User:Dematt/Chiropractic Defintions
Subluxation
[edit]from ICA web site
- SPINAL ADJUSTMENT AND SPINAL MANIPULATION
- The ICA holds that the chiropractic spinal adjustment is unique and singular to the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic adjustment shall be defined as a specific directional thrust that sets a vertebra into motion with the intent to improve or correct vertebral malposition or to improve it juxtaposition segmentally in relationship to its articular mates thus reducing or correcting the neuroforaminal/neural canal encroachment factors inherent in the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex.
- The adjustment is characterized by a specific thrust applied to the vertebra utilizing parts of the vertebra and contiguous structures as levers to directionally correct articular malposition. Adjustment shall be differentiated from spinal manipulation in that the adjustment can only be applied to a vertebral malposition with the express intent to improve or correct the subluxation, whereas any joint, subluxated or not, may be manipulated to mobilize the joint or to put the joint through its range of motion.
- Chiropractic is a specialized field in the healing arts, and by prior rights, the spinal adjustment is distinct and singular to the chiropractic profession.
- I am User:Dematt. It is my opinion that KrishnaVindaloo knowingly and for the purpose of POV pushing manufactured OR by violating NOR:Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position particularly that concerning:
- Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
- Please note that when specifically asked by an editor whether the referenced work actually made the statement, KrishnaVindaloo's response was "Ford is a peer revewed article that specifically says chiropractic is pseudoscietifically applied to curing homosexuality etc" when concern about Ford, an article that was offline and could not be checked by corroborating editors, not being a good source for using chiropractic in the sentence. This is the statement that caused me to consider the consequences that Assume Good Faith was no longer possible against this editor who was behaving in a Wikipedia:Disruptive editor manner.
- I invite you to start here in the Pseudoscience article and continue down until you can't take it anymore, like User:Gleng
- KrishnaVindaloo has since moved to the Vitalism article and has resumed his tendentious editing; disrupting quality encyclopedic text with non-sequitur insertions of similar text.
- As a direct result, the WP community has lost a valuableeditor here at WP.
- Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
- I have attempted several times to work with KrishnaVindaloo in a cooperative manner, even writing for the enemy in the Chiropractic page, Pseudoscience page and now even the Vitalism page. He has yet to show any signs of working with us.