Talk:Chiropractic

There is a page Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log for the use of uninvolved administrators in managing this article.

Mediation in progress at Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation

Reflexology

This edit added material about reflexology that has nothing to do with chiropractic, material that is supported by a source (Norman 1989) that has nothing to do with chiropractic. This is an article about chiropractic, not about reflexology. Chiropractic's brief mention of reflexology in relation to chiropractic is well-sourced (the source being Murphy et al. 2008, PMID 18759966); it would be a WP:WEIGHT violation for us to go into more detail about reflexology than our relevant source does, even if our extra information is supported by a reliable (but irrelevant) source. For now, I removed this addition. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Marriage of convenience

This edit added opinion from Murphy et al. 2008 (PMID 18759966) that chiropractic is "a marriage of convenience that has not worked, and that there can be no unity between the two groups" along with a long quote to support this opinion. I don't agree that the quote supports the text; it could well be talking about many groups, not just two. Also, this addition raises WP:WEIGHT concerns; we are already emphasizing the opinions of Murphy et al. heavily in that paragraph, and it doesn't feel right to push this one source so much further. Furthermore, it's hardly ever necessary to put a long quote in a citation when the reader can just go read the source (it's freely readable). For now, I undid the change. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard format

This edit changed the format. I prefer the standard paragraph format. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the formatting to the standard paragraph format. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that standard paragraphs should be preferred. I vaguely recall this being discussed on the talk-page before, with the consensus being to prefer in-text discussion to bullet lists. The Wikipedia manual of style has a preference in that direction as well, if memory serves. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording changes

Is this wording change better. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the cited source (Cooper & McKee 2003, PMID 12669653, p. 107), says "massage therapists", not "physical therapists". We should stick to what the source says. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I made this change to reflect the body of the atricle. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see #2009-03-30 edit war below. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-30 edit war

I see that a small edit war has recently broken out, as follows:

• Adding a "pseudoscience".

• Reverting the above edit.
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).

• Rewriting "It is generally often considered to be a form of complementary and alternative medicine, a characterization that many chiropractors reject though many chiropractors reject that characterization."

• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).

• Rewriting "a notion that brings ridicule from discounted by mainstream science and medicine"

• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).

• Quoting the words "solid science".

• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reverting the above edit (plus some other things).
• Reinstalling the above edit (plus some other things).

Please don't edit-war like this. Edits like these should be discussed before installing them; at the very minimum they must be discussed when they are reverted. The above edits were installed and reverted and reinstalled etc. without any discussion whatsoever; this is inappropriate here.

Many of these edits have been discussed at some length before. Some comments:

• There is no need to say both "pseudoscience" and "not based on solid science". This is redundant. We should use one phrase or the other.
• There is no need to quote "solid science". No reliable source claims that the chiropractic theory of subluxations is a scientific one, or is rigorously scientific, or is based on solid science, or anything like that. Reliable sources agree that chiropractic subluxations are more of a philosophical construct. Placing unnecessary quotes around "solid science" impeaches the reliable source, which inserts our editorial opinion, and this is inappropriate.
• The replacement of "generally" with "often" strays from reliable sources, which agree that chiropractic is generally considered to be CAM. It's not just the cited source; for example, Jekel et al. 2001 (ISBN 0721690793), p. 332, says "The boundaries of what constitutes CAM are not clearly defined. Some disciplines generally considered alternative, such as chiropractic and acupuncture, ..."
• The replacement of "that brings ridicule from" with "discounted by" is not supported by the cited source, Keating et al. 2005 (PMID 16092955), which says "ridicule from the scientific and health care communities and confusion within the chiropractic profession". The source never says "discounted by" or anything like "discounted by".

I see now that these edits were just now reverted with the comment "Discuss on talk page and get consensus first.", a comment I agree with. However, two of the edits were discussed in mediation first, with consensus; please see #Noncontroversial edits so far below. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Noncontroversial edits so far

Of all the edits made and reverted in the past day or so, two were discussed in mediation and were not controversial there, and I think they were reverted in error (perhaps under the mistaken impression that they were controversial)?. I suggest that they be installed. Here they are:

• Remove "A 2008 literature synthesis found fair evidence supporting assurance and advice to stay active for sciatica and radicular pain in the leg." This edit had been discussed a while ago in Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation#Other, and had never been disagreed with.
• Remove "the benefits being pain relief, functional improvement, and global perceived effect for subacute/chronic mechanical neck disorder". Again, this edit was discussed a while ago in Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation#Comments on whiplash and other neck pain and never disagreed with.

Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel these passages whould be removed? (In my view, mediation was a failure and is dead now as only one editor is using it to carry on a conversation with himself. Let's not assume that anything this editor writes there has any semblance of consensus.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think mediation had some successes and some failures. But to turn to these passages, the first one highlights relatively-low-quality ("fair") evidence, which raises a WP:WEIGHT issue, as the rest of the section focuses on higher-quality evidence. The second passage discusses one review at greater length than other reviews, by mentioning where it found improvements (this wasn't done for other reviews), again raising a WP:WEIGHT issue. In both cases, the text is bulking up a section that editors seem to agree is overly long; since the text is of marginal utility and has weight problems here, it's reasonable to remove it. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "Lawrence-2008" should be eliminated just because it found "fair" evidence. The current wording is quite explicit at describing the findings. And the second one also presents the findings rather succinctly. Granted, the second one does come from Ernst who is cited no less that 13 times in this article, so I can see a general WEIGHT violation in the overuse of Ernst as source, but I see no reason to pick out this passage in particular. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted someone to nominate this article for Featured Article ('coz it's pretty NPOV), but looking at the notice, I'm wondering if it's possible?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't NPOV, I'm sure V can have a POV tag on the article.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridicule and confusion

A recent edit altered the lead's discussion of subluxation, replacing this:

a notion that brings ridicule from mainstream science and medicine.

with this:

a "notion [that] brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities and confusion within the chiropractic profession."

This change runs afoul of WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should use summary style and should summarize what the body says. This quote does not summarize what the body says. Even if it did summarize the body, the quote is lengthy enough that it raises significant WP:WEIGHT issues: why should the lead devote so much space to the ridicule and confusion caused by subluxation? I suggest that the change be reverted for now and discussed here first. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I was only reacting to Ludwigs2's attempt to significantly alter the statement, which was backed up by Levine2112. Let it return to its previous state before it was subjected to tampering. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alberta will no longer pay for chiropractic

Under its new budget, Alberta will no longer pay for chiropractic services. They calculate it will save $53 million. They will also no longer pay for sex change operations.

• Chiropractic care delisted from Alberta health plan

-- Fyslee (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)