User talk:Drsjpdc/archive 3

Talkback

Hello, Drsjpdc. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009

Hello, Drsjpdc. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drsjpdc. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ICA status

I'm wondering what your reasoning is behind this edit. While the ICA and WCA are microscopic organizations, I do agree they should be in the template and have articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Brangifer- The ICA name is a misnomer. Everyone thinks they are International, when they are in reality a small National Association, which seeks to obtain individual members from around the world. They ARE charter members of the World Federation of Chiropractic, and there were special concessions made to allow BOTH the ICA and the ACA to join from the US. This alone is proof that they are a national association. Check the WFC's membership list. They are an NCA from the USA, they do not compete with the WFC. I don't agree with other stuff you have written, but I DO understand this confusion, it's a common problem, and I suspect they to some extent thrive on this. It doesn;t mean we have to promote a misconception. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the ICA is the oldest chiropractic association, but it has a limited membership, and the ACA is the official American national association, if one can even say that. There is indeed some confusion. I know that the ICA and WCA both try to use "international" titles, and I know they also have members who live in other countries. They aren't really "national" associations, according to the heading in the template, but push a straight agenda, rather than a national interest. As such they are indeed international. Their competition with each other and with the ACA has been very bitter. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment- don't you think that the fact that the ICA signed the charter with the WFC, which is unquestionable the preeminent World agency in the profession, and the only Association to hold status with WHO, as a NATIONAL association, representing the US, is sufficient reason per se, to place them as a National association?

The WCA is another matter. Although they masquerade as a World agency, their accreditation as such leaves much to be proven. They have actively interfered with the operations of legitimate National Associations, and even succeeded in causing the defeat of a licensing law in Hungary, after years of work by the local Association. This left a law that allowed allopaths to practice Chiropractic, and set the Hungarian association back years. But, I left them in the "International" category, because though personally I don't think they are even a National "Association", and probably haven;t earned a place on the template. Unless there's a new spot for "gadfly organizations", since they fail many tests of legitimate "Associations" including democracy, they at least operate in that arena openly. And it was an effort to be objective, and not "synthesize" here. Which is what I think you are doing in this argument. As to the ICA, they only maintain individual members in other countries. So, for that matter does the ACA. I was a mamber of the Mexican Chiropractic Association, does that make either of THEM International?

Personally I am not a member of either organization, exactly so I can remain a neutral outsider. I felt my position in FICS created a need for me to do just that. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I readily admit I'm not sure how to interpret the WFC Council membership list other than just that - the members of the council. They are individuals representing their individual associations, and it lists their locations and/or the locations of their associations. What makes me think you are correct, and that there are two national associations representing the USA, is what happens when one clicks on the drop down menu at the top of the page. There are TWO(!) listings for the USA, and one is for the ACA and the other for the ICA. I thought I couldn't learn more about chiropractic (of course I can ;-), but I did here. (I've studied the profession for many years and have written a book about it at the request of a number of chiropractors and medical professionals. It will likely never be published because of death threats from irate chiropractors, and now much of what I wrote is out of date, so I'd have to rewrite it anyway.)

As to your other point, you're probably right that it would be more correct to place the WCA in some other category, as they aren't representing a country so much as a philosophy of practice. Maybe they shouldn't be in the template at all. If it weren't for the above, the same would apply to the ICA, which is just like the WCA - it also fights more for an ideology and commercial practice building than it does for a national interest. Make whatever changes you feel are appropriate and let's see how they fare. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, we actually agree on this? How good are u? I haven't figured out yet, how to modify that template. I.e., to create another category of "Other". Perhaps that's where they both belong? -^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect we could agree on a lot of things! I have good working relationships with certain chiropractors here, notably User:Dematt. I'll take a look at the template and see if I can fix it. Come on by and correct my errors. Scratch that. On second thought, if we create an "other" category, we'll end up with every practice builder and their mother, and the template will end up duplicating Category:Chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IAOCO

Dig - see:
see also  : "he recently help form the IAOCO...."
See too this book:
Listed by Palmer University's Library as important link:
Listed as resource by New Zealand Chiro Assoc. And:
And: ,br> And in Thailand: ,br>

^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Got your message now ;). I will look at these references over the next few days. DigitalC (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref 1) Only a link, in a section of National and International Associations. Does not establish notability, and is not useful as a reference, as it gives no information about the association.

Ref 2) Again does not give us much information, just that you "recently helped form the International Academy of Olympic Chiropractic Officers (IAOCO)". Again, it neither demonstrates notability, nor is it useful as a reference.

Ref 3) The only mention I see is the name of the association, and the website.

Ref 4) Again, simply a link in a list of other associations

Ref 5) Again, simply a link.

Ref 6) Again, simply a link.

Ref 7) Again, simply a link.

None of these establish notability in any way. What we need is a reliable source that gives significant coverage to IAOCO. Newspaper articles, books that have written a paragraph about the IAOCO, etc. Further, we need references which gives us the information which we use to write the article. None of these gave us any information, other than that you helped to form it. Based on what you have found so far, I have my doubts that IAOCO is notable enough to have an article. Lets remember that FICS was a hard enough article to find references that gave it notability, and FICS is a much more known organization than IAOCO is.

DigitalC (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a better ref

Please find a better ref/source than this. We need it to be verifiable, so we need a specific reference for those exact words. Give a URL and a page number if you can, otherwise this isn't a specific enough ref for me to know why you chose that wording. It sounds like OR to me. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume that BullRangifer is referring to the legal opinion in Wilk v. AMA that Dr. Press has cited. The standards of verifiability say: "Verifiability implies that any one can check the cited sources to verify the information stated in a Wikipedia article. This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously, without any cost or effort. For example, some on-line sources may require payment to view; and some print sources may only be accessible in specific university libraries. The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources." I.e. a source does not have to be freely available online in order to be valid. As long as the source is accessible to a broad range of users (i.e. not classified or held privately in someone's private collection), then the source is valid as verification. I don't think any improvement is needed in this reference. If you care to, you might add this link which is a record of the appeal of the original case. I would (and will) reword the sentence to be not quite so inflammatory toward the AMA and say rather that "In Wilk v AMA, the AMA was found guilty of violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act by setting up its 'Commission on Quackery' aimed specifically at discrediting chiropractic."—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with WikiDan. Please do so.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiDan61, I'm well aware of the rules for sourcing and verifiability, and I'll refactor my comment to avoid misunderstanding. My concern is that without the ability to see the source, I couldn't know if the particular wording was justified. The one who includes the wording is obligated to provide justification for using that wording by showing the wording in the source that justifies it. It read like OR to me and I was wondering if there was something in that case I hadn't noticed from previous readings. A general ref isn't good enough to verify that choice of wording. I'd like to know the page and the wording.

Thanks for your attempt at fixing it, but your wording is still problematic as the ruling contained no objection (that I can recall) to the Commission on Quackery, but to the boycott. THAT was what violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The judge made it clear that the AMA's concerns about quackery were justified, but that they had chosen the wrong method to deal with the situation. They should have chosen less drastic measures than a boycott. Criticism is still justified and doesn't violate the Wilk's judgment. Only a nationwide boycott by an organization of the stature of the AMA would do so.

Even some notable chiropractors and historians admit and are concerned about the rampant quackery that has always plagued characterized the profession. I struck "plagued" because it's the wrong word, since quackery has been the normal modus operandi for the profession since its beginning, and only in recent years has there been some limited effort to oppose it and counteract it. See NACM. It's hard to change the course of a large ship moving at increasing speed. It takes time and lots of effort, and it has to rely on a united effort from the bridge to do it, and that effort hasn't been united, since even presidents of the ACA have denied there was a problem, and have gone on the defensive when unscientific practices and unethical marketing has been pointed out. Until that denial stops at the leadership level, it will still be a problem, albeit somewhat less than before, but still a major problem. Even today there is hardly a page of Dynamic Chiropractic That doesn't contain marketing for some form of quackery or practicing building scheme or scam. Ethical chiropractors are growing in numbers and they don't go on the defensive when they read such words. They admit there's a problem and they try to do something about it. Occasionally some of them even write about it in that same magazine! Now that's exciting to read. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiDan61, I take back some of what I said since you didn't actually use that wording in your edit, and it's the edit that counts. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CCEI Logo

The following is in response to this content. Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I immediately went to remove the "logo" after seeing your last reply, and found you jumped the gun and did this for me. I admit that I have been known to have this "style" and there are those who take umbrage occasionally. Sorry you had to be one of them.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "jumping the gun". A logo was uploaded improperly, and WikiDan removed it. DigitalC (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

whhoooppsss!

sorry!! misclick! haha A8UDI 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Drsjpdc! Congratulations on your eventual victory on the Howard Press article. Now that the matter's resolved, I just wanted to say I appreciated your persistence and politeness throughout that debate in the face of very personal involvement in the subject matter. Here's hoping you keep contributing to Wikipedia for some time to come!

DustFormsWords has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Agreed! You have behaved like a gentleman and I'm sure this incident has been a learning experience. I see good potential for you as an editor here and look forward to working with you. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines, etc.

"These were the times which tried men's souls": Thanks Brangifer, So did you. It's interesting, as to what we DO agree about, and what we don't. I am hoping to change some of your negative opinions about Chiropractic. I would like to disagree about your comment regarding the modus operandi, as the entire profession has undergone a sea change in those attitude since the advent of CCE accreditation around 1977-78. The people whose views you have taken to task are getting pretty old now and are being replaced with those my age or younger who received a modern scientific (non-inbred) education, post CCE. I daresay that its a small minority who cling to "innate" as a religion, or who totally oppose vaccination, or use of pharmacotherapeutic agents. Speaking for myself, I am not opposed to any of those things, only to their abuse, e.g. indiscriminate prescribing of antibiotics for, e.g coryza, or influenzas, (BTW: so does the CDC), and too many, too soon vaccinations in young children. As a clinician, I am concerned for my patients re: the thimerosal in those vaccines which still contain it, for legitimate reasons (all organo-metals are known neurotoxins). etc., etc. If THAT makes me a "Cultist" then THIS I accept, as I imagine I am in very good company.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As a Chiropractor, vaccines are not within your scope of practice though. Well, I guess that is probably a state-by-state issue. Maybe I should say that vaccines should not be within your scope of practice. Thank goodness some chiropractic associations agree. DigitalC (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Dig, I am sure glad that you didn't write our scope of practice laws. Moreover, I think you confuse the administration of vaccines, with providing patients with advice on public health matters, which is very much a part of my job, pretty much anywhere. As to the Associations which "agree". With whom? And with what? I rather doubt that any mainstream association would take a position that as a Physician, practicing Chiropractic in New Jersey, I have no right to an opinion, or to assist my patients in making their own decisions about such matters. What am I supposed to say to them, "I am not allowed to tell you what I think?" One of my patients recently alerted to the fact that the CDC has a list of ingredients of the new H1N1 vaccine, did his own research online and found a CDC site that lists both thimerosal and SQUALENE as ingredients in 90% and 80% (respectively) of production of the new vaccines the government is promoting for the latest paranoia about this swine flu. This is neither the 1918 pandemic, nor is it even as severe as most annual flus. Moreover it appears to have peaked now, at least here in NJ. Of the approx 126 children who died, at least 80% had several underlying complicating conditions, and the number of overall deaths attributable to this H1Ni specifically, seems to have been less than the usual annual numbers. (Still a tragedy, but by no means the public health menace that was presented). Squalene is a known carcinogen, seriously implicated in the tumors reported in Gulf War Syndrome victims. I will have to have far more data of its safety, before I could suggest to patients who ask me that they fill their children's veins with this poison. My wife was a pediatrician for 20 years in St. Petersburg, and is an RN here, and she ill not take this stuff.

I also hear, though I have yet to confirm, that the government has already passed a bill to hold the manufacturers of these vaccines, immune from lawsuits which may stem from their ingredients or manufacturing processes. Let's do an article on one of our sandboxes, and let's see what what we dig out???^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't ever think a Chiropractor should be "suggesting to patients" anything about vaccines, and I am glad that Chiropractors here aren't allowed to - "Chiropractors may not, in their professional capacity, treat or advise patients/others with respect to immunization/vaccination as it is outside their scope of practice". I think that Chiropractors should, if asked, inform patients that vaccination is not within their scope of practice, and advise the patient to consult a health care practioner that does have vaccination within their scope of practice. As for associations that agree, I was referring to the Canadian Chiropractic Association, which "accepts vaccination as a cost-effective and clinically efficient public health preventative procedure for certain viral and microbial diseases, as demonstrated by the scientific community". One of the differences between Canadian Chiropractic and American Chiropractic which shows that American Chiropractic is still in the dark ages. Further, I'd love to see some reliable sources that state that squalene is carcinogenic, and at what concentrations - remember that this is a chemical that the human body synthesizes itself. DigitalC (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the statement of the CCA, I TOO AGREE. I can see you really didn't read what I wrote. And you took that out of context. I am certainly 'not against vaccination, but agree that for certain diseases it is very important and appropriate. My own children were inoculated against polio, DPT, etc. I would fr example, be opposed to the sudden reintroduction of smallpox vaccine, unless there were a release from the CDC or the Russian labs where its stored, as the disease is considered extinct, for example. I am opposed to its inclusion of thimerosal, or other contaminants, like squalene in any concentration. The human body needs small amounts of arsenic, selenium, and other substances which when taken EXTRINSICALLY in significant amounts, are usually accompanied by poisonous effects. I am sure that the ACA too agrees generally with that statement. (Not the clip from the law, which was apparently a capitulation to the powerful medical lobby in Canada). Remember how t NY lost the right to use the word "physician". I.e. to get licensing in a state with 1/3 of the AMA practicing there? I suspect it was the same thing in whatever province's stature you are quoting. But now I understand your posture on the word "physician". BTW: B/C-B/S just redefined DC's as "physicians" in all federal plans here.

^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BIO Comments, etc.

Dig - thanks again for the time consuming work you did to help me clean this up and ready it fr prime time. I tried to follow all your suggestions for [1] There are a few things that should go back when I locate the references (all of which are true: its just finding online references).

I answered most of your questions on the discussion page for the article [2]. Thanks again. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Do I have permission to edit the page while it is in sandbox mode? Maybe clean it up a little? DigitalC (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Certainly! And greatest appreciation again for all your work on this! ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Weekly World News

Dr. Press, are you seriously asking the Wikipedia community to accept the Weekly World News as a reliable source as you have done in this article?? (WIKIDAN left unsigned) Replaced with JAMA article^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irving Dardik, MD

Dr. Press, you may have once again opened a door you may not be able to close. In creating the article on Irving Dardik, MD, you no doubt sought to write about a man you feel to be praiseworthy. However, his major accomplishment in life seems to have been the abandonment of a promising career in vascular surgery to chase after a questionable and controversial alternative therapy. The press on him appears more bad than good, and by creating his article here on Wikipedia, you invite more scrutiny of his life than he may have wished. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drsjpdc. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of Chiropractors

Brang, Eubulides; this title is clearly not realistic. There's no one list name that really describes this entry. THAT's why I split the list. Historic Figures did fine to describe those who were gone and who contributed to the profession's history. Prominent Figures in Chiropractic really does allow all the people listed. But "List of Chiropractors" does not allow inclusion of people like Kirkaldy-Willis, Dardik and Chapman-Smith, and there are others somewhere yet to be listed who are not DC's. Why was this merged to CREATE a problem that I frankly thought I fixed? Moreover there is NO proof that Donsbach was ever a DC. He couldn't prove in when threatened with jail. Why should we all be tainted with is inclusion in this list of people who have made POSITIVE contributions? (if only by their collateral celebrity).^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 00:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to be following and carrying on this conversation where it's already happening, on the article's talk page. Please copy your post there and I'll respond. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely this discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Eubulides (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tom hyde.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tom hyde.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File replaced with own work and appropriately released.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

SJP Article

Moved to discussion page of [[3]] ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of DC terminology

Dr. Press -- while I understand that you are striving to increase the respect for the chiropractic profession, your use of the term "DC" over the term "chiropractor" is probably not helpful. Few people in the real world refer to chiropractors as DCs, and use of the term adds confusion rather than clarity to articles. We don't see articles peppered with the term "MD" rather than "doctor"; we shouldn't see "DC" preferred over "chiropractor" either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I do understand your stance in this. We ([sic]DC's) have always had this problem, i.e. that despite that the majority of States define us as "physicians", and that the degree gives us the right to be called "doctor", there is always this not so subtle preference given to MD's for those terms. Probably speaking for the profession, I can tell you we have (except those who call themselves "straight", or (worse) "principled" (laughingly, as though the majority of us are un-principled) Chiropractors, too, always seen this distinction as perhaps unconsciously but nevertheless, pejorative.

Frankly the most accurate, and least offensive means of drawing this distinction between the professions, is to use the terms "allopath" for "allopathic physician", and "chiropath" for "Chiropathic" physician, but alas, both terms remain rather esoteric and a bit arcane. Can you help (?) other than to use only "chiropractor" for DC and "physician" for MD, which fails to adequately describe either?^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the term chiropractor fail to describe a chiropractor? DigitalC (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How does "queer" fail to describe a gay man? Gay men call one another "queer" all the time. OK, it's not exactly the same, because we are after all Chiropractors. It's the contextual usage, and the essential comparison this elucidates. We (mainstream Chiropractic) have worked as a profession for the degree recognition (and have the legislation) that entitles us to be called "Doctor", and as I have explained a dozen times before, in most states (and the Federal gov't), "physician". Chiropractic, as defined by the World Federation of Chiropractic is the second largest mainstream health profession (more than Osteopaths, and less than Allopaths). We as a profession, officially, do NOT want to be considered "alternative and complementary medicine". Thus, when WIKI separates Allopath from Chiropath with "physician" and "chiropractor" it feels pejorative. And, when WIKI lists us with crystal therapy, iridology, and reflexology in that CAM list, let's face facts, that in fact it is a more or less deliberate, and not-so-subtle put-down. And THAT is what is being communicated and promulgated here. I would like to find a common ground that can better, and with less implied insult, differentiate us. That's all I am asking. Maybe you guys can help me find that set of terms, or a means of communicating a more educated differentiation to the world. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of all of the subtleties and what you hope to convey using initials, please review MOS:BIO (WP:CREDENTIAL) and WP:NCP for Wikipedia standards on using credentials, honorifics, and titles in text. ^Bongo_matic 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a dentist a DDM, but I wouldn't call a dentist a physician either. I would call a dentist a dentist, the same as I would call a chiropractor a chiropractor. I certainly don't consider it a perjorative. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. DigitalC (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan, that's fine. So, since I am a "physician" under New Jersey laws, what about "Chiropractor", for NY DC's and "Chiropractic Physician" for someone like me from a state which recognizes physician status? (assuming one knows where they are from and what they prefer)?? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We try to maintain a worldwide view on Wikipedia. While chiropractors in some areas may calls themselves Chiropractic Physicians, as far as I know, chiropractors EVERYWHERE can call themselves chiropractors. (Digital C - unsigned)

But Dentists are not physicians anywhere but in Russia, as I understand. Remember I was in Geneva when a WHO definition of physician was being discussed. And my input was that "a Physician - is one who is licensed to diagnose and treat human diseases, and is not anatomically limited". Thus a podiatrist may be a surgeon but not a physician, similarly a dentist can be a dental surgeon but is not a physician. Whereas as DC is a physician, but not a surgeon. The point being that the word physician is a generic term for a people doctor, and is not a term OWNED by the AMA^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia usage is not dicated by the laws of New Jersey or of Russia, but rather by Wikipedia's content and style policy guidelines. The English Wikipedia, in particular, is supposed to be in English, which means that the consensus dictionary definitions of words are to be ascribed to their meanings. Using a word in a sense that is permitted under law but that is not the words predominant meaning goes against the style guide. See WP:MOS#Follow the sources. Note that this is literally in the first major section of MOS after the lede because it is such a fundamental principle of editing. ^Bongo_matic 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since chiropractors are not classified as physicians in all jurisdictions, and since their use of the term is disputed, since they shouldn't even be considering themselves able to treat all diseases (only straights do that), then the most commonly used term, which is legitimate everywhere, is preferred. Just use "chiropractor" and you won't have any problems. While I admit that it is legally allowed for chiropractors in some jurisdictions to call themselves "physicians", the following are interesting:

• Notice to Chiropractors: “Chiropractic Physician” Term No Longer Permitted, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, August 2008

• "...there seems to be little doubt that a chiropractic "physician" who treats disease in a general practice not only falls short in his training but also falls short in his treatment method." Samuel Homola, DC, Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism

• In the USA, literally ANYONE can call themselves "doctor". The term, unless qualified properly, has little meaning. That's why Palmer could title himself and his graduates "Doctor of Chiropractic". That title was legally classified by HEW as a "spurious" title for many years.

You would do well to read the following and take it to heart:

• How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry, Murphy, et al, Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2008, 16:10doi:10.1186/1746-1340-16-10

Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here. The problem isn't one of legal definition, it's one of clarity. Whatever the legal terms and definitions may be, most people in the English-speaking world refer to chiropractic practitioners as "chiropractors" not as "DCs". Since this is the most common usage, this is the term that should be used in articles. We are striving for a clear encyclopedia here, not a legal document. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no hornet's nest. This is an explication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies (not to mention common sense) that can help the key contributors to this article avoid pitfalls. This should be useful in the event that this article is released to mainspace. All the back and forth philosophy, linguistics, and politics is fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with what will be permitted by the community to stand in a mainspace article. ^Bongo_matic 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

More violations of WP:NPA and WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is absurd. How do we know that Barrett, who's website this comes from, didn;t write this himself? There are no references here. Such a page would never be accepted by ANY of you as a reference from any article I could have written. Besides, the title Doctor, is legislated by each State and by the Federal Government for DHEW and insurance reimbursement purposes. Is Brangifer now saying that DC's with legitimate degrees and licenses (unlike Barett , who admits he has no license to practice) are not "doctors" legitimately?Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Not only did you interject your comment in the middle of my own comment, which is very bad form, you are violating several policies and are just plain wrong in regards to both Barrett and Homola. It is not without reason that the source of your misinformation has been banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee. He's totally undependable. Even when something he writes is based on some element of truth, he misuses it, as you are doing. Barrett is licensed. He was never "delicensed as claimed by TB. He did let his license lapse for a while, since he didn't need it, but he has reactivated it. He has always been in good standing. Take a look here: Barrett's license information is found here. Just use license number MD005361E . You really do need to get the hatred of quackbusters and chiroskeptics out of your blood. They are the ones who are trying to clean up the profession, so they are really its best friends, since the profession itself seems unable to clean up its own act. Make up your mind whether you are for or against the "rampant quackery" (chiropractic author statement) within the profession. Yes, things are better than before, but there's a long way to go. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Severe libelous BLP violation and use of blacklisted link
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
as to Brangifer's three "references", I totally reject the first THREE as the come from his favorite source of Chiro-lible, Barrett. Homola was a graduate (some 50 years ago) of an education that cannot be held as reflective of that which our members have had since at least when I graduated (admittedly at the beginning of accredited education). Practically anyone who started school prior to me (Sept 1975) did not have an accredited education; and the difference was huge! I was class president in NYCC when the NYS Board of regents came in to review the place. We were the first class there to get accredited. So am an eye witness to the change. Homola appears for all the world, to be a self-hating, pre-accreditation, poorly educated, retired DC whom Barrett can USE for his slanderous purposes. Together they make a living out of libeling Chiropractic. I find it disgusting. And FAR from a reliable POV. It is so obviously steeped in Barrett's BIAS that it can really not be accepted by anyone without a similar ANTI-chiropractic and thus not really WIKI, bent. There is a site I could also quote about the results of Barrett's sterling reputation in the Courts. www.quackpotwatch.org This is posted by an Attorney, disgusted with the goings on of this source that somehow got past the WikiCensors. Д-рСДжП,ДС 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Murphy article has some truth and some wishful thinking, but at least it comes from a reputable source.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr Press and others seem to be wildly off point in this discussion. If any of them would care to undertake an article on the legal status of the chiropractic profession around the world, these issues may well be germane to that article. But for general articles on chiropractic and its practitioners, the term "chiropractor" is to be preferred over other terms as it is the term that people actually use. It may not be the term chiropractors use to describe themselves, but it is the term everyone else uses, and since most of Wikipedia's readership comes from "everyone else", their preferred term should be used. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, if the general public, generally called Dentists "Tooth-Yankers", that would be wiki's standard? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If that were the accepted, non-slang term among the general public, then yes, that would be the Wikipedia standard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to a source of erudition, not a means to promulgate illiteracy?^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand (or simply choose not to listen). While the technical species name of the common house dog is canis lupus familiaris, we do not pepper articles with that term. We use the word "dog". Why? Because everyone knows what a dog is, and while canis lupus familiaris is technically correct, it does not impart as much information to the wide audience that Wikipedia tries to address. "Dog" does. Technical correctness often leads to obscurity rather than clarity. Have you read a credit card agreement lately? Everything in that agreement is technically correct, but no one can understand what it says, because it is written specifically to be obscure, not clear. Our goal at Wikipedia is not erudition, as you claim, but clear communication. The two goals rarely coincide. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I was too harsh about Homola, and even Barrett there. I was simply stating facts about the education of Chiropractors generally, pre-accreditation. This would apply to anyone, not just Homola. Before CCE the schools provided what was known as an "inbred" education. They hired their own graduates to teach, say biochemistry, who had studied it from another graduate etc. This went on ad nauseum, until CCE required that they get faculty who actually had studied that science and had a graduate degree in it. Like the fact that DD Palmer sold fish; it's a part of our history we can't alter after the fact. But there are other DC's who, like Homola, write things about what is appropriate for a Chiropractor to diagnose, or treat, whose education really did NOT qualify THEM to do so. Unfortunately that only means that its those DC's whose education was inadequate for the scope that they disparage, not a modern one.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)