its content, but about its style. Wikipedia articles should not be a collection of glued-together quotations; quotations are Wikiquote's job. For more on this subject please see When not to use quotations. As I understand it, the other editors who have commented on this topic agree that the section relies too heavily on quotes. Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote it to remove the quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the overall goal of rewriting the section to remove the quotation marks, that change had several problems. For example, it introduced the text "Chiropractic is similar to osteopathy" but this is not at all what the cited source said, which was "Chiropractors must do something similar with chiropractic subluxation" (my emphasis): that is, the cited source was exhorting chiropractors to behave differently, and was not describing chiropractors' current behavior. More generally, the change presents several opinions as facts, and should not do this when the opinions are not shared by reliable sources. Instead of editing the main article, I suggest presenting a detailed proposal on the talk page, so that details like this can be hashed out before being installed. Removing the quote marks will not be such a simple matter, I'm afraid. Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Change this: Attorney David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has stated that "subluxations are not structural entities and cannot be detected on x‑ray."

To this: Vertebral subluxation is not a structural entity and cannot be identified on a x‑ray.

Delete this: Pointing to the path chosen by osteopathy, he wrote that "Chiropractors must do something similar with chiropractic subluxation ‑ use the term internally because of its rich history, but use another externally. I would recommend joint dysfunction. They must acknowledge that adjustment is manipulation, albeit precise and skilled, and that they do nothing unique ‑ they just do an interesting blend of things better."

I suggest we change the first quote to the proposed version without quotes and remove the second sentence. The second is editorializing that can't be written as fact. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be OK to remove the 2nd quote, but the 1st change is not reasonable, because most chiropractors believe that subluxation is detectable by x-ray; see Keating et al. 2005 (PMID 16092955), which is already cited by Chiropractic. I suggest removing both quotes instead, as they don't rise to the level of importance to be in this article. They can be moved to the subarticle Vertebral subluxation instead (if they're not there already). Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Begin the rewrite of Vertebral subluxation

Change this: Attorney David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has stated that "subluxations are not structural entities and cannot be detected on x‑ray."

To this: Vertebral subluxation is not a structural entity and cannot be identified on a x‑ray.

This proposal is to begin removing the quotes in Vertebral subluxation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would remove the important attribution. We are writing about the different opinions on the subject, not about the "truth". Different opinions need attribution. That will make it NPOV. Without attribution, and just stating it as fact (which it is), we violate NPOV. It must be stated as the opinion of someone, unless it is an uncontroverted fact like the earth is round, one which 99% of the population agree is fact. This subject is not in that class. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, attribution is unecessary. We can remove all the attribution and quotes in the section. QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have ASF backwards. We are not supposed to assert facts as though they were opinions. Hence the call for attribution. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, When No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

No evidence has been presented there is any serious dispute from reliable references. Please show a dispute over the facts among reliable references. When the facts are not in dispute we assert it as fact without attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, for instance: The vertebral subluxation has a misalignment component that is measured with a very specific and repeatable x-ray analysis, and a neurological component that is detected as an imbalance in supine leg length, palpable tenderness in the suboccipital muscles, and asymmetric skin temperature in the paraspinal area. [9] -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no serious dispute among reliable references. The opinion of chiropractors does not qualify as a serious dispute. Chiropractors dispute the opinion of Ernst but we assert that opinion as fact. Please, let's stick to reliable references and not reach down into unreliable opinions. See WP:RS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, chiropractic sources would probably be among the most reliable in documenting a chiropractic dispute. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand you think chiropractic sources would probably be among the most reliable. But the most unreliable sources are chiropractic sources. Please see WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you think that this source is unreliable in this situation. I disagree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For now I formatted the two references. It does seem there is too many quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[1][6][10][89][90]

There seems to be too many refs to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To help a bit I combined the last two citations into one. The others can't be combined since they're cited elsewhere. This is a controversial point among many editors, and to some extent this justifies having several citations. Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would comment out one of the refs such as number six. QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or remove one of the unnecessary refs. Three ref citations in a row is enough. Four is too much. QuackGuru (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or make them bulleted under one ref, as I have done some other places, like in the Quackwatch article. See refs 49, 51-53. It's not that hard to do. We need to be careful not to delete refs since they are valuable sources for readers who wish to study the subject of the article. Work has been exerted by editors, and we need to show good faith towards that effort. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I already combined all the citations that can be bulleted under one ref. The other citations are used multiple places, and therefore cannot be combined in this way. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is currently four refs. I suggest we remove one of the unnecessary refs to make it three refs. Four is too many. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Two models for practice

Continued from above.

MSchreiber/32.174.185.155 [10] and several other IPs and likely socks are supporting Levine2112 and Stmrlbs in their attempts to restore some one-sided fluff that we have previously discussed. To get this hammered out and stop the edit war, I'm resuming the discussion, even though it seemed settled before. For one thing the matter is covered in the next subsection, so it doesn't need mentioning where it currently is in the philosophy section. To balance it, we'd need to include the other part which is shown in the diagram in the next subsection:

• Two models for practice:

• Straights tend to use a doctor/model-centered approach which focuses on convincing the patient that the chiropractor is an important part of the patient's preventive health maintenance; that the patient has dangerous vertebral subluxations; and that only a chiropractor can treat them through the regular use of chiropractic adjustments.

• Mixers tend to use a patient/situation-centered approach which focuses on the patient rather than the disease, preventing unnecessary barriers in the doctor-patient encounter. The patient is considered to be indispensable in, and ultimately responsible for, the maintenance of health. (Needs other wording and sourcing, likely the same source as above: )

Maybe the best solution is to keep it, but balance it as proposed above, and move it to the "Straights and mixers" section. We can't continue to let a one-sided fluff comment stand alone. It would be a violation of NPOV and WEIGHT to leave it as is. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Balancing it would be fine, but the proposed wording is not supported by the cited sources, and so would need to be reworded so that it reflects what the sources say. Nothing in the source supports the claim that straight approach "focuses on convincing the patient that the chiropractor is an important part of the patient's preventive health maintenance", or that it focuses on convincing the patient "that the patient has dangerous vertebral subluxations", or that it focuses on convincing the patient "that only a chiropractor can treat them through the regular use of chiropractic adjustments". Instead, how about replacing all 3 of the above bullets with the following 1 bullet?

• "Straights tend to use an approach that focuses on the chiropractor and the treatment model, whereas mixers tend to focus on the patient and the patient's situation."

This wording is better-supported, and is shorter. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that the proposed text is not currently supported by those refs. The proposed text is true, and could be supported using multiple V & RS, but your version would be a simple way to get both points included using the sources we already have. The "treatment model" happens to be the straight one, IOW a "subluxation-based treatment model", and that wording could be used, as it is implicit in any straight model. That's what defines it. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to add the new sentence. This replaces the previous disputed text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording that was added is quite vague. How can a treatment approach focus on the Chiropractor? Will the reader understand this (even though I don't)? This should be expanded for clarity (with WP:RS of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.247.69 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ref for the sentence. If you have a suggestion to improve the sentence for clarity I would like read it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That source fails verification. It says nothing about focusing on the chiropractor and the treatment model, and instead says that straight chiropractic focused on the patient's ability to self-heal. So we have a problem with vague, unsourced content. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Practice attitude" line of Table 2 in the source does say something about focusing on the chiropractor and the treatment model: it contrasts the straight practice attitude, which is "doctor/model-centered", with the mixer practice attitude, which is "patient/situation-centered". In this context, "doctor" means "doctor of chiropractic", i.e., chiropractor. The patient's ability to self-heal is clearly a straight belief (it's part of the Innate Intelligence system of beliefs), but (a) this does not contradict Table 2, and (b) this is already summarized in Chiropractic #Philosophy in the "Homeostasis" bullet. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As was pointed out by someone else, we are not being faithful to the source and thus we are violating WP:NPOV by using this source in this way. We are presenting it as if there is a dichotomy between straights and mixers, whereas the source makes the effort to say "Although there are still remnants of this dichotomy, the situation has changed with the advent of federally recognized accreditation, research consortia, and more collaborative political agendas. **Distinctions among current chiropractic perspectives are complex and can no longer be viewed as a simple dichotomy.**" 24.68.247.69 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand you correctly, it's not a "fails verification" issue; it's really more of a weight issue. In that case, I agree: a bit more weight should be given to the diversity issue. The article currently does say "Although a wide diversity of ideas currently exists among chiropractors," which does give a nod to the notion that it's not a simple dichotomy; but the article emphasizes the dichotomy more than most reliable sources do. This goes along with the problem that the straight-mixer dichotomy is currently repeated, both in the 1st paragraph and last bullet of Philosophy, and in the Straights and mixers section. This repetition should be removed. But what's been lacking, so far, is an editor with the time and energy to propose a specific fix for the problem, a fix that is well-sourced. 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is both a failed verification issue and a weight issue. The article says that straights "tend to" and that mixers "tend to", but the source doesn't say that at all, it says these are POTENTIAL end points. It is also a weight issue, as the article currently is presenting two separate groups, straights and mixers, even in the abstract, and this source (which I believe we all agree is a reliable reference, despite the fact it is not peer-reviewed) clearly states that such a dichotomy no longer exists. Simply put, it should be removed from the article until a SUITABLE replacement is created, and perhaps one that actually has consensus, unlike the last one that was edit warred in. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a failed verification issue: as stated above, the source verifies the text in Chiropractic. "Tend to" is an adequate paraphrase of the source. The source makes it clear that, although the straight-versus-mixer division is not a simple dichotomy, it is a useful way to think about the philosophical distinction among chiropractors. I agree that the text could be improved, but simply removing all discussion of straights and mixers would not be an improvement. I suggest proposing specific wordings for improvement. Eubulides (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully disagree with you that it is not a failed verification issue, and I took it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and got the opinion that it was not reliable for sourcing that statement, from User:Blueboar. Further, I disagree with you that "tend to" is an adequate paraphrase of "potential end point". A better paraphrase for "potential end point" would be "Straights might" and "Mixers might". Finally, I disagree with you that the source makes it clear that we should discuss straights vs. mixers as a dichotommy - we are not representing the source faithfully when we do so, and end up lacking balance and failing to adhere to WP:NPOV. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is indented too far, so I've started a new section #Straights, mixers, Mootz & Phillips below. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Frankly, the piece of wording being discussed here looks like gobbledygook. The article already has an adequate description of the distinction between "straights" and "mixers" in the section headed "Straights and mixers". Brunton (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which piece of wording does the previous comment refer to? (Also, ideally, what would be a good way of rephrasing the confusing wording?) I agree that the straight-mixer stuff should be reorganized (the 1st paragraph of Chiropractic #Philosophy should be merged with the 1st paragraph of Chiropractic #Straights and mixers), but surely the model- vs. patient-oriented schism is worth mentioning one way or another. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit fixed the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit added too much detail and is redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was better the old way. Also, the new way distracts from the central point of the sentence, which is the doctor-centered versus the patient-centered issue. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "doctor/model" centered. The addition describes the model, which wasn't even describeded. That's a fundamental difference between straights and mixers. Straights stick to the original model, while mixers, even if they believe in vertebral subluxations, and many do, they use differential diagnostics, IOW they don't consider vertebral subluxations to be the only cause of all diseases, and they'll also tend to use a bit of other methods, while still depending largely on spinal adjustments most of the time. A failure to describe the method leaves the sentence empty of significant meaning. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit changed the meaning of the sentence which was a chiropractic-centered perspective compared to a the patient-driven approach. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you. The sentence contains two portions (straights and mixers), and each one deals with two elements. Only one was dealt with, while the "model" part wasn't described at all. That's what I did. Try reading it again, and if you don't understand, then ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Straights tend to use an approach that focuses on the chiropractor's perspective and the vertebral subluxation treatment model, whereas mixers tend to focus on the patient and the patient's situation."

I suggest we shorten the sentence to this proposed version. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the staight versus the mixer treatment model. So I removed the text that describes the straight treament model. It is also redundant. This is discussed in the vertebral subluxation section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Please stop making changes when it is clear that you do not have consensus to do so. There is clearly ongoing discussion in this very section, and you should not make changes that ignore that discussion. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for you to edit war it in the first place. The source does not support the statements, and as such it should not be in the article unless a replacement source is found. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was previously explaned how the source verifed the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Straights, mixers, Mootz & Phillips below. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is still a continuing source of debate within the chiropractic profession as well, with some schools of chiropractic (for example, Palmer College of Chiropractic[29]) still teaching the traditional/straight subluxation-based chiropractic, while others (for example, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College[30]) have moved towards an evidence-based chiropractic that rejects metaphysical foundings and limits itself to primarily neuromusculoskeletal conditions.[31][32] I provided the evidence it was redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely, not based on science"

WP:Words to avoid warns of words with multiple meanings.

For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by ideas such as subluxation that are not based on solid science.

It is not clear whether it means a) not supported by empirical evidence, b) not accepted by scientists that know the evidence, c) not accepted by scientists that don't know the evidence or d) not supported by science organizations or e) supported by evidence but not in textbooks.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When one reads the original content, with the refs, it seems to be clear that "ideas such as subluxation" is the part that is "not based on solid science", and the sources used bear out that interpretation:

For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by ideas such as subluxation that are not based on solid science.

Could it be worded in a better way? BTW, lest anyone accuse editors of a SYNTH violation here, both quotes used are actually synthesized by the chiropractic authors in one of the sources used. It is the chiropractic authors who make it clear that it is subluxation that is "not based on solid science". We have just found the original sources and used direct links to each of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the current version is a whitewashed version, IOW a pagt with the devil made with a certain editor who wishes this article to be written from a subluxation-based POV and including little or no criticism, even from chiropractic sources. We originally attempted to include more words (anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas) from the quote:

A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.... One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).[11]

For some reason we ended up with a whitewashed version, even though this is an extremely significant chiropractic source! Go figure. Some editors here go over to the dark side occasionally and cooperate with whitewashing attempts. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor appears to have forgotten, or never read, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

CIVIL doesn't apply to my very civil comment, and there is no need to AGF when the history speaks for itself. Note that I haven't named anyone. Longtime editors here may recognize whom I'm referring to, but no one else will. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When you state that people are attempting to whitewash the article, you are neither AGFing nor are you being CIVIL. The fact that you say "longtime editors here may recognize who I'm referring to" illustrates the problem. You are focusing on the editors, and not on the content, thus failing to follow WP:FOC. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another more recent example from a chiropractic source, describing the chiropractic subluxation as "an entity that is yet to be shown to exist". Brunton (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins have left the building

Admins have lost interest in this page and have not managed this page for a while now. So I made this change. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I made this change because I don't see evidence any of the admins are actively managing this page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not maintaining this page. Admins are not active on this page. It is better if each admin would add their own name to the section if they are active. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not responsible for "maintaining" or "managing" articles. Instead, you should use the standard methods of dispute resolution to resolve any issues in content you encounter. There is no need to remove names from the list since those admins are familiar with the ongoing disputes on the page and can assist in cases where action is need under the ArbCom ruling, for example. Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here, not "managing" the article since that isn't what admins do, but I do have this page on my watchlist in case any edit warring, socking, etc pop up. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I may not be online when things happen, and I don't claim to read everything, but I am here. I believe I took the most recent administrative act on this article, semi-protecting it a couple of days ago. If you feel the page needs attention it isn't getting, post on the talk pages of the listed admins, or MBisanz or my page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for speedy

Redirects for speedy:

Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism Safety of chiropractic Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care Scientific investigation of chiropractic

Some have talk pages that can be deleted too. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these would qualify for speedy deletion, surely. For regular deletion I suggest following the procedures and listing them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I don't have a strong opinion on these redirects. I just now edited most of them to point to the Evidence basis section rather than to the entire Chiropractic article. Eubulides (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Straights, mixers, Mootz & Phillips

(This is following up a long thread in #Two models for practice above.)

• "I took it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and got the opinion that it was not reliable for sourcing that statement, from User:Blueboar." What Blueboar wrote was 'Given that the source says that the entire "Straight vs. Mixer" differentiation is outdated, I would say No, it isn't reliable for that.' In other words, Blueboar stated his opinion assumed that the source says the distinction between straights and mixers is outdated. But this assumption is completely incorrect. The cited source (Mootz & Phillips 1997) does not claim that the distinction betwen straights and mixers is outdated. Furthermore, mainstream opinion strongly disagrees with the claim. Here are some examples:

• "A challenge confronting all health care professionals is establishing the clinical effectiveness of the therapies that they employ. With support from the Health Resources and Services Administration, chiropractic has mounted a vigorous effort in this direction (Mootz, Coulter, and Hansen 1997). Unfortunately, this effort has not been universally endorsed within the profession, and indeed it has widened the schism that already exists between the 'straights' and the 'mixers' (Kaptchuk and Eisenberg 1998)." (Cooper & McKee 2003, PMID 12669653). What Cooper & McKee are saying is that the straight-vs-mixer schism is not only still important, it's gotten more important since the late 1990s.
• "Depending on the practitioner's training and personal philosophy, the techniques employed in the modern practice of chiropractic vary considerably. The main distinction is between "straight" chiropracotrs who practice spinal manipulation exclusively and adhere to vertebral subluxation as the sole rationale of care, and "mixers"—the majority—who utilize a wider range of concepts and modalities." (Horowitz 2007, doi:10.1089/act.2007.13505)
• "D.D. Palmer termed these deviants 'mixers,' a term that continues to be used today to describe the intraprofessional schism between chiropractors, at least in America.... it is generally understood that the mixers far outnumber the straights ...." (Villanueva-Russell 2005, PMID 15550303)

• 'Further, I disagree with you that "tend to" is an adequate paraphrase of "potential end point". A better paraphrase for "potential end point" would be "Straights might" and "Mixers might".' No, that table says that the straight philosophy is a "potential belief endpoint", and that associated with that same end point is a belief in doctor/model-centered practice attitudes. Merely saying "might" doesn't capture the source's claim that the straights (that is, the people on the end points) by and large believe in intuitive diagnosis, vitalistic philosophy, etc. It would be completely misstating the source to say only something like "straights might be vitalistic, and mixers might be materialistic".
• "I disagree with you that the source makes it clear that we should discuss straights vs. mixers as a dichotommy" There must be some confusion here. What I wrote was "The source makes it clear that, although the straight-versus-mixer division is not a simple dichotomy,...". In other words, I agree with you that the text should not say that it's just a straight-vs-mixer world. What the text should say is that the straight-vs-mixer divide is the most important distinction in chiropractic, and that there are other distinctions, which should also be (and are) mentioned.

Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of the source is not in agreement with other editors interpretation of the source. The source makes it clear that the straight/mixer dichotomy is a historical concept, and that while "there are still remnants of this dichotomy, the situation has changed". AKA, the concept is outdated.
• "Furthermore, mainstream opinion strongly disagrees with the claim.". I agree, which is why this source should be used to BALANCE the statements made about the straight/mixer dichotomy as if it still did exist. AKA - the article should adhere to WP:NPOV.
• "No, that table says that the straight philosophy is a "potential belief endpoint", and that associated with that same end point is a belief in doctor/model-centered practice attitudes.". The table doesn't say that at all. It says that doctor/model-centered is a potential belief end-point for the attribute practice attitude, as is patient/situation-centered. Similarly, narrow ("straight") is a potential belief end-point for the attribute "Scope of practice", as is broad ("mixer"). Please stop mispresenting the source.

24.68.247.69 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'while "there are still remnants of this dichotomy, the situation has changed"' This is quoting the source out of context. The dichotomy the source is referring to here is not the dichotomy between the straights and the mixers. It is the dichotomy where (as the source's previous sentence says) 'chiropractic schools would affiliate with a particular national professional association that gravitated toward a "straight" or "mixer" perspective'. That is a different matter, one that is not discussed in Chiropractic and probably is not important enough to discuss there.
• 'The source makes it clear that the straight/mixer dichotomy is a historical concept' No, it says only that the dichotomy with respect to chiropractic schools affiliating with professional associations is present only in remnants. This is quite different from saying that the straight vs mixers dichotomy itself is merely a historical concept.
• 'Please stop mispresenting the source.' I have not misrepresented the source. What the source is saying is that disputes among chiropractors cannot always be easily characterized as straights vs. mixers (a point which I think we all agree on), and that if you pick apart the traditionally straight positions (column number 1) and the traditionally mixer positions (column number 2), then you can find chiropractors who choose some from column 1 and some from column 2. This is an entirely reasonable claim. However, this claim does not at all contradict the point that the straight viewpoint is vitalistic and the mixer viewpoint materialistic. Nor does it contradict the point that the straight viewpoint is doctor/model-centered and the mixer viewpoint patient/situation-centered.
• In short, the source is not saying the straight-vs-mixer schism is dead. It would have been a very strange claim for it to make, given that all the other reliable sources we have on the subject say that the schism is still alive and notable.

Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Distinctions among current chiropractic perspectives are complex and can no longer be viewed as a simple dichotomy." Another sentence that *clearly* shows that the author feels that the straight/mixer dichotomy is outdated. It is a historical concept. Either way, the source fails to backup the claim it is being used for. 24.68.247.69 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, that quote merely indicates that the source doesn't see the chiropractic world as entirely black-and-white, and that there are some shades of gray. That is, the source is saying that the straight-vs-mixer distinction doesn't explain every dispute among chiropractors. Such a claim is entirely consistent with what our more-recent and more-reliable sources say; see, for example, the quote from Horowitz 2007 above, which says that straight-vs-mixer is the "main distinction" in chiropractic practice: i.e., there are other distinctions, but the straight-vs-mixer distinction is the main one. It is a complete misreading of the source to read it as claiming that the straight-vs-mixer distinction is obsolete; it's not making any such claim. And even if this 1997 source were claiming such a thing—which it's not—then the source would be wrong, as later events (documented by reliable sources) have shown. Eubulides (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly controversial edit made without discussion or consensus

I do not understand how this edit improves the article. Please discuss on the talk page any possibly controversial edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That edit does three things.

• It removes a citation to Gouveia et al. 2009 (PMID 19444054), without which the preceding text is unsourced. This cannot be right.
• It replaces this text:

"and the incidence is unknown, due to high levels of underreporting and to the difficulty of linking manipulation to adverse effects such as stroke, which is a particular concern"

with this text:

"however, research literature has suggested that the incidence of serious injury is between 1.46 to 2.68 cases per 10,000,000 spinal manipulations"

in both cases citing Ernst 2007 (PMID 17606755). But the cited source does not contain those statistics. On the contrary, the cited source directly supports the original text; for example, the source says in its abstract "the incidence of such events is not known".

• It removes the following text:

" A 2005 systematic review of economic evaluations of conservative treatments for low back pain found that significant quality problems in available studies meant that definite conclusions could not be drawn about the most cost-effective intervention."

which sources van der Roer et al. 2005 (PMID 15949783).

None of these three changes, as far as I know, have been discussed on the talk page. The first two changes are obviously incorrect, in that they create unsourced text. The third change removes well-sourced text without any justification. Repeatedly installing this same controversial and low-quality edit, against consensus, is wasting editors' time. Eubulides (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn has been blocked under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions for 72 hours. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Critical view of chiropractic

This critical view of chiropractic may have some good ideas to expand this page or we can create a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i dont think it would be a good idea to create a new page under that topic... ill have to go read WP:NPOV again but i think there is something in there about having balanced articles 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A new article with that title would be a classic POV fork. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.

(The following resolve otherwise-dangling references: )