Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Stroke information in the article introduction

"It has been suggested that the relationship is causative,[18] but this is disputed by many chiropractors, who believe the association between chiropractic therapy and vertebrobasilar artery stroke is unproven.[19]". I think the debate regarding stroke being caused by vs associated with cervical manipulation is not as simple as it is presented. For one, it is not just disputed by chiropractors but also by Osteopathic physicians (http://files.academyofosteopathy.org/MemberResourceGuide/AOAPositionPaperOMTCervicalSpine.pdf) and US physiotherapists (http://www.apta.org/Media/Releases/Consumer/2014/8/7/). Furthermore, one of the current references discusses 26 cases and yet there is no reference to the Cassidy study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271108/) that is based on over 10 years of people seeing chiropractors in a province with a population of ~10 million. I'm all up for informing the public, but I think that one sentence is just a quick inaccurate cheap shot that selectively presents evidence and makes chiropractors look ignorant (remember DOs and DPT dispute this as well). I think it's best to mention the controversy of cervical manipulation in the article introduction but present the WHOLE evidence in its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.237.198 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Page views

If you look at the page view stats for this page, on March 21-22, this page got a huge boost in views. 21st: 113,946 22nd: 80,267. These are well above the average of the pages. It could simply be an error on the page. But if true, did that mean this page was linked to from somewhere very popular?

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Chiropractic#

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That's so huge that it could be a glitch. Otherwise it could well be that there was some type of internet activity, likely news coverage of the topic itself, not necessarily this article. Then people start searching and find the article. My Google Alerts for chiropractic don't turn up any special activity around that time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a bug – I've seen similar unexplained peaks for other articles. The Wiki ViewStats tool [1] is supposedly more reliable, but that doesn't seem to be working at the moment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards bug. The article would have be listed on the front page to get views of that order. And I also noticed no spike in editing on those days too. I think I'll report it to the devs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"medical specialty" comment

There is a POV comment in the lede promoting Chiropractic, "they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry". "medical speciality" seeks to portray chiropractic as being legitimate medicine instead of it's status as alternative medicine. The source of this quote is based on is written by a Chiropractic. There is obviously a conflict of interest here. Furthermore, this statement is not based on evidence in a scientific paper but rather the Chiropractic's opinion. This should not be be stated in wikipedia's voice.Smk65536 (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this is the edit being discussed. It looks like this attempted edit has been reverted by a couple different editors already, suggesting there is no consensus for this change. The text is sourced to a peer-reviewed article in 'Annals of Internal Medicine', which is a high-quality, mainstream medical journal [2]. The source thus complies with MEDRS. Is there an equally high-quality source that refutes the idea that chiropractic is more like a specialty, rather than primary-care? If not, then there seems to be no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.253.158 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The journal is indeed high quality, but you have not responded to my comments above. The use of the source is an opinion of the author, it is not a medical claim, nor backed by any evidence. Also, your argument doesn't stand up. Is there a published refutation of every fringe view on the planet? I think not. Smk65536 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That content does not promote chiropractic. In fact it's not popular among those chiropractors (many of them) who wish to place themselves on a par with an MD GP, IOW they claim to treat all diseases by finding subluxations and correcting them, whereafter the body supposedly functions better and heals itself. That's obvious BS, and that quote tends toward exposing that view as erroneous. The authors tend to promote chiropractic as a therapy for spinal health, IOW for bad backs, which happens to be the primary reason people seek out chiros.

The article makes it clear that chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine. That is not changed, nor does the disputed content affect that in any manner. That it is written by chiropractors is not a problem, since it is not unduly promotional. Chiropractic sources are not only allowed, they are required in an article like this. They are just not allowed to be unduly promotional or stand alone without any balance from other, non-chiropractic, sources. They are an opinion which is not disputed in any RS, even among chiroskeptics like myself. It's quite accurate. It's an opinion which kneecaps the dreams of many chiros for their profession, and it comes from leaders in the profession. That's quite amazing.

The sourcing is impeccable. There can be no objection there.

You're going to have to reach a strong consensus before that content will be deleted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede refutation

I would just like to submit that:

and although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry.

Should read:

and although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are often confused with medical professionals rather than alternative health practitioners.

This will remove any confusion from the lede, and also fix the contention of the fact that dentists, and podiatrists are medical professionals with a foundation in real observational science based off of evidence based research, as opposed to 'a ghost taught me to cure blind people by cricking their back' as an origin point. It's absurd that we allow a pseudoscience--albeit in the US a widely accepted, yet still lacking medical efficacy an unscientifically proven pseudoscience--to compare itself with medical professions that are based off of evidence and empirical research as opposed to 'the feelies' or aforementioned cited op ed pieces by 'leaders' in their 'field.' 121.211.56.55 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify my above comment, I subbed it under a new heading given the time delay between the above discussion. I feel that the original post on the subject is addressing some serious points, but not for the reasons they believe it to be the case, but because it's purely not encyclopaedic in it's prose and the lede should address the core of the article rather than fluff about the fringe of more spurious claims made on the topic that are in high contention by members of the medical community. 121.211.56.55 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We're following the wording of the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractic evidence for neck pain

There are people in some quarters that don't take the same un-prejudiced and neutral approach as they do to medicine as they do to 'alternative medicine' or things that have had unorthodox or unscientiffic theories/claims in the past, such as chiropractic. I strongly recommend this statement "Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain" be reviewed as neck pain numerous other health problems are extremely costly to the state. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447299/pdf/0921634.pdf This is an seemingly independent meta-analysis of chiropractic for neck pain from UCLA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased321 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an old, primary, study which does not meet our WP:MEDRS guideline for medical content. For personal information purposes, it does lend support to the advice to use mobilization rather than manipulation. This study is very poorly designed, as it has no control group and includes far too many modalities and factors to be able to make any firm conclusions. It could serve as a pilot study. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Large image

The large image of the founder is a distraction. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To my eye the photo helps give the page context, and makes the page appear more “professional” and or “finished”. The “infobox alternative medicine” contains a field for this by default.

Also this is in line with the page on Homeopathy.

If it is just the size of the photo that you find objectionable please adjust it to a reasonable standard size.Unconventional2 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a following on Wikipedia. Someone else made the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see that Thanks TracyMcClark! Now that I see the change I actually prefer the smaller image. Maybe someone should do the same for the Homeopathy page? Unconventional2 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Now please watch it to see what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

I am requesting to add information about the Canadian Chiropractic Oath, as the is a redirect for Chiropractic Oath and no information in the Wikipedia article. This would seem to be an omission or overlooked content. Thank you.

Lyall "Benny" Sanders Lyall Sanders (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

Dcdcok (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Please place a link the the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) at the beginning of the page. The people who have posted information are very bias against Chiropractic. Unfortunately the latest research and "Evidenced Based Medicine" have been ignored by the editors. Wikipedia could potentially be held libel for damages caused by misinformation. Please contact me to rectify this situation. I love Wikipedia but any profession or business like Wikipedia would not like to be unjustly portrayed by others. Your excuse may be anyone can edit the page but that would be up to a court of law to decide. Ironically the page acts like chiropractors have a big lobby. They most likely have a minuscule lobby compared to orthopedic surgeons! Since Chiropractors have essentially been removed from Worker's Compensation our state has the highest percentage and costs related to spinal fusions. 1 in 5. Not a funny joke when it adds $100,000.00 per case. That definitely needs to be added to Wikipedia. I hope to see this response on your website.

Not done: there is no mention of "the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) at the beginning of the page" to link to, nor should there be, as this is an international encyclopedia – not an advertising medium. As for the rest of your request please read [[WP:No legal threats}} and as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractic as "biography"

The infobox gives the feeling that the article talk about a biography, because it has the photo of Daniel David Palmer. --IM-yb (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

A new Gallup Panel study has been published. The Gallup panel review is here and has also been covered in a peer-reviewed publication here. There is a lot of content in the Gallup poll that I do not think has a place in this article, for example, patient satisfaction and efficacy are better covered with secondary sources. However, there is currently text in the body of the article that details an older Gallup panel and I think that this new data/info could either be added to that section, or replace the older data.

Current text Under the section Ethics it currently says: "According to a 2006 Gallup poll of U.S. adults, when asked how they would "rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in these different fields", chiropractic compared unfavorably with mainstream medicine. When chiropractic was rated, it "rated dead last amongst healthcare professions". While 84% of respondents considered nurses' ethics "very high" or "high," only 36% felt that way about chiropractors. Other healthcare professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, to 62% for dentists, 69% for medical doctors, 71% for veterinarians, and 73% for druggists or pharmacists."

Requested text to add The following text should be added, or replace the current text to make it current and neutral POV: "According to a 2015 Gallup poll of U.S. adults, the perception of chiropractors is generally favourable; two-thirds of American adults agree that chiropractors have their patient's best interest in mind and more than half also agree that most chiropractors are trustworthy. Less than 10% of US adults disagreed with the statement that chiropractors were trustworthy."[3][4]

75.152.109.249 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done added replaced text with reference to a website and a DOI (10.1016/j.jmpt.2015.08.001). —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• My revision: (cur | prev) 2015-09-13T05:52:05‎ Skyllfully (talk | contribs)‎ . . (146,728 bytes) (+75)‎ . . (Updating and making more WP:NPOV, on behalf of an anon, as per edit request) (undo) (Tag: VisualEditor) —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit: changed text to say "replaced". —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence.[3]

A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence.[3]

this vitalistic sentence should be included in the history of chiropractic not in the main section of chiropractic, the concept of innate intelligence is historic philosophy, the reference itself denotes it is about historic chiropractic not relevant to current chiropractors Andybrave (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The "specific focus of chiropractic practice" is chiropractic subluxation.[6] – false

this is an incorrect statement, the statement is that all chiropractors look for subluxation, the link to the national board of chiropractic examiners even doesn't have anything about subluxation on there... if you want to state that historically there was a philosophy of subluxation and that some chiropractors still follow this model, do so but don't make false statements to paint a erroneous picture Andybrave (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybrave (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Andybrave this is from the link you are referencing. http://www.nbce.org/about/about_chiropractic/

"Subluxation The specific focus of chiropractic practice is known as the chiropractic subluxation or joint dysfunction. A subluxation is a health concern that manifests in the skeletal joints, and, through complex anatomical and physiological relationships, affects the nervous system and may lead to reduced function, disability or illness. Typically, symptoms of subluxation include one or more of the following..."

Looks like it references Subluxations to me. Unconventional2 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

non neutral point of view this seems written by ernst

there is a paucity of good research included here,

Andybrave (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The "effectiveness" section contains some good research, but I agree that the more inconclusive ones should be described as such. Smk65536 (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Effectiveness comment not entirely technically factual

"...like all medical treatment, benefits from the placebo response."

There's two things wrong with that. :) The first is that it's not true. Antibiotics, plaster casting, surgery, endless other medical methodology does not employ the placebo effect, so suggesting that "all medical treatment" employs placebo is not accurate. ual partaking of a placebo medication or placebo act (such as prayer) may not express any outward or internal change in the perception of what they believe is a condition they harbor. There may not be a response as the result of applying a placebo to elicit an effect. So I'm wondering whether the word "response" should be swapped with "effect."

Also I'm wondering if the article should point out that what we are describing here is not outright blatant fraud because some (not all) of the practitioners belie Also there is no such thing as a "placebo response;" there is an effect. The consequences of the effect may or may not elicit a "response" in that the individve that what they are doing is actually real and actually beneficial. I recall SCICOP efforts decades ago which attempted to determine the percentage of practitioners who knew it did not work, and the results of that effort were inconclusive since there's no way to read people's minds, however the results of those SCICOP studies were that believers in Chiropractic were not en mass committing fraud, that "many if not most" of them actually believe in this claptrap. (A similar effort to determine the percentage of self-proclaimed "psychics" who knew they were committing fraud was made with the same results.)

So I'm wondering what editors might think of adding commentary about this not being deliberate fraud, at least not among the majority practitioners. The corollary to that is, however, that some of them do recognize that what they're doing is fraud which maybe should not be mentioned in the extant article. However the point is that many people (perhaps even most) consider Chiropractic to be fraud when in fact it is not. It might be informative to explain why honestly-held belief in claptrap is not defacto fraud. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Damotclese, thanks for your comment/suggestion, but your assumptions regarding the placebo effect are misinformed. Every therapy that exists provides a placebo effect. While all therapies provide some placebo effect, different 'types' of placebo therapies offer different magnitudes of placebo effect and work via different mechanisms [5]. Where you are most incorrect is in your assumption that therapies such as surgery do not produce a placebo effect, when in fact, some of the strongest placebo effects come from surgical interventions. For example, knee arthroscopic debridement is used to treat the pain of knee arthritis and patients and surgeons swear by it. However, a 2002 randomized controlled trial found that the benefit was simply a placebo effect [6]. Percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization is a procedure that has been shown to provide significant relief from angina pain and improvement in exercise capacity and quality of life. However, a 2005 randomized controlled trial found that it was just a placebo effect [7]. Vertebroplasty is a minimally invasive, image-guided therapy where a 'cement' is put inside damaged vertebral bodies and has been shown to relieve pain from a vertebral body fracture. However, in 2009 a randomized controlled trial found that it was just a placebo effect [8]. There is no medical therapy in existence where the placebo effect (or more correctly described as the meaning response) does not play a role. With regard to your concern over the term 'response', I think your opinion on this term might change if you do some reading on how the placebo effect might be more accurately described as a 'meaning response' [9]. Finally, the article does not currently describe the use of manual therapies by chiropractors as fraud, so there does not seem to be any logical reason to suggest that it is 'not outright blatant fraud'. Best regards.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2015

Chiropractic is NOT pseudomedicine! It has been and is still being proven with sound research. 173.10.200.205 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Cannolis, the reader 173.10.200.205 noticed there is an issue with first sentence. The first sentence should be about what is chiropractic. We already state later in the lede "Chiropractic's foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[25]" QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But that's not until the reader is deep into the 4th para. I think it was more neutral to have "pseudomedicine" front and centre since per WP:PSCI this pseudo- nature of chiropractic must be "prominent". Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The pseudoscientific sentence is covered under the history paragraph. It would be misplaced to move it. The part about "pseudomedicine" is also history information. We can't include both in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The pseudo- underpinning of chiropractic are not merely historical though. It is a current categorization that should be plain. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Chiropractic's foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[25] that are not based on solid science.[9]" It is in the lede. We don't need to state the pseudo- claim twice. QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a claim, it's a categorization. One which we're not properly relaying. Sure it is "sustained by pseudoscientific ideas" – that makes it a pseudomedicine. We should say so, and per WP:PSCI this need to be prominent – so the opening sentence is a great place for it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the designation "pseudomedicine" used much. If we go with the most common designation in FRIND, that would be "alternative medicine" (or "CAM" etc.), which overlaps sufficiently with "pseudomedicine". To the extent the two terms don't overlap, that could reflect chiropractic's small but real degree of mainstream acceptance (see Chiropractic#Reception). Anyway, we should use the more common term. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For the first sentence I think we should stick to the common term alternative medicine. The fourth paragraph says "It is classified as a field of pseudomedicine.[26]" QuackGuru (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, with M8 and QG in harmony, I'll leave it at that and bid you merry Xmas ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. It's January now. How did this happen without me knowing? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede still states it is "pseudomedicine", but not in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the fringe noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

chiropractors are primary health care practitioners

Chiropractors are qualified primary health care practitioners, Please change this as it is misleading, if you are trying to say they are not medical doctors, say that... but don't say they are similar to dentistry or podiatry, as dentistry treats the teeth, podiatry treats the foot, chiropractors can treat the whole body, they can also refer on if they cannot treat manually. (just like your Medical generalist can if they can't prescribe a drug) Andybrave (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't call this a treatment at all since there is little if any evidence it treats anything. See relevant part of article. Smk65536 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a real problem in calling chiropractors similar to primary care providers, as in the following sentence from the first paragraph in the lede: "although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers..." I cannot think of any substantive similarity to primary care providers, as chiropractors are trains in an entirely separate philosophy than science-based providers. There is no better testament to this reality than the fact that no major university in the world include any chiropractic school. I think this sentence should be deleted from the lede and a stronger emphasis on pseudoscience or alternative be placed there. Delta13C (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many problems with recent changes to lede

The previous wording was neutral and sourced. Sourced text was replaced with OR, there is a MEDRS violation and other problems.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The source failed MEDRS and the text "and chiropractors often aspire to become primary care providers, though they lack the medical and diagnostic skills necessary to fulfil this role" is only about UK chiropractors.[11] That is OR. The part "a concept for whose existence there is no good scientific evidence" is unnsourced and misplaced text.[12] That is the wrong paragraph for effectiveness information and we already have sourced information about effectiveness in another paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede previously gave a rather uncritical presentation of their aspirations to be primary care practitioners, a campaign they are actively pursuing in several states. The UK study is indeed based on UK chiros, who are, as a rule, vastly less problematic than their US colleagues (with the exception of the McTimoney nutters). This study, in a journal expected to be sympathetic tot he chiro cause, nonetheless finds that even the chiros themselves understand that chiropractic education is inadequate to be a primary care provider. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"The lede previously gave a rather uncritical presentation of their aspirations to be primary care practitioners,..." That's because the text was neutral.

"The UK study is indeed based on UK chiros,..." Since it is a study it is a MEDRS violation and since it is only the UK it should be removed from the lede. The text does not say it is only the UK. Therefore it is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of the text was not neutral but seemed neutral while misrepresenting the sources and scientific and academic consensus. For example, they are not similar to primary care provider, but they strive to be without going through the actual training. Delta13C (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, the "not in citation given" tag seems out of place for the article its next to, as this article clearly discusses how chiropractic is replete with pseudoscience, which demands reform. Delta13C (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, I went through the two sources that QuackGuru tagged as "not in citation given", and both tags are incorrect. The first tag on the issue of DCs wanting to distance themselves from the concept of innate intelligence is directly discussed in that source. The second tag that user placed is also incorrect as the article discusses the pseudoscience components of the chiropractic professional practice and central theory. Delta13C (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please don't tag sourced text. If you think there is a serious problem it is better to discuss.
• Please don't move the text to the incorrect spot and add sources that do not verify the text.[13] or are a MEDRS violation.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You are slipping into your old ways again. Example: regardless of your continued tagging, we do not heed a MEDRS compliant source for non-biomedical facts. The cite to Prof. Ernst in the Guardian is perfectly legitimate, and your failing to see your specific narrow interpretation of something doesn't mean it failed verification. Try proposing constructive changes here instead of falling back on your usual tactic of WP:OWNership. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ernst in the Guardian also failed to verify the claim. You removed the tags without fixing the problems.[15][16] QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Guy. Delta13C (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree there is OR in the lede? It was OR before and it is OR again. Changing "A large number of" to "some" failed WP:V. See "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[17] It is better to fix the problems than remove the tags.[18][19] See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Controversial changes to lede. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what original research is. The claims relfecting in the article are verifiable as they come from a reliable source, the Archives of Internal Medicine, which is published by the American Medical Association. You seem to be confusing original research with primary sources. Primary sources are okay in some cases, and I would argue that here that source is actually a secondary source, as the article cites other primary sources to synthesize a state of affairs of the chiropractic profession. You need to ask yourself why you are misunderstanding original research, primary, and secondary sources. From my point of view, you seem off base on this point. Delta13C (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide verification for "some". I provided verification for "A large number of"[20] according to WP:V. You used a popular press article that also failed to verify the claim.[21] QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. You mischaracterized those sources. You call them primary or original research, but they are indeed reliable secondary sources. I don't see how you can continue to press your position. You are mistaken, and that's okay. Delta13C (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with the word "some".[22][23] The source says "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[24] I presented evidence that "some" is OR, but you claim it is not OR. Please provide WP:V to verify that "some" is sourced. Also provide V that the source said it is "pseudomedicine"[25] and explain why you are using a lower quality source when there is a higher quality source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

From the cited source concerning 'some' chiropractors wanting to distance themselves from the notion of subluxation:

Many chiropractors no longer refer to simple subluxation but to a "vertebral subluxation complex," with an expanded meaning of mechanical impediments beyond bone displacement that can include mobility, posture, blood flow, muscle tone, and the condition of the nerves themselves.36 Some want to abandon the term altogether because it "threatens to strangle the discipline."37 Others speak of manipulable spinal lesions,38 chiropractic lesions,39 or vertebral blockage.40

I think you can investigate the cited sources in that source I just quoted. As for the five sources for the claim that chiropractic is pseudomedicine, they all discuss this topic quite clearly, and given the gravity of the claim, it is important to have many sources from different venues to show WP:V. I think this is as clear as it gets. Delta13C (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous text: "A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence."

New text: "Some chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence."[26][27]

The source said "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[28]

The quote you provided did not verify the current claim[29] and does not mention vitalistic concept. It is not relevant to the discussion.

I asked you to provide veriation for the new sources you added to verify "pseudomedicine"[30] but you did not provide verification.[31] I could not verify the source mentions pseudomedicine. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your point of contention. I don't see a problem with using "some" to describe the quantity, as it seems that the precise number is not known, so it is best for now to remain accurate with "some". Some can mean many or it can mean few. It means here that there is a substantial portion of chiros. I think that is fair. For the Murphy et al. article, the main point is that chiros are faced with a problem because they are full of woo and unproven methods. Their argument is based on the premise that the profession is pseudoscientific. They even say this themselves directly:

Chiropractic has frequently been described as being two professions masquerading as one, and those two professions have attempted to live under one roof. One profession, the "subluxation-based" profession, occupies the same metaphysical and pseudoscientific space as foot reflexology. The other chiropractic profession – call it "chiropractic medicine" as we do in this commentary – has attempted to occupy the same scientific space as the podiatric profession.

They are reiterating a point, and for the purpose of the WP article, I think it is important to see that this criticism comes from chrios themselves and not only from outside the profession. Delta13C (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have a problem "some" to describe the quantity[32] but the source does not support the claim.

You have not still not provided verification for the additional sources you added to the claim "pseudomedicine". The word pseudoscientific and pseudomedicine are different. If you think they are the same then there is duplication in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Since all of those sources reflect chiropractic as something like, a "system of treatment of physical ailments, or substances prescribed for such treatment, purported to be medical or supported by critical medical science but which cannot be shown to be effective," I think it is perfectly fine to call it pseudomedicine.[33] I see that each of these sources discusses the issue in depth and whether they refer to it as pseudoscience or pseudomedicine is trivial as the subject is that chiropractic acting as a so-called medical treatment when it is founded on fanciful notions and poor evidence. Is anyone else bothered by this? For the "some" word choice, I think it fair to reflect the secondary sources use of the word "some" as quoted in the excerpt above. Delta13C (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Since all of those sources reflect chiropractic as something like..." does not verify the claim.

"I see that each of these sources discusses the issue in depth and whether they refer to it as pseudoscience or pseudomedicine is trivial..." Then you think it is duplication to also use the term pseudomedicine in the lede because we also use the term pseudoscientific in the lede. Only one source verifies the specific term pseudomedicine.

"For the "some" word choice, I think it fair to reflect the secondary sources use of the word "some" as quoted in the excerpt above." The source said "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors.."[34] The source verifies "A large number of" not "some" for the specific claim. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are a very annoying person. You argue the toss endlessly even when the people you're arguing with an the content and edits under discussion, support your POV. You seem to want to have everything exactly as you think it should be and in no other way – aka WP:OWN. Can you show me any examples where you have compromised with people instead of simply keeping going until they lose the will to live? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think I am annoying then do you think WP:V policy is annoying because the source supports the previous wording not "some".[35][36] See "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors.."[37] I do not know how to compromise with OR and no other reliable source was presented to contradict the claim.

Yes, the edits do support my POV. But I do not want OR in the lede or unreliable sources in the lede. I am able to put my own personal POV aside and edit neutrally. There could of been a discussion first and then I could search for newer reliable sources to try an improve the wording but that is not what happened. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, from the block quote from the source cited in the WP article: "Some want to abandon the term altogether because it 'threatens to strangle the discipline.'" I am getting tired of this debate. Using "some" is quite accurate of the situation that there is a number of chiropractors that want to distance themselves from the subluxation concept, but we actually don't know this number and neither do the authors of this cited paper. Therefore, we should not imply that there is a big number that may be confused as a majority. It's better to be accurate and have less precision than to be wrongly precise and misrepresent the situation. Delta13C (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The source verifies the previous text. See "A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence."[38]

It is not about the subluxation concept.[39] It is about the vitalistic concept of innate intelligence. Your quote about the subluxation concept is irrelevant to the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources do not support the changes and text was deleted from the lede.[40] I think the study (see WP:MEDRS) added to the lede should be deleted. We can go back to this version to remove the WP:OR from the lede and restore the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I was focused on subluxations because it is a concept wrapped up in the notion of innate intelligence. I reread your position and then checked the source cited in the WP article, number 3. That source by Kaptchuk contains the line you like beginning with "A substantial number..." which is cited from the following reference: Winterstein JF Is traditional "chiropractic philosophy" valid today? Philos Constructs Chiropract Profession. 1991;137- 40. I just read this reference, which does not actually contain any specific mention of chiros wanting to ditch innate intelligence backed by any evidence. The Winterstein article is in fact an opinion piece. Therefore, I think it is the best decision to either keep the WP article phrasing of "Some," since we cannot yet quantify the number of DCs who want to ditch innate, or find better sources that cite surveys or multiple independent observations of what DCs are doing, saying, advertising, etc. and come up the best paraphrasing from there. Does this sound reasonable? Delta13C (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, where is the OR that you do not like? Delta13C (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You claim "I was focused on subluxations because it is a concept wrapped up in the notion of innate intelligence." That is not relevant to this discussion. It is about the vitalistic concept.[41]

The OR is the word "some".[42][43]

Why did you add sources to the lede that failed to verify the claim pseudomedicine?[44][45] QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we can go back to this version before the OR and unreliable sources were introduced to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a specified number. It is "substantial" according to the source. The word "some" is not a synonym for "large" or "substantial". [46] Therefore it is OR. The word "large" is a synonym for "substantial".[47] Therefore it is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I see where your issue is. Substansial != large. Substansial is an indeterminate number much like 'significant', both are usually used to mean 'not minor' or 'not small' ie 'worthy of notice'. 'Some' is a valid way of expressing an indeterminate number without directly quoting the source. No misrepresentation is made. On the question of OR, this is not an OR question at all. At most it is a question of editorial judgement in respect to synonomous passages of text and whether the connotation of two phrases is so different as to distort the meaning of the source. Jbh^Talk 20:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is commonly known that most chiropractors want to separate themselves from vitalistic for people familiar with the topic. Claiming it is only "some" is false. We don't go from "substantial" or "large" to only "some" and then claim it is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Commonly known" == WP:OR, precicely what you have been arguing against. It might be best to quote the source directly. That way there is no question that we are applying our interpration to the term 'substansial'. Jbh^Talk 20:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[48] I quoted the source on the talk page. How could anyone argue "some" is sourced and accurate? The text in the article does not need quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to parse words you should note that 'anxious' != 'eager' so the quote might be easily rephrased as "Today a significant number of chiropracters fear that if they do not sever all remaining ties to innate intelligence their profession will continue to be seen as fringe". Jbh^Talk 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See "A large number of chiropractors want to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence." I want to keep it simple. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

But that formulation has been rejected by the other editors here. It also misrepresents the source because it does not say why they want to and 'wanting to' is not the same as 'anxious to'. If the source says significant use significant since synonym choice seems contravercial in this case. Jbh^Talk 23:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

But that formulation was ignored by others here. They did not respond to the specfic text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

All this text in this thread is a solid clue that your formulation has been rejected by the other editors. Regardless, I just responded to your particular formulation, gave you an alternative along with the reasoning behind my argument. Jbh^Talk 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The other editors did not directly respond to the content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As you have not responded to mine. See how that works? Now, as I just said I have directly responded to your wording and told you why I think it is not appropriate. I also have given you an alternative. The ball is in your court. Jbh^Talk 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"A large number of chiropractors are eager to separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence out of fear that if they do not sever all remaining ties to innate intelligence their profession will continue to be seen as fringe." I think this could work too. What you proposed was too close to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Eager and anxious do not mean the same thing not even close. Anxious means anticipation with worry or concern while eager does not. One is eager to go to the movies. One is anxious to see the results of their annual review from their new boss. Jbh^Talk 00:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"A large number of chiropractors fear that if that do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence their profession will continue to be seen as fringe". I think this can work. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think significant would be better than large just because it is actual term used but I am not so wedded to that view as to insist on it since I think your proposed text catches the meaning of the source well enough. I only came here to see if I could help move through the impasse so I will ping the others who were involved in the thread @JzG and Delta13C: but as far as I am concerned your suggestion of "A large number of chiropractors fear that if that do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence their profession will continue to be seen as fringe" looks OK. Jbh^Talk 01:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are doing it again: you make a demand, everyone says no, and when you've bored the pants off them with your endless argument by assertion, you then assert that it's time to make the edit you first wanted. This is why you get blocked and sanctioned. Some of us have had enough of it. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have not WP:FOC. This shows you cannot support your position. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's because you've failed to demonstrate any issue with the content but have instead focused on not hearing anybody you don't want to hear. So: the problem is not the content, it's you, and that makes your conduct a legitimate focus of comment. I can't believe I have to point this out, given your long history of blocks and other issues. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the source says "Today, a substantial number of chiropractors are anxious to sever all remaining ties to the vitalism of innate intelligence."[49] Do you understand the word "some" is not a synonym for "large" or "substantial"? [50] Do you understand the word "large" is a synonym for "substantial"?[51] Your comments are not focusing on the content and you continue to not response to my comments about the content. Your comments are not about this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments are about your WP:IDHT and WP:STICK issues, because, as I think you cannot possibly have failed to notice by now, you are the lone obsessive here and in a minority of one on the content issue. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See FOC. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT, WP:STICK. Just copy-paste this under any more of your repetitions, would you? Save me some time? Guy (Help!) 01:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Naprapathy Page redirects here

For whatever Reason, The Naprapathy page, which is its own profession, with its own license, own board (in states where its not directly under the Medical Board), own history, philosophy etc. is being redirected to this page. As Naprapaths are not Chiropractors, and Chiropractors do not practice Naprapathy, This is a mistake. Naprapathy had its own page with its own information a week ago. Please discontinue this improper redirect so the Naprapathy page can be filled with information that is correct and valid that topic. Thank you.

DrRLeeDN (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DrRLeeDN. I suggest you add well-sourced information about your profession to the relevant section in the Chiropractic page as a good-faith start. If the information ends up seeming out of place we can revisit a stand-alone page for naprapathy. Please note though that Chiropractic and Naprapathy share a common history. I understand that the first naprapathers were chiros who wanted to do something different. Delta13C (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

I request that the following line be changed:

"It is the largest alternative medical profession, and chiropractors often aspire to become primary care providers, though they lack the medical and diagnostic skills necessary to fulfil this role."

Changed to:

"It is the largest alternative medical profession."

Chiropractic is recognized as a primary entry portal profession in all 50 states. Chiropractors have never maintained as an organization that they aspire to become primary providers. The vast majority of chiropractors concentrate only on neuromusculoskeletal conditions and largely only with the spine. The phrase that they aspire to become primary care providers, however lack the knowledge is nothing more than an attempt at slandering the training and education received by chiropractors. Which is an 8 year doctorate level degree. This should be removed, as it is untrue.

Thank You. Stevens2011 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Stevens2011 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Currently, the sentence is sourced. Do you have a source for your claim? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The source for the current text in the lead is specific to chiropractors in the UK, which represent a small minority of the worlds chiropractors. It is inappropriate to use a UK-specific source to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice about the global profession. The text needs to be changed to reflect the current source, or a new source found that supports the current wording, or the text should be removed altogether. I am not personally aware of a source that suggests that chiropractors in general want to become primary care physicians; some sources suggest the opposite. If we want to continue using the current source and maintain content about 'primary care', then the text needs to be changed.

• Current text: It is the largest alternative medical profession,3 and chiropractors often aspire to become primary care providers, though they lack the medical and diagnostic skills necessary to fulfill this role.4
• Proposed new wording: It is the largest alternative medical profession,3 and chiropractors in the UK often aspire to become primary care providers, though UK chiropractors lack the medical and diagnostic skills necessary to fulfill this role.4

2001:56A:75B7:9B00:B137:56D0:E205:75A (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no real doubt that some chiros want to become primary care providers if they can (see [52] for a discussion of some attempts). This looks once again like an attempt to reshape this article to exclude mention of the substantial proportion of chiros who promote delusional nonsense. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080517055938/http://www.amerchiro.org:80/level2_css.cfm?T1ID=10&T2ID=117 to http://amerchiro.org/level2_css.cfm?T1ID=10&T2ID=117#107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing the tag without fixing the original research

The tag was removed without fixing the OR. The sources did not say "Some insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because of lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy.[76][77][78]". User:Jayaguru-Shishya, if you see a tag in the article, shouldn't you read the sources before removing the tag? For more information about the tag, I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read it carefully before removing the tag next time.

Text that passed V is "Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational."[76][77][78][79]" QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, QuackGuru. If you feel that some material isn't verified by the source, you are the most welcome to explain your view at the article Talk Page. You may also want to familiarize yourself with Template:Failed verification; it gives some good advice, like how to utilize the "reason=" parameter. Just mere tagging doesn't help to make your point. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the talk page and I did explain above. It was OR to claim "because of lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy". QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any chance you might one day stop asserting that any edit that is not personally approved by you is "original research" despite the fact that nobody agrees? Guy (Help!) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Leeds: "The CCGs consider s the following procedures experimental and investigational:"

North Dakota: "Not medically necessary services considered experimental and investigational

OSU: "The OSU Health Plan considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational

Aetna: "Aetna considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational:"

References

I have shown not asserted it was original research. All four sources considers it "experimental and investigational." I provided verification per V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What cannot be verified is choosing not to use the weasel word "some", since the statement "Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational."" is equivalent to "All insurers...". Clearly not a statement we wish to make. The real "V" treatment would be to name the insurers which do name it as such. (BIG NOTE: this is not a scalable approach--at some point we need to use the qualifier, but for four insurers I don't find it necessary.) --Izno (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The weasel word "some" is unsupported by the sources. We can name each insurer. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We can also enumerate the number known to exclude KST e.g. "Four insurers in the US and UK..." though this may mislead because it may appear that all other insurers do not exclude KST, a statement which maybe can be ameliorated with a note to the effect of "How other insurers treat KST is unknown." This might be preferable because it doesn't require us to add a list of insurers to the article... --Izno (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather the text remain the way it is or name the insurers than say four. The same discussion for the wording is happening on the other page before it is merged into the Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We want the truth out there. Not lies!

Stop deleting the research section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.71.132 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Quackguru should not be able to continue to change everything that researchers add to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.71.132 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the text added was an obvious copyright violation as it is directly lifted from here. So it cannot stay on this page, see WP:COPYVIO. If you have a suggestion to improve the article, please use links to the sources and be specific on the change you request. Last thing, in the future, avoid grad standings like you did above, because, nobody cares. --McSly (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That book copied this article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

The health care profession of Naprapathy's Wikipedia webpage has been somehow redirected to Chiropractic. Although the founder of Naprapathy, Oakley Smith, was trained as a chiropractor, this is a very distinct health care field focused on connective tissue rather than osseous mal-alignments. Please remove the redirect and restore the Naprapathic page. http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1311&ChapAct=225%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A063/&ChapterID=24&ChapterName=PROFESSIONS+AND+OCCUPATIONS&ActName=Naprapathic+Practice+Act. John Prauser (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Naprapathy. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

I suggest the section "Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices.[35]" be edited as water fluoridation are common in some areas of the world, but not practised in most countries around the world. Africa for example, 400,000 of the 1.1 Billion people receive fluorinated water. So the vast majority do not receive fluorinated water. Most Asian countries and European countries do not practice water fluoridation. In fact, based on region and the vast majority of those regions, only North America (America and Canada), Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) have artificially fluorinated water. The rest (minor percentage part from China and India having natural fluorinated water) do not have artificially fluorinated water or fluorinated water at all. So that is most of the world that does not have fluorinated water. It can therefore hardly be common practice if in most countries it does not happen. Razzzic (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of population receiving fluoridated water, including both artificial and natural fluoridation.

  80–100%

  60–80%

  40–60%

  20–40%

  1–20%

  < 1%

  unknown

 Not done "common" does not mean the majority, and not everyone is vaccinated either, but fluoridation and vaccination are not "uncommon"
You left South America out of your list, which, as shown on the map to the right has a surprisingly high coverage, whilst Europe's percentage figures are reducing. - Arjayay (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

Please replace: Many studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. (DeVocht reference)

With: Many studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted. DeVocht summarized the research as of 2002. He reported that "43 randomized trials of spinal manipulation for low back pain have been published with 30 showing more improvement than with the comparison treatment, and none showing it to be less effective." (Keep DeVocht reference)

Make this change because: The wikipedia entry currently misrepresents the referenced article by Devocht. DeVocht summarized the study results as being consistent with either good or neutral results and never characterizes the results of chiropractic care as conflicting. The substitute quotation text is taken directly from the article summary and accurately portrays the findings of the article. TJ Prescott (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wording in WP:LEDE

See "This agreement does not suggest that chiropractic, as primary care is a valid and compelling concept. Rather, it suggests that the concept has been unexamined and hastily adopted. This section will examine the meaning of primary care as it applies to chiropractic."[53]

"Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers" is verifiable to only one source. Both sources do not make the same claim. The Nelson source does not verify the claim "Many" and the part "this is not a valid concept.[2]" is not what the source stated. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Full paragraph says: "The other great divide within chiropractic concerns the question of whether or not chiropractic is a primary care profession. Unfortunately, just as the word "philosophy" is routinely misused, so is the concept of "primary care." Paradoxically, even the extremes of the profession on the philosophy question (e.g., Sherman College and National University) both endorse the notion of chiropractic as a primary care profession. This agreement does not suggest that chiropractic, as primary care is a valid and compelling concept. Rather, it suggests that the concept has been unexamined and hastily adopted. This section will examine the meaning of primary care as it applies to chiropractic."[54]

Also, we can read in the same ref: "There is a lack of uniformity and consensus within the profession about the proper role of chiropractic.  ... A number of models are impractical, implausible or even indefensible from a purely scientific point of view (e.g., subluxation-based healthcare), from a professional practice perspective (e.g., the primary care model), or simply from common sense (e.g. Innate Intelligence as an operational system for influencing health)."[55]

Adjusted and added a new ref, wich supports the sentence "Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers""Although most chiropractors consider themselves to be specialists in NMS conditions, many also view chiropractic as a form of primary care." and the doubt regarding their role in primary care.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The word "valid" is referring to the paragraph I cited that does not verify the claim in the lede.

The part "A number of models are impractical, implausible..."[56] is also referring to the primary care model. That part can be summarized. To avoid confusion the word valid can be adjusted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted. [57] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

Too many quotes were recently added to the refs in the ref section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Too many"? Exactly, two: [58] And in total, currently there are four quotes in the page Special:PermanentLink/740342011. It is perfectly valid per WP:QUOTE.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The new quotes added are not clarifying anything that needs to be clarified. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplication

See "but this idea is not supported by any scientific evidence.[7]" We are have a similar claim sourced to a review. QuackGuru (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed [59]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Text in the lede that was not duplication was deleted

"Traditional chiropractic assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence," QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It seemed duplicated because there is this explanation below: "Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence" and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.[21] D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century.[22] Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.[23][24] Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[25][26]..."

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is specifically about the traditional chiropractic beliefs regarding vertebral subluxation and innate intelligence. This specific belief about spinal joint dysfunction is not explained in the lede. Explaining what is their beliefs is differ than stating what they believe in. QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplication and misplaced text

"These concepts of subluxation and spinal manipulation are not based on sound science.[5][6]" This is not supposed to be in the first paragraph. Later on we do explain in the correct paragraph. See "...that are not based on sound science." QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Source text deleted from lede without replacing it with newer content

"It is the largest alternative medical profession,<ref name=Kaptchuk-Eisenberg />" I think the text should be restored until new information replaces the older information. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

New review about vaccination

A review has recently been published in the journal 'Vaccine' that examines the evidence in relation to complementary medicine practitioner attitudes to childhood vaccination: [60]

I notice that the public health section of the chiropractic article here at wikipedia relies on sources from before 2010 and as early as 2000. This new review can be used to update the article and also fill holes in the current article knowledge; for example, the wikipedia article says: "The extent to which anti-vaccination views perpetuate the current chiropractic profession is uncertain" and this new review offers this information. I have included some relevant text that might be useful here:

• "Most studies have focused on chiropractor attitudes on vaccination, and found significant disparity within this practitioner group."

• "Heterogeneity appears to exist even within discrete complementary medicine practitioner groups such as chiropractors, whose attitudes to vaccination appear to be influenced by philosophical beliefs (i.e. ‘straight’ versus ‘mixer’ chiropractic). ‘Straight’ chiropractors (those who believe vertebral subluxation is the primary origin of all disease; approximately one-fifth of the chiropractic population) are significantly more vaccine hesitant than ‘mixer’ chiropractors [13,15,17,18] (those who focus on musculoskeletal conditions and interpret diagnosis and treatment in a biomedical model). Personal experiences were reported by vaccine opposing chiropractors as being more influential in determining opposition than professional norms [19]."

• "In many instances, anti-vaccination attitudes are not pervasive through complementary medicine communities, but may be limited to significant subgroups within those communities. For example, anti-vaccination sentiment amongst chiropractors largely centres on graduates of ‘conservative’ (i.e. ‘straight’) chiropractic schools, and it is not known if these views/beliefs are also representative of the beliefs of other complementary medicine professionals with anti-vaccination sentiments."

2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This statement is from the wikipedia article "a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[210]"

I cannot read your proposed source because I do not have access to it. Does the Review clearly quantify the Number of chiropractors against or for vaccination in a manner like this? Sassmouth (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The new systematic review discusses multiple primary sources, including the 2002 primary source from Alberta that you mention in your quote above, and each primary source offers specific numbers based on their specific methodology (location, setting, questions asked, etc). As one would expect from a secondary source, the new review takes all the specific numbers from the available primary studies and makes some general conclusions based on the entirety of the research.

Some relevant text from this current review is: "attitudes to vaccination appear to be influenced by philosophical beliefs" and "‘Straight’ chiropractors (those who believe vertebral subluxation is the primary origin of all disease; approximately one-fifth of the chiropractic population) are significantly more vaccine hesitant than ‘mixer’ chiropractors [13,15,17,18] (those who focus on musculoskeletal conditions and interpret diagnosis and treatment in a biomedical model). and "anti-vaccination attitudes are not pervasive through complementary medicine communities, but may be limited to significant subgroups within those communities." 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this paper. I do have McMurtry, A., Wilson, K., Clarkin, C., Walji, R., Kilian, B., Kilian, C., Lohfeld, L., Alolabi, B., Hagino, C., & Busse, J. (2015). The development of vaccination perspectives among chiropractic, naturopathic and medical students: a case study of professional enculturation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(5), 1291–1302. That shows considerable influence of education in vaccine views. Ernst (http://edzardernst.com/2014/07/why-so-many-chiropractors-advise-against-immunisation/) and Bellamy (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chiropractic-pediatrics-firmly-in-the-anti-vaccination-camp/) discuss some worrying influences. So yes, there is heterogeneity. My reading of the informal literature leads me to conclude that "straight" chiros are very likely to be anti-vaccine, with a lot of discussion in Australia especially about conflicts between the chiropractic associations and their members. That's not a surprise: if you believe disease is caused by disturbance of the flow of innate caused by spinal subluxations, then it would be illogical to support vaccination, based on an entirely different theory of disease. The problem, of course, is that the germ theory of disease is correct, and the subluxation theory is not.

The relevance of the fake medical education system here is that author affiliation for at least one author is listed as "Endeavour College of Natural Health" – in other words, they have a strong ideological motvation to minimise criticism of SCAM practices. Looking at the other authors, Wardle is a naturopath, Frawley is editor of the Australian Journal of Herbal Medicine. Sullivan appears to be the only one who is not associated with selling SCAM. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am confused by some of your comment Guy; much of your commentary seems consistent with what the new review concludes, but then you are saying something that sounds like you do not trust the veracity of the new review because of the authors education background? The reviews that are currently being used in the wikipedia article here are written by chiropractors and are old sources, but there are no complaints about this? We are now discussing a new systematic review published in a mainstream medical journal, I am pretty sure that we can trust 'Vaccine' and it's peer-review and editorial staff to have guarded against SCAM sales. I am not certain what the case study by McMurtry and the blog posts by Ernst really offer here, as wikipedia sourcing policy suggests that these are very low quality sources, especially compared to a systematic review. 75.152.109.249 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue for me is that this is a study by SCAM proponents seeking to downplay the role of SCAM practitioners in the anti-vaccination movement, and there is an overlap with the long-term attempt by chiropractic proponents (of which the OP is one) to recast the article such that mixers are shown to be the dominant force and straights a marginalised minority. In fact, the evidence I've seen suggests that straioghts play mixer when challenged, but then carry right on with the exploitative "maintenance adjustments" and other signature elements of the straights. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that you do not like the conclusions of this new systematic review Guy, but that is not sufficient to exclude it. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute in the form of policy-based arguments, or quality sources? While we all value your opinion and personal anecdotes on chiropractic, it does not help us update the article.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent people's reasoning. Guy gave reasons for rejecting the article as a source, and you ignored his reasoning and reduced it to "I don't like it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies Hob Gadling; although I disagree with your assessment! I posted a link to a 2016, peer-reviewed systematic review published in a mainstream medical journal (Vaccine), with Impact Factor 3.4! Let us summarize Guy's arguments:

1. concerned about the authors "fake medical education and strong ideological motivation to minimise criticism of SCAM practices"
2. "this is a study by SCAM proponents seeking to downplay the role of SCAM practitioners in the anti-vaccination movement"
3. "there is an overlap with the long-term attempt by chiropractic proponents (of which the OP is one) to recast the article such that mixers are shown to be the dominant force and straights a marginalised minority"

The actual conclusion of the review is "The relationship between CM users and practitioners, and vaccination is complex and there does not appear to be one default position. Whilst anti-immunisation sentiment seems higher among CM users and practitioners as opposed to users and practitioners of conventional medicine, this review highlights an opportunity for pro-immunisation CM practitioners to more actively engage in conversations about immunization with parents." Everything specifically about chiropractors is in the results section.--tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy has cited no policy and has offered no contradictory sources, but he has offered a conspiracy theory regarding the how chiropractors are trying to downplay the quackery that Guy is so certain of. As such, perhaps someone can explain to me the rational behind his reasoning that I mistook for a simple dislike of the conclusions. Thanks. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The review mostly repeats what is already in the article. There is no policy-based argument for excluding it. I also started a discussion at Talk:Alternative medicine#New review. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when are using newer WP:MEDRS reviews WP:UNDUE? Replacing older reviews with newer reviews is a good idea. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The review does discuss chiropractors. Mostly on page 11. I have a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you'd want to use this to change. The article already says "Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation", " Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination", "Some chiropractors have embraced vaccination, but a significant portion of the profession rejects it", and so on. They reference McGregor et al. (2014) as saying "18.8% of chiropractors were aligned with a pre-defined unorthodox perspective of the conditions they treat (i.e. ‘straight’ chiropractic)" and that "Prediction models suggest that unorthodox (‘straight’) perceptions of health practice are related to antivaccination sentiment and practices." Their other recent reference was Puhl et al. (2014), of which they said "56.2% of chiropractors agreed or (p < 0.001). strongly agreed that vaccinations have a strong part to play in public health while 21.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed; 55.8% of chiropractors agreed or strongly agreed that vaccines have a strong evidence base while 20.7% disagreed." An older reference (already referred to in the Wikipedia article) was Russel et al. (2004), of which they said "27.2% actively advised patients against vaccination" and "88.8% of chiropractors believe the public is not adequately informed of risks of vaccinations and 70.0% believe health officials and medical doctors are not adequately informed of vaccination risks. Pretty terrible numbers, but I suppose that some of them could be added to the Public Health section, perhaps mentioning the straight/mixer correlations, keeping in mind that these were all based on the same 2002 postal survey (N=503) of Alberta chiropractors and may not generalize. --tronvillain (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced article?

"Moreover, this review is aimed at evaluating the AEs of an intervention (massage) and not that of a profession (massage therapist/chiropractic)."[61] QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This article reviews "Spinal manipulation in massage", wich "has repeatedly been associated with serious AEs especially. But the incidence of such events is probably low." "Clearly, we should differentiate between various approaches. The above cases suggest that massage by nonprofessional and forceful techniques is often associated with AEs. In 8 cases the practitioners are massage therapists (5.8% of total) and 33 are chiropractors (23.9%), while in the other cases (70.3%) they are unregistered or even healthcare professionals only. So it might be unfair to assess the AEs of spinal manipulation as practiced by well-trained chiropractors alongside that associated with the untrained. Obviously from above, a variety of different care providers like physiotherapists, massage therapists, physicians, and osteopaths may perform a manipulation as part of their practice, but it should be most frequently performed by chiropractors [67]. Certainly skill and experience are important, and it is relevant to differentiate between different professions. But on the other hand, skill is a quality not easily controlled and some therapists are more skilled than others. Moreover, this review is aimed at evaluating the AEs of an intervention (massage) and not that of a profession (massage therapist/chiropractic). That is why in this review we show the implicated practitioners are not only chiropractors but also physicians, physiotherapists, “bonesetters,” and general medical practitioners."

But to illustrate that the rate of serious adverse effects is probably low, we may also use the NHS Choices source. I do not put any objections to remove the other source [62] and replace it with this other [63].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I do object to replacing a review with a source that is not a review or adding another source that makes a different claim. You replaced sourced to a review with text that FV to the review and added a source that does not belong in this article. See "The survey data indicated that even serious adverse effects are rarely reported in the medical literature."[64] That confirms the part "probably low.[14][16]" is not supported by the review and the other source is related to massage. The part "but this does not seem to be a valid concept.[2]" is also misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the systematic review concludes "The survey data indicated that even serious adverse effects are rarely reported in the medical literature." [65] This does not reflect the "incidence", but the incidence is unknown because adverse effects are not being reported. If we continue to read, we see at Conclusions of the abstract: "Currently, the incidence of such events is not known." and in the full text "Consequently the frequency of serious adverse effects is currently unknown. Estimates by chiropractors vary (e.g. 6.4 per 10 million manipulations of the upper spine and 1 per 100 million manipulations of the lower spine).53 These figures, however, may be over-optimistic. Retrospective investigations have repeatedly shown that under-reporting is close to 100%.13,52 This level of under-reporting would render such estimates nonsensical. At present, there is no sufficiently large and rigorous prospective study to generate reliable incidence figures; previous studies have failed to investigate those patients which were lost at follow-up. This could be the subgroup which has been harmed. It is therefore essential that future studies follow up close to 100% of the initial patient sample."

Well, I will remove the new source, I will use the review you propose (which was already present in previous versions), and I'll adjust the content to this review.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think adding this review we can support that the incidence is "probably low". [66] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You added duplication and the review does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The part "but this does not seem to be a valid concept.[2]" is also misleading --> Adjusted. [67] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what "clinical training does not support the requirements" means. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It is paraphrased from: "The length, breadth, and depth of chiropractic clinical training do not support the claim of broad diagnostic competency required of a PCP." [68]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is still original research in the lede. Both sources support that it is rare. The part "probably low.[11][12]" is original research and we should not add or replace reviews with others sources that are not reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I propose replacing the original research with sourced text such as "rare" or "likely rare". QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There is not any "original research". NHS is a major governmental body and this NHS Choices is a statement by them, which says: "These more serious complications of spinal manipulation are probably rare." I will adjust, as it has been done at spinal manipulation [69] [70]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You needed to add another source to support the claim. But all the sources do not support the entire sentence. For this case the refs can be placed where they verify each specific claim. It is also important to avoid any potential copyright violations. It is not a good idea to use almost the exact wording from both sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See "Collectively, these data suggest that spinal manipulation is associated with frequent, mild and transient adverse effects as well as with serious complications which can lead to permanent disability or death."[71]

The article says "It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, and serious or fatal complications which can lead to permanent disability or death..." This is an obvious copyright violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. If youa re desperately concerned then quote it per WP:ATT but it's a short enough extract as to be unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is almost a cut and paste. I am not interested in quoting it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is, however, very short, a summary that is hard to state in different terms without WP:SYN, and therefore not an issue, but if you care deeply then put it in quotes per WP:ATT. And as I have said before, stating your opinion as Revealed Truth is pretty much the most annoying of your several extremely annoying traits, so please stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The previous text was not a copyvio. The current text copied mostly one source then states content from another source. That is a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The first half is substantially rewritten, but it doesn't make sense to say "serious or fatal complications which can lead to permanent disability or death" since fatal complications cause death by definition. Presumably it was added as an attempt to rewrite the second half, but it might be better to just say something like "serious or fatal complications." Or, as JzG says, quote it. --tronvillain (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You say, but then, you say that kind of thing so often and with such little basis that I'm not inclined to take your word for it. It seems to me to be an accurate summary and difficult to state in other words without WP:SYN. If you prefer to rewrite the para, please do, but right now this just sounds like yet another of your WP:OWNership drives. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Combining two different claims together is a classic SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead should have some sort of reference about the demand for chiropractic in numbers

I think that the lead should have some sort of refernce in regards to the demand for chiropractic. "Such as in the united states in 20XX Americans spent xxx million dollars on chiropractic or something like that"? I really don't know much about chiropractic and i cant say if its quackery or not. However I feel the Lead is biased against chiropractors.

(Certainly i dont feel that chiropractors should be physicians and any pseudo scientific ideas should be called out)

"Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the U.S.,[18] and evidence-based medicine has been used to review research studies and generate practice guidelines.[33]"

This is in the lead that is true ...... is there any numbers? Numbers speak louder than words Sassmouth (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to do in line with policy, since it's essentially a marketing claim and chiropractors appear to invest more time in "practice building" than any other single element in their canon. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, such claims need to be put into that exact context that Guy mentioned. Delta13C (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Guy i get it you dont like chiropractors That's not a good reason not to include factual data in this article Sassmouth (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your parser is broken. That's not what he said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike chiropractors. I dislike fraudulent claims. I don't think Wikipedia has a problem with that. Some chiros do not make fraudulent claims, many others do. The ones spending most on "practice building" and using the argument from popularity, are also the ones most likely to be making fraudulent claims. I don't think that's an especially controversial view – other than among the chiropractors who make fraudulent claims, of course, and we are fully entitled to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not include factual information in the lead? Such as what the actual demand for chiropractic is in numbers? you still have not given a good reason? If the numbers exist from a reliable source ?? Sassmouth (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "The percentage of the population that utilizes chiropractic care at any given time generally falls into a range from 6% to 12% in the U.S. and Canada" as per the article some sort of information like this thats all im asking... as per whether or not chiropractors are quacks i don't know i don't care. Give the reader objective factual information. and that would be factual information if a reliable source can be found Sassmouth (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic#Reception is the place to put the undisputed details. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously i dont have consensus here for my proposal thanks guys have fun editingSassmouth (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The numbers can be still added to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Toward Resolving Bias

I stopped by this page hoping to get a useful overview of chiropractic. Instead, what I found was a hit piece by advocates of mainstream medicine. This is a problem I have seen with other controversial topics, such as Creationism. "Unbiased" in such cases is defined as "what most people believe." rather than the philosophy we claim to adopt in research, that of evidence and efficacy. People should be allowed to present their viewpoints and evidence on Wikipedia, and not be shouted down by what my Grandma called the "boozhie-wazzie."

The problem with this kind of "neutrality" is that it is not itself open to any criticism. This is why Socrates drank poison. Mainstream medicine, for example, has a lot of research backing, but it is one of the best advertisements for alternative medicine there is, because it produces almost as much ill health as health. It relies on chemical treatments, is insensitive to important areas of health, and it is indistinguishable from the class power structure. One reason for the popularity of chiropractic (and I have never been to a chiropractor myself, so I am somewhat objective) is that anecdotally, it produces some good results. And anecdotally, medicine produces some very negative results, or at least "we can't do anything for you." We have all the research, all the methodology, all the technology, all the facilities and equipment, but in many cases, the one thing we can't do is heal. But instead of admitting that, we choose to blind people to it, as is being done on this page.

I suggest restructuring this article (and similar articles) following a strict forensic style. Allow the side which represents the topic of the page to present their explanation, or describe the history, claims, and characteristics of chiropractic in neutral terms. Then present the rebuttal by the other side, and give an opportunity for discussion or cross-examination. That is true objectivity. Admit that there is a dispute, and you are not automatically right, just because educated people agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfarero (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Using talk pages: "Place new discussions at the bottom of the page." WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE might also be worth checking out. --tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

""Unbiased" in such cases is defined as "what most people believe."" What a load of bullshit. How would you even determine that? Polls? In which countries? And the truth changes depending on what people believe? But polls are facts – maybe we should just write what most WP users believe that most people believe. Your definition is unviable. As Tronvillain writes: inform yourself how things are done here, instead of inventing new guidelines. Read the guidelines he linked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies keep evolving, and are in fact collaboratively devised, so yes, above user has all the right to propose changes to mentioned guidelines. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course – but in the talk pages of the guidelines. Not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

adverse effects

Some people here claim it to be dangerous and pseudoscience due to occasional adverse effects. Why is Chemotherapy#Adverse effects not being labeled as such as well? It seems to have way more adverse effects, and yet is considered mainstream, effective, science, whatever? Is it because it is being applied by M.D.s and not Chiropractors? Me being a layman, I would appreciate layman explanation. Thanks. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chemotherapy is dangerous, but it isn't pseudoscience. (Read the article on pseudoscience). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chemo has a solid evidence base showing effect and a balance of positive over negative. Chemo is also much less bad than the alt-medders claim. Chiropractic, on the other hand, has zero evidence of effect over and above reality-based care. So chemo saves lives, at the cost of adverse events which are actively studied and explained to the patient. Chiro does nothing, at the expense of adverse events which are denied outright and certainly never explained. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I remembered a joke now: one guy was teaching a mull how not to eat, and just when the mull learned, it died! Chemo to me looks a bit like that, if it doesn't kill you, it worked. Not too scientific if you ask me, but I am just a layman. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not so much a layman as ignorant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really, you WP:DICK, I know you are aware of WP:NPA. I am not ignorant as my close one died after chemo, but I am a layman as I don't have M.D.. On the other hand, I don't have DC either, and yet I was helped quite a bit by it.. So wondering how wrong a science must be, and assholes like yourself to be so arrogant and claim you help people, while libeling others who actually may do some help. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, chemotherapy is dangerous, but it isn't given unless the underlying disease is worse. The same is true for all medicines, but it is exceedingly unlikely that the chemotherapy killed your loved one. Chemotherapy may weaken someone suffering from cancer more, but it is given in accordance to science and known best practices. Chiropractic on the other hand cannot help against cancer, and it is illegal in many countries to claim that it does. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did only say "after" rather than "because of", though that seems to have been the implication. --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Up to 98% of cases of childhood hodgkin's lymphoma are now cured with chemotherapy. Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To make statistics valid, you need to have a baseline, which in this case was not easy to find: [72] (...untreated Hodgkin lymphoma from 1910–1962. ... 5 year survival of less than 6%...) 178.222.109.211 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

One can also find science behind spinal manipulations, if only searched for: [73]. 178.222.109.211 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just like you can find evidence of me receiving a Nobel Prize, "if only searched for": [74]. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

This was written by an person that is completely biased against chiropractic. They have no business writing such an article for wikipedia. There references are out dated and are skewed by the same presuppositions as the author. Please have this written by a chiropractor or with the help of a chiropractor. The leading sentence begins with "pseudoscience", this automatically skews the readers perception of chiropractic. 2605:6001:E389:B100:CC7D:897D:6B3A:9A7E (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Science is biased against chiropractic, working as intended. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@2605:* - "Please have this written by a chiropractor or with the help of a chiropractor." Yeah, right. That's like expecting us to let Donald Trump write his own article here. Absolutely not. Have you ever come across the concept of WP:Conflict of interest? --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with RexxS, CFCF and Guy. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the commentor is right. This article is clearly written with the purpose of defaming and harassing a profession. Highly biased. Voicewing (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. WP:DUCK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article is definitely biased. Medical doctors from 20+ years ago have an inherent distrust of chiropractors for past political and scientific reasons. Thus, you can't claim objectivity when a source cites an MD. That isn't to say all pseudoscience sources are bad, just to say that there is a gigantic dichotomy about this topic and you'll find sources to say anything you want about chiropractic. Be critical. More on point, the sources for "pseudoscience" are indeed biased and POV in this article – cherry-picked by the editor to make their point. Obviously it's alternative medicine but calling it pseudoscience is not applicable to most of the chiropractic profession. In the page itself it cites "straights" as the minority, yes the pseudoscience sentiment stems from the "straight" view of chiropractic through a vitalistic philosophy. I agree, that is pseudoscience, but mixers incorporate scientifically vetted procedures into practice and focus more on the scientific model when attempting to help their patients. Thus, the claim for pseudoscience is only applicable to a minority of chiropractors and shouldn't be included in the first sentence. Semmendinger (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources say that it's the entire field—please see WP:PSCI. So far I haven't seen a single source that actually states that chiropractic is scientific, just a few editorials saying it should be evidence based (but isn't). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Then the sources are biased. I don't claim chiropractic to be pureply scientific, but there are thousands of scientific studies on chiropractic care from VBA dissection risk to gait analysis to low back pain (in every possible demographic) to respiratory rate, etc etc.. It doesn't fall 100% into science, and it doesn't fall 100% into pseudoscience. Surely some of chiropractic is pseudoscience but how can a field with so much research (I know, it pales in the light of medicine, but still it's a lot of research) be categorized by just one word? The minority is pseudoscience, not the majority. The entirety is alternative medicine though, so that's the appropriate description. I see you're a medical student, which is a field that fundamentally opposes chiropractic. Surely your opinion isn't objective just as mine isn't. But we can't let POV impact what should be neutrality. Semmendinger (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of research into religion, that doesn't make it science, it's still religion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Not well thought out though. Is it peer reviewed and does it follow the scientific method like the ones I'm talking about do? Semmendinger (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: "Then the sources are biased" - says who? You think your judgement is better than published reliable sources? There is indeed a massive amount of research in chiropractic and the vast majority of it concludes that the conceptual basis is without foundation and the evidence of effectiveness is virtually non-existent – read Ernst E (May 2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". Journal of pain and symptom management. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103. for a full narrative review. Our article categorises chiropractic as "a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine". Considering that the majority of chiropractic organisations affirm a belief in the pseudoscience of subluxations, along with 88% of American chiropractors and only a minority of chiropractors (such as the GCC in the UK) reject it, I think that's a more than fair summary of the position. How about you roll out some sources to support your flawed contention that "The minority is pseudoscience, not the majority"? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Nope, I do not think my judgement is better, we can agree on that. I didn't even insinuate I know more. My whole point of being here is to say that editors need to stay objective as there is a long storied history of angst between MDs and DCs. This angst leads to a lot of the problems we see between the two groups when one claims to be better than the other. Unfortunately some of the sources on this page might be biased for that reason, which is all that I brought up. No need to start inciting and claim things I never said. There's also a reason I'm only commenting on the talk page and not making edits on the main page – I know of the sources but I don't know them well enough to cite them. I leave that to a professional or at least someone with more knowledge on the subject matter than myself. I'm just bringing light to these scientific articles when others are claiming chiropractic functions in the theoretical and unknown and lacks true studies. Lastly, my claim to your quote on my behalf is based on the rest of the Wikipedia entry alone which claims mixers to be of a more scientific background and also claims them to have more credited scientific backing. If that's the case, then isn't their practice more deeply rooted in science and less on subluxtaional theory (since they don't necessarily believe in it?) I'm not a DC, the entire point I was trying to make was to be objective, because from an outsider the page reads very anti-chiropractic and seems to source from entities the same philosophies as its authors. Semmendinger (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"there is a long storied history of angst between MDs and DCs" – that is because one group cares about whether what they are doing actually works, and checks whether it does, and stops doing it if it doesn't, and the other group doesn't do these things. That is why one of those groups tends to succeed in publishing in reliable sources, and the other one tends to fail. And that is why what one of those groups says ends up in this article more than what the other group says. Anybody who wants to change the last fact has to change reality, not its Wikipedia image. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason it reads anti-chiropractic is that reality is anti-chiropractic. And when it comes to "mixers" the content in this article is unfortunately lacking. Mixers use a variety of unscientific nonsense such as nervoscopes, activators, and whole-spine X-rays. The X-rays are especially dangerous because they expose individuals to unnecessary and harmful radiation, which ultimately causes cancer (proven correlation, unlike chiropractic benefits). Normal medical X-rays often require young subjects to use gonadal or ovarian protection, while that is something I've never seen in chiropractic, just blasting away as if Xrays were entirely safe. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

But sir, you are wrong. My reality is that few doctors couldn't help me a bit and didn't know why I had pain, reality also is that few chiropractors didn't help me a bit, but a reality also is that one chiropractor helped me immensely. So if most of them don't know how to do their job, doesn't mean the profession is bad. 178.222.81.112 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but your reality doesn't matter. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --RexxS (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought all those meta-analysis relied on patients reports about their pain! Wow, you are so smart! 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Smart enough to know that a meta-analysis relies on a lot more than a single patient. Unlike you. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Horrible

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads this article that it's whole purpose is to harass and defame. There is no objectivity whatsoever. It's this kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Voicewing (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. WP:DUCK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It is also obvious that WP:OWN and WP:GANG is happening here. 178.222.81.112 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of just crying "horrible" or "harass" or "defame" or OWN or GANG, it would help us improve the article if it was pointed out exactly what is wrong, and illustrate why with WP:RS so that the article can be improved. Carping and complaining without any suggestions as to how the article can be improved is just wasting your time, and more importantly ours. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This 'crying' accusation is your own projection.. You've been crying all kinds of stuff, fringe, dangerous, pseudo, evidence... Very specific suggestions for article improvement were provided multiple times above and before, and yet each one was ignored.. 212.200.65.107 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Very specific suggestions for article improvement were provided multiple times above and before" - utter codswallop. Apart from the comical suggestion that a chiropractor should write the article, all we've heard is whining from you and your pals about the reliable sources that reflect chiropractic as a pseudoscience. Where is anyone to find these sources for "article improvement", apart from in your imagination? --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: a 19th Century quack did not, in fact, discover the root cause and one true cure of all disease. Truth is not defamatory. Chiropractic is founded on delusion and has made, to date, little if any progress away from it. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

delusion is in the mind of the beholder 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick inspection of last 1000 edits of this talk page shows that following ten editors: Alexbrn, CFCF, JzG, QuackGuru, Ravensfire, Razr_Nation, Razzzic, RexxS, Roxy_the_dog, Tronvillain, have almost as many edits as remaining ~90 editors. This speaks for itself and who WP:OWNs this article.. (speaking of WP:DUCKs) 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I made the top ten? Neat. WP:STEWARDSHIP --tronvillain (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@212.200.65.114: And yet of the 179 edits I've made so far this month, only 10 are to this talk page: that's 5.5%. Whereas 4 out of your 5 contributions this month are here: that's 80%. Now go away and read WP:SPA, then find something useful to do. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's a quack.

You go away! I stay here. DHCP switches addresses.. so I have edits elsewhere as well. Read about that a bit. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got edits elsewhere? Prove it. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir! I will send you ISP logs with FEDEX priority mail. Or simply ask NSA, they will confirm. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's time to put up or shut up, then get back under your bridge. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

not everyone lives under the bridge homie. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

Someone is clearly trolling the definition of chiropractic. Beginning the definition of an entire profession by stating that it a "pseudoscience" is unfounded and clearly demonstrates a political agenda from the person editing. I am requesting that the definition is reverted to the state it was in prior to this last edit. If you need me to I will rewrite the entire definition but for the sake of time and effort I would just like it reverted to the original untrolled definition. Thank you for your help and for keeping wikipedia unbiased.

Acohndc (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is essentially a duplicate of a request made a couple of sections above. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite an examplary consensus building going on here.. 195.113.243.86 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

POV dispute

Describing chiropractic as "pesudoscience" in the first sentence of this article is unnecessary at best and at worst highly POV. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ It falls under "Questionable Science" as the AMA and other prestigious organizations and state governments (per requiring health insurance companies to cover it) recognize the practice as being a legitimate field of medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.88.210 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is questionable science any different from pseudoscience? We have a myriad of sources claiming it is a pseudoscience, none that it is legitimate. You are aware that the AMA is legally hindered from giving a science-based opinion. It's in the lede if you wish to read the last paragraph. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are.

What you do is plain negative labelling contrary to WP:NPOV but also against the ruling in the ArbCom-case that you used to hammer people earlier. The Banner talk 20:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is entirely in line with point 8 in that case. That should be abundantly clear, and here we have strong sources in favor of calling it pseudoscience, none which are against it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

But not with point 1: neutrality. The Banner talk 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSCI, yes it is. We do not seek false balance between science and woo. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV does not prohibit negative labelling where the negative label is the both factually accurate and the general consensus opinion of the subject. Chiropractic's basic principles have long been held to be pseudoscience, and the only chiropractic practitioners who dispute this are ones who also do not believe/follow its basic principles. Its still pseudoscience. Much like homeopaths who try to distance themselves from the like-cures-like and dilution nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@50.203.88.210: The lead opens with "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine" with two references to support that. I find it hard to believe that anybody reading all of the sources would not conclude that the nonsense about "subluxation" is anything but pseudoscience. It is true that chiropractic has been shown to have some effect – and cost-effectiveness – on chronic lower back pain, so it's fair to apply the epithet "alternative medicine". In fact, if all that chiropractic concerned itself with was the treatment of lower back pain, it might even be considered medicine! But it doesn't, so we find all manner of sources enumerating the areas where it has no measurable effect and more explaining why vertebral subluxation is considered woo-woo. I suggest three things:

1. the lead summarises the article quite well;
2. the article reflects the sources quite well;
3. the sources represent a good cross-section of the available information and comply with WP:MEDRS.

If there are any reliable secondary sources that present a view different from those used in the article, why not list them here and let's try to improve the article, rather than whine that it doesn't treat chiropractic as if it were on a par with genuine evidence-based medicine? --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree: it's reasonable for our article to be up-front about the pseudoscience aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. [75] so if there is no difference in effect from established scientific interventions, i would say it's just as scientific as science. :) 212.200.65.110 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"I would say ..." ? We go by reliable sources, not by fallacious arguments from drive-by anonymous editors. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That some manner of science or evidence-based practice is present in the midst of a sea of mumbo-jumbo doesn't make the field any less pseudoscientific. How is that not obvious? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be verifiable, not just 'obvious'. In addition, using your argument, one could say physics is pseudoscientific because there is lot of pseudoscience and fringe in the world of physics. If some apples are rotten, not all apples are rotten, some are just apples. 212.200.65.113 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you could say "physics is pseudoscientific" but because no reliable source agrees with you, Wikipedia can't say that. However, multiple reliable sources used in the article characterise the claimed mechanism of chiropractic ("subluxations") as complete bollocks pseudoscience, so our article says that. It also reflects that some sources identify chiropractic as alternate medicine, and even notes that there is some evidence of efficacy in treating sub-acute and chronic LBP. What more do you want? --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the vanity press publication "spin doctors" is being used to support the idea that 'chiropractic' is itself a 'pseudoscience'. However, high-quality sources, such as this review from Kaptchuk (full text here ), suggest chiropractic is not itself a pseudoescience, but rather a profession where a proportion of members espouse ideas that may be labelled as pseudoscientific. It thus seems incorrect to call the chiropractic profession a pseudoscience en mass, especially since a significant portion of the profession has been documented to not espouse the pseudoscientific ideas (see the Kaptchuk source). Rather, those ideas that are pseudoscientific should be labelled as such. Is there any high-quality source that actually labels the entire profession as pseudoscience, as opposed to just the ideas espoused by some of it's members? 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The usual POV-pusher's empty rhetoric: big on unsupported claims and thin on actual evidence. So Ted Kaptchuk, Doctor of Oriental Medicine, thinks chiropractic is alternate medicine in his op-ed piece? Sure, why shouldn't he? What you don't say is that other reliable sources tell us it's pseudoscience. If "a significant portion of the profession has been documented to not espouse the pseudoscientific idea" how come the Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic still affirm their belief in a definition of subluxation that has no basis in evidence? If a belief in the mechanism of a disorder that has no evidence of its existence along with a treatment technique that has no demonstrable effectiveness isn't pseudoscience, I'd like to know what you think the word means. --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

RexxS; please focus on sources and text and try to avoid name-calling and generalizations about other editors (POV-pusher?). Interestingly, you say that the 'POV-pusher' is big on claims but thin on evidence, yet I presented a source published in a respected medical journal to support my claim and you have brought no source to back your extensive commentary. Please provide the "other reliable sources that tell us it is pseudscience". I certainly agree that plenty of sources say the ideas of subluxation and innate intelligence are pseudoscientific, but I do not see any high-quality sources saying the profession is pseudoscience en mass. Your dislike of Kaptchuk has no policy-basis, his work linked above was published in a well-respected medical journal (Archives of Internal Medicine) and meets MEDRS requirements as high-quality. You attempt to use 2 examples of chiropractic organizations that have definitions of subluxation as evidence that chiropractic is pseudoscience, but this is original research unless you have a source that makes this same connection. There are sources that suggest that it is only a subgroup of the profession that espouse the pseudoscientific ideas, EG: [76]. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You're a POV-pusher and you need to stop wasting everybody's time here. I've seen this debate many times before and I've seen your ilk more times than I care to recount. Take a good look at WP:CPUSH. The sources I have referred to are already in this article and in Vertebral subluxation. If you have a problem with any of the sources, let's hear them. You're the one who's proposing fundamentally altering a mature, well balanced article and the onus is on you to explain why the present sources' judgement of chiropractic should be subordinate to yours. If you bothered to read our articles, you'd see Cooperstein and Gleberzon (2004) and Peterson (2001) showing a dozen members of ACC and the 77 members of WCF adopting the evidence-free mumbo-jumbo that the ACC and WCF call "subluxations". Does anyone really need to list all 613 results on Google Scholar for "+chiropractic +pseudoscience"? If you don't see those sources, you need to spend more time at the opticians, not at the chiropractors. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a misleading interpretation. The truth is, nothing works well for chronic back pain. You could equally say that SMT is as effective as magic pixie dust. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Our article says:

• "A 2011 Cochrane review found strong evidence that suggests there is no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments for reducing pain and improving function for chronic low back pain." - PMID 21593658
• "A 2011 systematic review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of using spinal manipulation for the treatment of sub-acute or chronic low back pain; the results for acute low back pain were insufficient." – PM C3176706

I don't think I misinterpreted either our article or the sources. It's a mistake to think that chiropractic has no effect at all, especially when used as an adjunct to other treatments, but I accept that you may genuinely hold a different view. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Both SMT and standard therapy work about as well as magic pixie dust. And the problem with SMT is that most chiropractors never discharge a patient as cured, they sell indefinite courses of worthless "wellness adjustments" and "spine health", so the cost benefit calculation during a short course of treatment does not apply to the real world. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine that anyone who believes in pixies might find some benefit from the magic dust (and could be sold quite a lot of it). So it is with many "treatments". I take your point about real world charging practices. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading through this, which is merely the latest installment of the usual argument. Here's a few thoughts I had:

• Q: Is questionable science any different from pseudoscience? A: Yes. Bad science is not necessarily pretend science, just like saying something that's false isn't necessarily the same thing as lying.
• Vertebral subluxation isn't "nonsense". The way that many chiropractors have engaged with the concept might be nonsensical, but real scientists believe that it's possible to dislocate vertebrae (usually with severe nerve damage as a result).
• There seems to be a whole lot of "it doesn't work, so it's pseudoscience", but even QuackWatch says that it (sometimes) works – only they'd rather that you got the same treatment from some other person: "although manipulative therapy has value in treating back pain and may relieve other musculoskeletal conditions, chiropractors are not the only source of manipulative therapy."
• "If there are any reliable secondary sources that present a view different"... but please keep in mind that any source with a different POV will be discredited as unreliable, unable to speak The Truth™ for legal reasons, etc. There is a long history on Wikipedia of cherry-picking sources based on whether the conclusion matches our personal POV.
• "it's reasonable for our article to be up-front about the pseudoscience aspect" ...but does "being up-front" require giving that aspect as the first and main definition of the subject? Not even the article Time Cube, which is the canonical example of an article about pseudoscientific nonsense on Wikipedia, says something like "Time Cube is pseudoscience" before saying what the subject of the article actually is (a website explaining someone's personal pseudoscientific theory).

The main purpose of the first sentence in an article is to define the subject (e.g., not to pass judgment on it). So I think it'd be helpful to look at definitions, i.e., from medical dictionaries. Some are rather long, but here's a few examples:

• a nonpharmaceutical, nonsurgical system of health care based on the self-healing capcity of the body and the primary importance of the proper function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health; therapy is aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring proper function. The most common method of treatment is by spinal manipulation and is primaryil done for musculoskeletal complaints; other methds include lifestyle modification, nutritional therapy, and physiotherapy.
• A specialty focusing on the non-surgical diagnosis, treatment, and management of neuromuscular skeletal conditions by means of manipulation of the spine and related structures.
• The treatment and correction of bodily ills by mechanical means.
• a profession that specializes in the diagnosis, treatment, and overall management of conditions that are due to mechanical dysfunction
• A system of diagnosis and treatment based on the concept that the nervous system coordinates all of the body's functions, and that disease results from a lack of normal nerve function.
• chiropractor: Someone who treats disease by manipulation and adjustment of body structures, often the spine.
• A system that, in theory, uses the recuperative powers of the body and the relationship between the musculoskeletal structures and functions of the body, particularly of the spinal column and the nervous system, in the restoration and maintenance of health.
• A system that, in theory, uses the recuperative powers of the body and the relationship between the musculoskeletal structures and functions of the body, particularly of the spinal column and the nervous system, in the restoration and maintenance of health.
• a system of therapy which holds that disease results from a lack of normal nerve function and which employs manipulation and specific adjustment of body structures (as the spinal column)

I find nothing in there that suggests that mainstream medical dictionaries consider the pseudoscientific aspects of the profession to be the very first thing that readers need to know. That may be the most interesting aspect for certain anti-woo warriors, but the mainstream POV seems to be a little different – more concerned about the specifics of what it is, rather than "it's just one of a thousand kinds of pseudoscientific altmed things".

We can do better. Jytdog's edit to move the word pseudoscientific out of the first sentence was a step in the right direction. Let's see more of that kind of sensible, middle-ground editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What you are doing there is looking for a WP:False balance. Dictionaries need to sell, and the Chiropratic lobby is strong (as evident by the case against AMA), but the fact remains that all sources looking at the scientific underpinnings of chiropractic call it a pseudoscience. We have clear policies for this at WP:PSCI, and we should call a spade a spade and tell readers what it is in the definition (the first sentence). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a better approach is needed here ....in no way do "all sources" say this ...best to not overstate things ...as when we can all see the current sources in the article. Need to explain more when using words of this nature. The word it should be used !!!! but only in a section that explains the facts. In the lead we should just state the fact is controversial. This article also has the problem that it looks like a listing of studies – rather then an well written summary of facts. That said "History" section reads great--Moxy (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

1. DUE doesn't say that we know better than our sources. It says that the proper balance for a Wikipedia article is the balance that exists in reliable sources, not the balance we find when we only look at certain types of sources.
2. PSCI says "the mainstream views of the scientific community", not "the views of those parts of the scientific community that care about this particular detail". "The [entire] scientific community" includes more than advocates whose careers focus on pseudoscience. The "mainstream views" of "the [entire] scientific community" are not found in advocacy works. They're found in (non-chiropractic) medical school textbooks, medical dictionaries, government agencies (NIH, CDC, NICE), position statements from major medical bodies, and similar sources. And I'm not finding any such sources that emphasize the pseudoscientific label. It's not that they necessarily say that it's scientific; it's that they don't care about this detail. Not mentioned in 99% of mainstream sources about the subject == not DUE for the very first words of the article. NB that PSCI never says that the pseudoscientific nature needs to be mention in the very first words. I wouldn't object to an entire article on pseudoscience in this field. I'd welcome a solidly sourced section on it. But not the very first words, because almost no mainstream sources about this subject (NB: "the subject", not "the scientific underpinnings of the subject") mention it at all.
3. If you think that old and highly respected medical dictionaries such as Dorlands and Stedman's are going to bow to the wishes of some "lobby", or even sell worse if they mention the word pseudoscientific, then I firmly disagree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that 90% plus of reality-based medicine simply ignores quacks altogether. Based on your argument, we would make the same change to homeopathy because only the small minority of doctors who give a damn actually write anything about it at all, most ignore it for the fatuous nonsense it undoubtedly is. Same with innate and subluxation. They are self-evidently bullshit, so no reality-based sources look at them. Now, you can say that chiropractic is really spinal manipulation therapy, the small part which is ethically and evidentially defensible, and that is what advocates have been trying to do here for a long time, but the problem is that the defining characteristic of chiropractic, what sets it apart from reality-based physiotherapy, is exactly that bullshit paring. I doubt you will find more than a handful of chiros who discharge curd patients, do not sell maintenance adjustments, and do not use the chiropractic neck twist. Feel free to show otherwise, but the evidence I have seen indicates very strongly that however much mixers might try to be legit, most of them still promote enough of the bullshit to get caught up in the same problem.

On the substantive matter, I am fine with saying that chiropractic is historically defined by the pseudoscientific concepts of innate and subluxation, rather than that chiropractic itself is pseudoscience. Some chiropractors almost certainly make less than half their living from happily promoting bogus therapies (© Simon Singh). Guy (Help!) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy correctly points out that "the proper balance for a Wikipedia article is the balance that exists in reliable sources", so why does this article not rely more heavily on the mainstream, peer-reviewed, medical sources that have covered chiropractic, such as this review in Archives of Internal Medicine (full text here ) and this article published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Practice and this article published in Vaccine? 75.152.109.249 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we'll open up the field to look at the sort of sources you adduce like the one from the Center for Alternative Medicine Research, a single study collected from by CAM practitioners and a study on vaccination, none of which mention pseudoscience (the Chewbacca defence). So let's look next at an article on chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory, a study of federal funding advancing chiropractic, a book on scientific research and an editorial in The Medical Journal of Australia. So there's four of my mainstream, peer-reviewed medical sources that lambaste chiropractic theory as pseudoscience against three of yours that don't mention it. I've got dozens more just from one Google Scholar search, so we can play this game a lot longer if you insist. Similarly you could argue to get the word "pseudoscience" out of the Flat Earth article because 99% of reliable sources about the Earth don't bother to mention that Flat Earth theory is pseudoscience. It's exactly the same false balance. Chiropractic really is partly alt med and partly pseudoscience, and our article is obliged to make that clear per WP:FRINGE/PS. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out that Chiropractors overwhelmingly believe in Vertebral subluxation not Subluxation which is what medical practitioners treat. There is a distinct difference. One is pseudoscience, the other is a recognised condition. Whatamidoing linked to the second rather than the first despite the disambiguation note at the top of Subluxation. Vertebral subluxation as defined by Chiropractic use *is* complete and utter nonsense. Subluxation in its actual medical application is not. Using a related legitimate condition to justify/imply some legitimacy in the pseudoscience area is a classic fringe/psudoscience editing technique on wikipedia, its something seen time and time again on medical articles. As almost everyone here is aware of. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the integrity of Wikipedia an unbiased source of information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The definition in question is of Chiropractic as a profession. The person who made the most recent changes to this definition is a 24 year old med student who is clearly biased against Chiropractic. Which honestly is completely fine for him to have those views and even post them publicly. However it is not at all okay for somebody who is writing the definition of any profession in an open encyclopedia source like this one to have or at least express biased views. Letting a person with such opposing views define Chiropractic is as wrong as letting a creationist write the Wikipedia definition of evolution or even allowing a chiropractor who happens to be biased against medicine be allowed to write the definition for medicine. This is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and these changes that he made are clearly biased. Please keep the Integrity of Wikipedia and allow the definition of a profession to just be just that, a definition and not a political slander. Acohndc (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Acohndc

Please read WP:MEDRS. The opinions of any individual editor seem quite irrelevant, we are trying to follow reliable third party sources. The sources we use are "biased" against pseudoscience and quackery. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please apply the same criteria to sources in the lead. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that one of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be? If so, which one and why? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

exactly. this one looks better. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't "better" though. Please read WP:MEDRS, it explains why. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

... literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.

Benedetti, Paul and MacPhail, Wayne do not fit in any of those cats. NCCIH on the other hand is reliable medical resource and international expert body. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I quoted it above. It appears you have not read it. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have, and I knew you quoted from it. But I still asked you if you've read it (you know, the entire thing, not just the "nutshell"). I'll try again: have you read WP:MEDRS? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And I will answer again, as I see you are a bit slow, yeeesss, I diiiiid. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the text above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to argument. Stop acting like a lousy teacher. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All potatoes are lousy teachers imho. I asked "Are you saying that one of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be? If so, which one and why?". Your response contained the word "exactly", but it didn't specify which of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be, and why you feel that that is the case. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

But I did, you just didn't pay attentions. Benedetti, Paul and MacPhail, Wayne. This section was started by someone discussine pseudoscience claim in the LEAD and I found only one source about that in the lead. So not that hard to figure out. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We potatoes are not just lousy teachers, we suck at mindreading. Life is difficult for us. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You suck at reading as well, and comprehending. But that's ok, we make mush potatoes out of you. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what its like to be a Shetland Black! Anyway, if you wanna talk about MEDRS then you need to be a bit more polite, and if you want to talk about potatoes then I would recommend using another talkpage. And you still haven't found a source that is "better". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Red herring. I talk about RS, you switch to potatoes, then you blame me. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the text above. In my comment at 17:11 the words "Your response" refer back to the comment left at 15:48. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, that is precisely what we are doing. We are documenting the facts without deference to the vested interests of the trade. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Albeit too often from the mainstream medical point of view, due to WP:MEDRS. The Banner talk 17:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Albeit too often from the POV of the anti-woo warrior, which is not quite the same thing as the mainstream medical POV. We're supposed to document the facts in WP:DUE proportion, without deference to any vested interests. But the problem we continually have here is the over-emphasis of certain bits of verifiable information. MEDRS is about verifying that some reliable source said something. Just because something's verifiable (and WP:The Truth) doesn't mean that it needs to be presented in the very first sentence of an article (or included in an article at all, according to WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Though the fringe nature of fringe things needs to be prominently mentioned, according to WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Alex, the policy says, "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly." That suggests to me that there should be a well-written ==Section== on the subject, rather than dropping the word into the first sentence sans any of the encouraged "explanation of how scientists have reacted" bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support inclusion of pseudoscience in the first sentence of this article.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling the application of science and logic as described by reliable sources—"anti-woo" is not a constructive position. The fact remains that of all the sources actually discussing the underlying principles of chiropractic—the only reliable ones seem to turn out that it's pseudoscience. The best we've found so far of a dissenting view is one source claiming that it could potentially be better in the future—not that it is anywhere near scientific now ([77]). Trying to find middle-ground between science and magical and wishful thinking is not neutral. See WP:False middle Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Being scientific and fighting woo are not the same thing. Some people do both, but most scientists only do the first, and some activists only do the latter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither is neutral your selection of lousy sources. Why is citation currently in article better than the one provided above? 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Because what you quoted does not at all concern the underlying scientific basis. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So NIH.gov can get science lessons from you? 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my question to you! How your blah blah relates to nih websites claims about chiropractic. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

They don't make any claims either which way as to whether it is based in science. Your link is frankly entirely irrelevant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion is irrelevant, and I wouldn't even bother with it if I had account, I would simply remove the non-notable reference and statement. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

I request reference Benedetti, Paul; MacPhail, Wayne (2002-01-01). Spin Doctors: The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination. Dundurn. p. 18. ISBN 9781550024067. be accompanied by another one telling the other side of the story, from a way more reputable source [78] 46.13.136.230 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We shall avoid WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the source is nothing new. Our article already states:

• Low back pain. A 2013 Cochrane review found very low to moderate evidence that SMT was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain. The same review found that SMT appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. A 2012 overview of systematic reviews found that collectively, SM failed to show it is an effective intervention for pain. A 2011 Cochrane review found strong evidence that suggests there is no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments for reducing pain and improving function for chronic low back pain. A 2010 Cochrane review found no current evidence to support or refute a clinically significant difference between the effects of combined chiropractic interventions and other interventions for chronic or mixed duration low back pain. A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SMT achieves equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Specific guidelines concerning the treatment of nonspecific (i.e. unknown cause) low back pain are inconsistent between countries.

I wonder what the troll thinks is in that old (2002) NCCIH op-ed piece that isn't already covered by better sources? --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why a prick thinks no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments is an argument against chiropractic when in fact it states it is just as effective. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And there we have it: pure battleground mentality. It's not an argument for or against chiropractic; it's a statement of fact. SMT is just as effective – or actually ineffective in the long term – as anything else for chronic LBP. Our article already makes all the points which that ancient paper raises, and only somebody summoned here to deliberately troll this page would fail to see that. Who's pulling your strings? --RexxS (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Clarify the position

Lets's just get past these trolls and make the position clear. The background is already well documented in this article and in Vertebral subluxation:

1. The majority of chiropractors and their associations believe that chiropractic works through a pseudoscientific mechanism called "vertebral subluxation complex".
   • "... in a 2003 survey of 1100 North American chiropractors, which found that 88% wanted to retain the term "vertebral subluxation complex", and that when asked to estimate the percent of disorders of internal organs (such as the heart, the lungs, or the stomach) that subluxation significantly contributes to, the mean response was 62%."
   • "In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation."
2. Vertebral subluxations are not the same as what medical sources refer to as subluxations (where the dislocation is detectable on X-rays). Vertebral subluxations have no basis in evidence and fit perfectly the definition of pseudoscience: "a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method".
   • "Traditionally, the "specific focus of chiropractic practice" is the chiropractic subluxation and historical chiropractic practice assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence,
3. The only evidence of possible effectiveness of chiropractic that is documented in reliable, secondary sources is related to the area of chronic lower back pain:

   "There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain."

4. Within Wikipedia, chiropractic is included in: Category:Pseudoscience, {{Pseudoscience}} and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, so there's very little doubt how the topic is viewed in the context of our encyclopedia.

So, we have a subject where most of its adherents rely on a theory that has no basis in evidence, and which has virtually no demonstrable effectiveness reported in independent, reliable, secondary sources. If that isn't pseudoscience, then nothing is. It is already clearly accepted as pseudoscience in other areas of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to characterise the field as a whole as alternative medicine because of the sources that label it as such. But it is by no means reasonable to ignore the many sources that also refer to it – particularly as regards to its underlying theory – as pseudoscience. Our introduction must mention both of those elements per WP:FRINGE/PS:

• "To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually ... relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence ... , or indulges a suspect theoretical premise."

I'll be interested to see what counter-evidence the POV-pushers will bring forward to deny the above. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lets's just get past these trolls and make the position clear." No, lets stick a bit more with personal attacks as that's something you seem better at than arguments. You use red herring. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A very good summary of why it is paramount to include "pseudoscience" somewhere in the first sentence—which is included in Google search results and in their "snippets". And contrary to what some people here seem to be suggesting "Spin Doctors – The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination" is a very thorough analysis, extensively referenced, and written by two Canadian neurologists. Yes it strongly favors a certain POV, but there is plenty of science and sources to back that up. Few independent sources exist which discuss the nature of chiropractic, and it is one of the best.

Another good book is "Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience" written by historian Joseph Keating Jr and quoted in Benedetti who says:

[…]many chiropractors, perhaps a majority, rely on “ways of knowing” that are not scientific. They believe chiropractic works because the Palmers said so, because it “just makes sense,” because they see it in their practice everyday and hear anecdotes, read testimonials, and see non-experimental data such as clinical case studies. All this, Keating says, has been:
... bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinter- pretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques.

This lack of critical-thinking skills combined with a non-scientific and often anti-scientific attitude results in chiropractors adopting other unproven modalities in their practices.

Keating sees skepticism and a scientific attitude among a small group of chiropractors and schools, but he is far from optimistic. For one thing, to challenge the notion that “chiropractic works” is considered heresy in most of the profession, so instead of teaching skepticism and critical thinking to students, most chiropractic colleges instill strong belief in chiropractic, strengthening an already prevalent anti-intellectual tradition in the profession.

I have a hard time finding a clearer case of pseudoscience, and the urge for WP:False balance and resisting clear labelling of it as such is frankly damaging.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I don't see anyone here saying that the pseudoscience problem shouldn't be mentioned in the article. If you, then perhaps you'd provide some diffs.

What I see is multiple editors saying that it's not the very first word that we should use to describe it.

IMO the first thing we need to tell readers isn't even that it's a form of alternative medicine. IMO the first thing that we need to tell readers is the scope of practice: These people do spines and nerves and muscles, rather than drugs and surgery.

After we've said that it's about spines and nerves and muscles, then we can get into classifications, like whether it's truly "alternative" or now a part of the "establishment", and its frankly non-scientific/quasi-religious origin and the pseudoscientific middle period, and perhaps even the current divisions in the profession, with some trying to be evidence-based and others going strongly in the opposite direction.

I cannot see how it's "damaging" anything or creating a "false balance" to put these classifications in the second paragraph of the lead rather than the first part of the first sentence.

This might make my reason clearer. Look at these:

Phrenology is pseudoscience.	Phrenology is an idea that was popular in the 19th century that focused on shape and measurements of the human skull as a way to determine a person's health and social character.
Physiognomy is pseudoscience.	Physiognomy is the assessment of a person's character or personality from his or her outer appearance, especially the face.
A brain-training program is pseudoscience.	Brain training programs are computer-based educational programs that purport to improve memory and cognitive skills.
Dowsing is pseudoscience.	Dowsing is a type of divination employed in attempts to locate ground water or other things that are underground.
An energy bracelet is pseudoscience.	An energy bracelet is a small rubber wristband fitted with a hologram.
Inedia is pseudoscience.	Inedia is the belief that it is possible for a person to live without consuming food.

It's obvious that if you just needed to know whether you were at the right article, or to have some general idea of what the topic was, then the second approach is more useful.

Reasonable people may disagree, but IMO the logical approach is to provide a basic definition about the scope of practice (e.g., spines and nerves and such), and what's unique about them compared to all the other people that do the same things (e.g., what I'll call a "subtle" version of vertebral subluxation, as opposed to the kind that you need a neurosurgeon for), and then to explain about what's wrong with the field (because by that point, the reader will have enough background to understand the explanation). But step one is "what is this", not "how does it get classified".

So my proposal is that we follow the typical form, in which we say something like "Neurology deals with disorders of the nervous system" or "Biology is the study of living things", and say something like "Chiropractic diagnoses and treats musculoskeletal disorders". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll let y'all sort out the nuances here, but when I read the first paragraph, even though I am of mixed opinions about chiropractic, the tone jumped out as me as unduly hostile toward the practice, to the point that it really does sound like a "hatchet job," in a way that is more likely to draw drama from advocates, not less. So I rewrote the paragraph a bit to get to the same place, but with more neutral, calm language. Montanabw^(talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Being of mixed opinions is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Following the sources it is extremely clear that chiropractic has not scientific basis whatsoever. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for that. Much better and neutral wording. I wish all editors were as constructive instead of wasting our time on these discussions. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article does need to be upfront about the pseudo* nature of chiropractic, but having it as the first thing, and then repeated, could be seen overly desperate to make a point. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You forget one. According to editor CFCF, Acupuncture is also a pseudoscience... The Banner talk 08:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. If he only could, he would place it before the lead, in the title itself! 185.62.108.2 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is simply wrong. It's according to the sources, of which you have presented none that claim otherwise. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A quite clear quote from one of the sources that tackles the underlying principles of chiropractic.

Every day, chiropractors are taking money from patients and health insur- ance plans to treat something — the subluxation — that doesn’t exist. There is no evidence to support the way the majority of chiropractors in Canada practice. The profession is rooted in pseudo-science, and much of it is actively antiscientific.

This may not be neutral, but there are no sources that claim it is based in science, and in fact most sources that have spent any time analyzing the field are not-neutral precisely because of all the issues they find. Cochrane is an excellent source for the efficacy, but to address the underlying science and philosophies we need a source that speaks to that—of which a number have been given by RexxS. No sources have been presented that are of a different view! This couldn't be clearer, and per the arbitration decision on Pseudoscience: Obvious pseudoscience should be clearly labelled as such "without more justification". It's barely possible to find a more obvious case of pseudoscience, and labelling should be done very prominently—in the first sentence so that it is visible in Google's snippets and search results. To bring to front the argument that we fail to label other pseudoscience appropriately is a fallacy on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and as such is never an argument on Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

no sources that you accept you mean.. you could for example use this source, a much more cited book than those currently used, which talks about complexity and history of the issue in a bit more detail. and here is a bit of scientific research on the topic.. (without pseudo). and a meta analysis citing the benefits (Chiropractic: Is it Efficient in Treatment of Diseases? Review of Systematic Reviews) 185.62.108.2 (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You can "research" innate and the chiropractic subluxation until the heat death of the universe, that will still not result in them becoming objectively real. Citing that book is essentially equivalent to citing a "creation science" textbook as rebuttal to the fact that young Earth creationism is pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That textbook does not pass WP:RS, let alone the stricter criteria at MEDRS for being a reliable source. Its a textbook designed for Chiropractic students. Its neither independant nor reliable for claims as to the validity of chiropractic. It may be reliable/useable as a source on what some chiropractic believers teach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If they don't, Spin Doctors: The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination definitely doesn't. 195.113.243.86 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Intro is just too long

I think the intro section here is quite a bit longer than it needs to be. It is so laden with information and citations on its own that it doesn't encourage readers to look into the rest of the article (WP:LEAD: "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article") because it's giving a barrage of studies and specific medical phenomena. Also according to WP:LEAD, the lead should just cover basic facts and explain the notability of the subject. This lead has 700 words and 37 citations, which is pretty excessive. It's giving a list of scientific studies about a host of assorted phenomena which are perfectly appropriate for the body, as well as random trivia like "A considerable number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of "innate intelligence", chiropractic will continue to be seen as a fringe profession" and the history of what the AMA thought about it. I'd say it deserves to be cut down. K.Bog 02:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph contains repetitive content such as the bit regarding "pseudoscience". The same content is repeated over and over again in the lead for this article. Half of the first paragraph is repetitive content. The part about "A considerable number of chiropractors..." is misplaced. It was originally in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK it should be better now. The tab crashed so I had to do the whole thing twice – it better be worth it! K.Bog 04:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Be careful to follow WP:PRESERVE. We build (add), not destroy (remove). (I know that's pretty simplistic... ). Keep in mind that the lede summarizes the entire article. That's every single section. It's supposed to be so thorough that a reader would not be surprised by any content if they then read the entire article. It should briefly mention all significant aspects dealt with in the article. This is a long and comprehensive article, and the lede should reflect that fact. See WP:CREATELEAD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits on November 26

About these edits of November 26 [79], I adjusted a bit [80], but I'm not entirely satisfied with the result.

I transfer here this conversation with QuackGuru, to see more opinions. (I edited to keep just the diff and the link Special:PermanentLink/751794652#DS AlertBallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

Please do not cut and paste my comments again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It is from my talk page [81], whose "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;" and I attributed the authorship.

I do not find any Wikipedia policy to forbid it, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

But there is a policy that does not allow deleting or modifying messages from other users WP:TPO, as you made here [82], which has made my comment can not be understood.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a shame to see fighting between such good editors as you two, but BallenaBlanca — if you want to quote someone it is best to use the {{quote}} or {{talkquote}} templates so that it does not look like they wrote the message here. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarification, Carl. I'll keep that in mind.

I think that I am not fighting, is not my intention, but talking.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy – or more accurately a behavioural guideline - BallenaBlanca. The problem is not with reporting another editors words, but with copying their signature, which unfortunately gives the impression that the editor posted in a place where they didn't. Have a look at Wikipedia:Signatures#Signature forgery. I don't think for a moment that you intended to impersonate QG, but I hope you can see that the consequence of copying an editor's entire post from one place to another inadvertently creates a false impression of what was posted where. As Carl Frederick says, using {{quote}} (or perhaps {{Talkquote}} for talk pages) goes a long way to helping dispel any wrong impressions. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RexxS, is a very important information. Just before your message, I had made this edit [83] I think this way it is resolved.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it was wise to carry on the conversation here, where it belongs. Don't allow anyone to bully you privately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, BullRangifer, you are so right.

I agree with this version [84], but I think that this small change [85] also clarifies the current situation and avoids duplicates. I hope you agree.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced text and only one source verifies the claim

"Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence.[6][7][8][9]" This text was always in the history section in the lead and only one source verifies the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Another ref was added. Now it is "[6][7][8][9][10]". This is silly. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article should be titled 'Chiropracty'

'Chiropractic', as the article is currently named, is an adjective. The practice, and therefore the noun is 'chiropracty'. Because of this, the title of this page should be altered to 'chiropracty', as should any points in the text where 'chiropractic' is used as a noun.

eg 'chiropractic medicine' is grammatically fine, but the first line should begin 'chiropracty is a form of alternate medicine...' Revobear (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This...actually seems really obvious when pointed out. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Amusingly I had the same reaction. 'Chiropathy' would be another, imo better candidate. However, the fact is that 'chiropractic' is extremely widely used as a noun, probably by abbreviation of the phrase '... medicine'. An argument can be made that it is both an adjective and a noun (some dictionaries list it as both, and some actually only list it as a noun). In a nutshell, it sound odd as it is, but that's how the word is used, and that's that. Since WP's job is not to act as the vanguard of language prescriptivism, no renaming is warranted. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog reversion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I appreciate that you make many edits in a day, and that Wikipedia benefits. However, "not an improvement" and wholesale reversion isn't a cooperative manner to show in a collective project. If you disagree with edits, then you should constructively explain why. Bluehotel (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If something is simply "not an improvement" means simply that it's not to your taste, then I's suggest you should pay at least some respect to other people's positions. For example, I changed "believe" to "maintain" because, as a point of fact, it isn't possible to divine the beliefs of others. Also, I amended a sentence construction because it was appallingly written. Indeed, much of this article is very poorly written, and is filled with opinion, masquerading as fact, and animus towards matters that need to be handled in a neutral tone. Bluehotel (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Reverting does not mean that the editor doesn't "pay [..] respect to other people's positions", it means the changes are disputed and need to be discussed. Which can be done here. Then whatever changes are agreed on can be implemented. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I could have put "better before". -Roxy the dog. bark 22:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bluehotel: We don't have to divine what the beliefs of others are: we only have to report what reliable sources state those beliefs to be. If you don't believe that that the sources used in the article are the best available, please feel free to suggest the sources that you believe are better. This article is not "filled with opinion, masquerading as fact, and animus towards matters that need to be handled in a neutral tone", and its present state is much better than whitewashing a treatment that has little or no evidence of effectiveness, and is based on thoroughly unscientific theories of "vertebral subluxations" and "innate intelligence". --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with bluehotel that several things in this article are written with Animus. I think some of that carries over from some of the sources, but some of it is inappropriately sourced from the editors. For example the caption:

"Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient. This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason." Saying "no evidentially supported reason" is inappropriate. That implies chiropractors take x-rays solely for the purpose of seeing "subluxations", which is patently false. Chiropractors also take x-rays for the same reasons as other medical professionals; to detect injury and pathology.

@RexxS you are saying its present state is better than whitewashing; writing with a neutral tone is not whitewashing. That's what bluehotel is asking for. Jmg873 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are very much mistaken, and I already know what Bluehotel is asking for. The article has been written by presenting information from the best sources found so far, giving differing points of view the same weight as they receive in mainstream sources. WP:WEIGHT is the guideline you're looking for, and "vertebral subluxations" has about as much currency in mainstream literature as the Flat Earth Theory has. As for the use of ionising radiation to detect injury and pathology: why would anyone be visiting a chiropractor to seek treatment for suspected broken bones or other genuine bone damage? That's the job of an MD, and chiropractic has no effectiveness in treating such conditions. Are you telling me that the claim Although there is no clear evidence for the practice, some chiropractors may still X-ray a patient several times a year is false? or that it's untrue that there seems to be a disparity between some schools and available evidence regarding the aspect of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without an indication of a serious disease, which may contribute to chiropractic overuse of radiography for low back pain? Because the sources say otherwise:

• Singh S, Ernst E (2008). "The truth about chiropractic therapy". Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine. W.W. Norton. pp. 145–90. ISBN 978-0-393-06661-6.
• Ammendolia C, Taylor JA, Pennick V, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (2008). "Adherence to radiography guidelines for low back pain: A survey of chiropractic schools worldwide". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 31 (6): 412–8. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.06.010. PMID 18722195.

Where are your sources that contradict those? Or am I supposed to just take your word for it? --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You asked, "Why would a patient seek a chiropractor for treatment of broken bones or other genuine bone damage?" You assume that a patient knows they have bone damage. If someone falls and has back pain, they may visit a chiropractor rather than a PCP. Clinical guidelines warrant an X-ray. If the patient has a fracture, the chiropractor refers to a PCP. In regard to pathology: if a patient has cancer or metastasis and develops a pathologic fracture (in the absence of trauma), they may again visit a chiropractor thinking the pain is benign. The chiropractor will refer that case as well. So in short, the patient wouldn't seek chiropractic treatment for broken bones or pathology, they would seek chiropractic care not knowing they have those things. Your PCP (an MD or DO) will likely diagnose your cancer even though an oncologist will be the person treating it; the same thing applies to a chiropractor in that respect.

Regarding your quotes: I'm not saying that some chiropractors don't overuse x-rays. Those sources are correct, some chiropractors and schools use x-rays for non-evidentially supported uses. However, the statement "This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason" does not say that some chiropractors overuse x-ray, it implies that all chiropractors have no legitimate use for them. The implication that all (or even most) chiropractors take x-rays for non-evidentially supported reasons is an example of the Animus bluehotel and I were referring to. Your quotes also seemed to neglect this: "Research suggests that radiology instruction given at chiropractic schools worldwide seem to be evidence-based." Jmg873 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Chiros use X-rays, and they absolutely should not. Nobody should go to a chiro first if they might have a fractured spine, and it would be fantastical to claim that this is the reason chiropractic offices have X-rays. Legislative alchemy notwithstanding, chiropractors do not have the training or experience necessary to diagnose most (some might legitimately argue any) health problems or injuries. Anybody with an injury requiring X-ray should not be at a chiropractor's office, period, and that is not why they have the X-ray machines. You know it, I know it. The machines are used for full-spine X-rays to diagnose the fictional "subluxations" they love to pretend to treat. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Chiros use X-rays, and they absolutely should not This is strictly your opinion. However, when it pertains to seeking "subluxations" I agree with you. Nobody should go to a chiro first if they might have a fractured spine, and it would be fantastical to claim that this is the reason chiropractic offices have X-rays. Patient's don't know what they may or may not have, and seeking legitimate injury is the reason most chiropractors have it. Legislative alchemy notwithstanding, chiropractors do not have the training or experience necessary to diagnose most (some might legitimately argue any) health problems or injuries Any evidence to support that? because the evidence I linked in my previous post speaks to the contrary. Anybody with an injury requiring X-ray should not be at a chiropractor's office, period, and that is not why they have the X-ray machines. You know it, I know it. You are holding to the belief that subluxations are what most chiropractors are looking for with X-rays, that they aren't trained to diagnose real problems with X-rays, when in reality this is not the case for the majority of chiropractors. The machines are used for full-spine X-rays to diagnose the fictional "subluxations" they love to pretend to treat. Again, most chiropractors don't use full-spine x-rays. You seem to have taken a slight understanding of a Gonstead chiropractor (or someone practicing similarly) and erroneously applied it to all chiropractors. Again, I'm not trying to make the argument that there aren't chiropractors that are using X-ray equipment in the way you are suggesting, I'm saying that your statements do not represent the majority of chiropractors or the majority of chiropractic institutions.Jmg873 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of 'cauda equina syndrome' from risks

This shouldn't be listed as a risk. It is a next to non-existent relationship with only a single published 'observed' case. Jmg873 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

case study, yikes

PMID 16769516 is the kind of thing people talk about with regard to the dangers of alt med: "We report a 44-year-old man suffering complete paraplegia due to paraspinal and epidural abscess, following chiropractic therapy for severe back pain and whose diagnosis was delayed." just yikes. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Headache

The first review mentioned in the headache section isn't "good evidence" that chiropractic SMT is effective for treating migraines. Their conclusion was "Current RCTs suggest that massage therapy, physiotherapy, relaxation and chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy might be equally efficient as propranolol and topiramate in the prophylactic management of migraine. However, a firm conclusion requires, in future, well-conducted RCTs without the many methodological shortcomings of the evaluated RCTs on manual therapies." None of that is a justification for removing the opening line of that section, "There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain." --tronvillain (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I adjusted it (see what I did there?). Guy (Help!) 21:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of X-ray radiology caption

Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient. This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason. As previously discussed The caption for X-ray radiology needs to be modified or removed. To imply that chiropractors are using x-ray solely for non-evidentially supported reasons is false. To respond to a previous editor regarding full spine x-rays: The source I cited before noted that 29 of the 33 chiropractic schools worldwide disagree with the use of full-spine x-rays.

As previously discussed, the caption needs to remain. There is no implication that chiropractors are using x-rays solely for non-evidentially supported reasons: that's just your construction. The caption does not specifically refer to full-spine x-rays, and even a small area x-ray exposes a patient to ionising radiation. The source also supports our text stating that there seems to be a disparity between some schools and available evidence regarding the aspect of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without an indication of a serious disease, which may contribute to chiropractic overuse of radiography for low back pain, so the schools teach one thing but something else happens in practice. You seem to be under a misapprehension about the extent to which chiropractors subscribe to the theory of vertebral subluxations. The World Federation of Chiropractic, representing almost every national chiropractic association in the world, maintains the existence of these subluxations. The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners made a statement in 2014 placing chiropractic subluxation as the "specific focus of chiropractic practice". Your stance that the majority of chiropractors are not looking for subluxations is not founded in reality. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no implication that chiropractors are using x-rays solely for non-evidentially supported reasons: that's just your construction. That is absolutely the implication. The way that is phrased leaves no ambiguity about its meaning; it ascribes certainty. The source also supports our text stating that... You seem to misunderstand what that means, and what they are talking about. the phrase there seems to be a disparity between some schools and available evidence regarding the aspect of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without an indication of a serious disease, which may contribute to chiropractic overuse of radiography for low back pain refers to the phrase in the results section However, only 14 (44%) respondents concurred with the guidelines and disagreed with the statement that there "is a role for radiography in acute low back pain in the absence of 'red flags' for serious disease." Which basically states, only 14 of the schools believe taking x-rays should be withheld if the patient has no red flags; that does not support your caption. so the schools teach one thing but something else happens in practice. unsupported by your quote. You seem to be under a misapprehension about the extent to which chiropractors subscribe to the theory of vertebral subluxations. I'm very well educated, and very well aware on the extent to which chiropractors subscribe to this belief. I'm a chiropractic student about to graduate. I've conversed with hundreds of different chiropractors and chiropractic students, from a variety of schools. I have no misapprehension about the frequency subluxation theory is or is not applied. I am also very clear on what is taught radiologically; taking X-rays for subluxations is not. In fact, merely the word "Subluxation" is very taboo where I attend to school. You cited the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the World Federation of Chiropractic. The NBCE has that on their page, but you have taken it out of context. As for the WFC, you are misquoting them; if you look closer you'll see they are in fact quoting the World Health Organization. The definition the WFC uses is A health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation. Regardless, how these organizations define subluxation is not the point. The point is how radiology is taught and used. The phrasing used in this caption inappropriate and incorrect.Jmg873 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly would be the problem with adding "some" to the beginning of the caption? --tronvillain (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jmg873: "That is absolutely the implication" - no, it isn't, other than in your mind. There is indeed no ambiguity in "Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient. This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason", but you're drawing an erroneous conclusion from that. Is it not true that "Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient"? Is it not true that "This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason"?

"You seem to misunderstand what that means, and what they are talking about". No. I understand exactly. Your argument proves my point about what is taught in the schools not being what occurs in practice. Less than half of the respondents agreed with the guidelines.

Who cares if you're very well educated? You're not as well educated as I am, if you want to make a pissing contest out of it. Your opinion and anecdotes are worth precisely nothing on Wikipedia. When you've finished being a chiropractic student, and have some papers published in respected journals, then you can start to lecture me about the value of what you know.

The NBCE has that on their page, but you have taken it out of context. Nonsense. Anyone can check http://www.nbce.org/about/about_chiropractic/ and read the prominent section titled "Subluxation": "The specific focus of chiropractic practice is known as the chiropractic subluxation or joint dysfunction. A subluxation is a health concern that manifests in the skeletal joints, and, through complex anatomical and physiological relationships, affects the nervous system and may lead to reduced function, disability or illness." That's complete garbage without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up. Nothing taken "out of context" there.

This is the consensus statement from the Association of Chiropractic Colleges in 1996:

• "Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence." ref: Robert Cooperstein, Brian J. Gleberzon. Technique systems in chiropractic. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2004, ISBN 0-443-07413-5, ISBN 978-0-443-07413-4.

It was adopted by the World Federation of Chiropractic in 2001. ref: Donald M. Petersen Jr. WFC Lays Foundation for Worldwide Chiropractic Unity. Dynamic Chiropractic, July 2, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 14.

So it seems it is the WFC that "focuses particular attention on the subluxation [sic]". You need to read the sources before you start to tell me to look closer, right? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• per PMID 27713818 (2016) about half of Australian chiropractors are unaware of the guideline for medical imaging in their field. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Is it not true that "Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient"? This is true. Is it not true that "This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason"? In cases where the chiropractor is seeking a subluxation, this is true. However, that doesn't represent most chiropractic X-rays.

Your argument proves my point about what is taught in the schools not being what occurs in practice. Less than half of the respondents agreed with the guidelines. The respondents were chiropractic schools. So this reflects what is taught in the schools rather than what is done in practice. 14 of 32 respondants believe that imaging should be done even when there are no red flags. Again, that is less than half that believed that. So most of the schools are teaching radiology consistent with evidence-based guidelines.

You continue to associate subluxations with radiology. Again, most chiropractors do not use radiology in this way. Chiropractors who believe in subluxations do not require X-rays to find them. As I said previously, practitioners practicing "Gonstead", or similar methodology (a very small minority of chiropractors) use x-rays to find subluxations. The vast majority of chiropractors find subluxations by palpation alone; with X-rays used when red flags are present, or to rule out contraindications to spinal manipulation.

The Talk page is NOT a forum for you or anybody else to make generalizations about this field or anything else, unsupported by citations. If you continuing doing that I will close this thread. The purpose of this page is discuss specific changes to the associated article. That is all it is for. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Let's get to the meat and potatoes then of the argument then: The source I cited earlier, cited here as a full-text [86] explains in greater detail what I said regarding chiropractic radiology. Note that Australia is not among the respondants. The study you posted from 2016 is more recent, but also represents only Australia. In your study it said 50% did not follow guidelines, that also doesn't make the caption currently posted valid. you want to modify the statement to be relative to Australia that is fine, otherwise it should state "Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient", and nothing else. I think the most appropriate compromise would be "Some chiropractors use X-ray radiography to look for subluxations, a practice that exposes patients to ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason", and I think that would be fine.Jmg873 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the generalization you're talking about, is exactly what I'm trying to correct. The caption as it is, is a generalization. I'm trying to make it specific.Jmg873 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting on point. The caption as I edited it says "Chiropractors overuse x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient, despite professional guidelines advising restrained use. This exposes patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason" The source you provided is a survey of schools. We would expect high compliance at schools – higher than in the field, and yet 22% of schools did not agree with the guideline. The field has a problem, still. It is not alone in that. Please note that I added that the guidelines teach away from the practice. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate some of the contents of the edit, but my initial issue with it still remains. Without using a quantifier (as both of our sources do), it's still generalizing. It still implies chiropractors as a whole, rather than some chiropractors.Jmg873 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a complete list of all the possible valid uses for X-rays in chiropractic:

I did not miss any. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your stance on chiropractic, as you've made it quite clear; that doesn't address the point I brought up. Both sources reference some amount of chiropractors using evidence based guidelines for radiology, shouldn't the caption reflect that rather than generalizing?Jmg873 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources are irrelevant to this discussion. See WP:CAPTION. Please do not discuss sources. Please focus on the image. That goes for all editors. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What caption do you propose, based only on the image itself, QG? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose following Sanger's rules. I do not have a specific proposal in mind for the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Establishing relevance to the article, the caption discusses the relevance of an X-ray image to the subject of this article. I will not respond further to general comments from you and I reckon others will do the same Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I put "some chiropractors", you changed it to "in the field of chiropractic". You commented earlier that you opposed generalization, but you're removing something to quantify the caption; creating a generalization. The phrase "X-ray radiography is overused in the field of chiropractic" conveys the message of the whole field, a generalization unsupported by the sources. Why the change?Jmg873 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote above which was The field has a problem'. (what I wrote about generalizations was you and others making general statements not based on sources here on the talk page). "Some" just begs the question of "how many" and we don't know -- we have two data points. From those two data points there is a nontrivial amount and that is a problem for the field. QG will tell you at length about the problems with "some". Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A source must explicitly use the word "some" or it is most likely original research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Awk! Original research! Awk! Guy (Help!) 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not a "stance on chiropractic", it's an evidence-based statement of the valid uses of X-rays in chiropractic practice. X-rays have only one legitimate use n this context: diagnosis of fracture. Chiros have no expertise int he treatment of fracture. Most chiros who use X-rays, use them to "diagnose" the non-existent subluxation complex. That is evidentially and ethically unsupportable. Anybody with a reality-based disorder requiring X-rays, should be in the hands of a real physician. This is not a remotely controversial view. If you want respect, stop pretending to treat non-existent conditions, stop claiming to treat conditions not related to musculoskeletal pain, stop using bogus diagnostics, stop selling indefinite courses of "maintenance" treatment, and stop twisting people's necks. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think things would mover faster if the wording was simplified. One sentence is plenty to describe the image and how it related to chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Simplified to what? Guy (Help!) 10:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@JzG:No, that's not a "stance on chiropractic", it's an evidence-based statement of the valid uses of X-rays in chiropractic practice. I didn't see a citation with those statements. I'll cite some evidence to the contrary below.

X-rays have only one legitimate use n this context: diagnosis of fracture. by "this context" do you mean a muscluskeletal context? If so, this is statement is extremely incorrect. In the context of low-back pain for example: X-ray may be used to see Arthritic conditons: Enteropathic, psoriatic, or osteo- arthritides; arthritic changes such as spondylophyte formation, disc degeneration or joint ossification; Genetic abnormalities which can be a pain generator, such as DISH, or Ankylosing spondylitis; Cardiovascular issues, most notably Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm; Space Occupying Lesion (this in and of itself is a huge category); Diseases affecting bone density like Paget's, or osteopetrosis; Other issues affecting bone density such as prostatic or other metastasis, Osteomyelitis, or generalized osteoporosis; degenerative bony changes such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. X-ray might be used to search for things like these depending on the patient's comprehensive medical history, and history of present illness. That list is only for low-back complaints, that doesn't include any peripheral areas or other parts of the spine. I've intentionally left out all of the different types of fractures that can happen in the spine, because you already recognized fracture as a legitimate use of x-ray in this context. There are a lot more things visible on plain-film X-ray that can cause low back pain, but I think that's a good start. X-rays have a legitimate use for a lot of things in that context.

Most chiros who use X-rays, use them to "diagnose" the non-existent subluxation complex. Actually, the most recent study that Jytdog posted said that 37.5% used it to seek out subluxation (listed in the study as "biomechanical analysis"), 37.5% isn't most chiropractors.

Anybody with a reality-based disorder requiring X-rays, should be in the hands of a real physician. You also said that the only legitimate use of x-rays in this context is fracture; there are reality based disorders requiring x-rays that your comment didn't demonstrate an awareness of. It's also worth noting, part of knowing a patient needs a referral to someone else is by making a diagnosis; which sometimes requires X-rays.

If you want respect... When did this become about respect? I thought it was about changing a caption regarding X-rays. I'm unclear about what specific article changes your comment was proposing, but lets stay on topic. I'll repeat my question: If we're avoiding unsupported generalization, why remove quantifiers from the caption?

@QuackGuru: I agree, one sentence would be sufficient. Maybe as simple as "Chiropractors sometimes use x-ray radiography equipment to examine a patient's skeletal structure". It's simple, accurate, applies no bias, makes no generalizations or speculations, and relevant to both the article and picture.

References

--Jmg873 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a citation. Chiropractors are not trained in orthopaedic fracture care (whereas DOs might be, in the US, at least), and the chiropractic subluxation does not exist. Those are the only two plausible uses of an X-ray machine in a chiropractor's office.

It is true that "Chiropractors sometimes use x-ray radiography equipment to examine a patient's skeletal structure". It is also true that hoemopaths sometimes treat cancer patients. The fact that it is true absolutely does not make it defensible, still less a good idea. The use of X-rays by chiropractors exposes patients to ionising radiation for no evidentially supportable reason. That is the critical point. The X-ray machines are just props for the theatre of "straight" chiropraxy, but they are dangerous props. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, the content dispute can be resolved very quickly if editors follow WP:CAPTION and agree to keep the wording down to one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jmg873, if you want to use the word "sometimes" I suggest you find a source to back up the claim. See WP:WEASEL. Simple wording for the image description will work for me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A single-sentence version would be: x-ray radiography is overused in chiropractic, exposing patients to harmful ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason (with the two existing sources). I have no problem with brevity, only with misleading incompleteness. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"x-ray radiography is overused in chiropractic,..." does not follow WP:CAPTION. Does the image show it being overused? Nope. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea why we even include the bloody picture anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Your quote is the professional opinion from a former chiropractor, which doesn't provide quantification. It has value, but not more than published research. With that said, a comment like "Chiropractors use x-ray radiography to examine the bone structure of a patient" is not incomplete or misleading.Jmg873 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a qualified opinion from someone who investigates billing fraud claims against chiropractors. It would qualify as expert evidence in court, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are two main reasons why chiropractors take more x-rays than are medically necessary. One is easy money. It costs about 35¢ to buy an 8- x 10-inch film, for which they typically charge $40. In chiropractic, the spine encompasses five areas: the neck, mid-back, low-back, pelvic, and sacral regions. That means five separate regions to bill for—typically three to seven views of the neck, two to six for the low back, and two for each of the rest. So eleven x-ray films would net the chiropractor over $400 for just few minutes of work. In many accident cases I have reviewed, the fact that patients had adequate x-ray examinations in a hospital emergency department to rule out fractures did not deter the chiropractor from unnecessarily repeating these exams.

Chiropractors also use x-ray examinations inappropriately for marketing purposes. Chiropractors who do this point to various things on the films that they interpret as (a) subluxations, (b) not enough spinal curvature, (c) too much spinal curvature, and/or (d) “spinal decay,” all of which supposedly call for long courses of adjustments with periodic x-ray re-checks to supposedly assess progress. In addition to wasting money, unnecessary x-rays entail unnecessary exposure to the risks of ionizing radiation.

— Preston H. Long, chiropractor [87]

Simply removing the picture

I support removing the picture as was done here by guy, which was reverted by User:Harizotoh9 here, and again removed by Guy here. Adds no real value to understanding chiropractic and is probably misleading, since chiros don't use them much. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The image does not need to be removed because editors have a difficult time following WP:CAPTION or simplifying the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the reason given in the edit note rationale for removing it, nor my rationale for supporting the removal. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is relevant. Chiropractic use such equipment. I think straight chiropractors use it more often. Unless a better image is used we can keep this one. QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion. Mine is that it's not relevant, and Jytdog agrees. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the picture is a bit of a "double-edged coat-rack". It gives the chiropractors a chance to show how they use shiny new equipment that make them look like MDs; optionally, it gives those of us with a rather more sceptical attitude an opportunity to explain how chiropractors misuse such equipment. On the plus side, it's a nice picture, but that's about all you can say. On balance, I'd have thought the article would be better off without it. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"In your opinion. Mine is that it's not relevant, and Jytdog agrees." But chiropractors do use this equipment. That makes it relevant. It cannot be irrelevant when they use it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

chiropractors do use this equipment - true. That makes it relevant - in your opinion. Chiropractors wear white coats in order to look doctorey. Does that mean we need a picture of a white coat? Some chiropractors wear spectacles. Do we need a picture of a pair of spectacles? The issue of X-rays is covered in the article, that does not mean we need a random picture of an X-ray machine. Most of the things discussed in the article are not, in fact, pictured. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal of secondary source

A secondary source was recently removed from the article under the misinformed idea that chiropractors do not treat knees. Is there a source that can be provided to verify that chiropractors do not treat knees? Or is this just the opinion of the editor who made the edit? peer-reviewed source that examined why people see chiropractors found that 30% of visits were for musculoskeletal problems besides the neck and back [88]. Moreover, the NCCIH says "Many people who seek chiropractic care have low-back pain. People also commonly seek chiropractic care for other kinds of musculoskeletal pain (e.g., neck, shoulder), headaches, and extremity (e.g., hand or foot) problems."[89] 75.152.109.249 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am of the view that the relevance of this is questionable. Chiros are back-crackers. That's what they do. The relevance of manipulative therapy on knees is not clear, and the evidence is weak anyway. We're better off without that para if only on the principle of minimum astonishment. People looking up back-crackers on Wikipedia are not really looking to see if there's crappy evidence that some kinds of manual therapy might work as well as other treatments (which is to say: not worth a damn) for knees. Nothing works for knee arthritis. I wish this were not true, for selfish reasons if nothing else, but it is. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It was two secondary sources that editor removed, not one. They are and I can also provide another source explaining that chiropractors treat knees. NHS says: Chiropractic treatments are often used for musculoskeletal conditions (which affect the muscles, bones and joints). These conditions include: [...] pain or problems with hip, knee, ankle and foot joints [90]

@JzG: Chiropractors are not merely "back-crackers" spinal manipulation is a key treatment method of chiropractic, but chiropractors use a variety of different treatments for different problems. This includes manipulation of areas other than the spine. From NCCIH Chiropractors may combine the use of spinal adjustments and other manual therapies with several other treatments and approaches such as:, Heat and ice, Electrical stimulation, Relaxation techniques, Rehabilitative and general exercise, Counseling about diet, weight loss, and other lifestyle factors, Dietary supplements. [91], From NHS Some chiropractors can make other treatments available, as well as manual therapy. These can include advice on exercise, diet and nutrition, which is intended to help improve, manage or avoid the recurrence of your health condition, and to improve your general health. They can also include rehabilitation programmes in which you are taught exercises that are intended to help you recover from your health condition, and prevent it recurring. [92] They are also do not limit themselves to manipulation of the spine, as listed above.

References

-- Jmg873 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Some chiropractors may have branched out into other areas, but the chiropractic trade is defined by back-cracking, and this weak evidence cited to primary sources neither of which mention chiropractic in their abstracts or categorisations, has no obvious relevance. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy/JzG, you are making claims that you are not verifying and that apparently cannot be verified. You removed this source, and claim that it says nothing about chiropractic and is thus not relevant. It is a review on manual therapy for knee arthritis and the first paragraphs of the intro state: "Management aims to control pain and reduce disability. Non-pharmacologic measures such as education, weight loss, physical therapies, and exercise should be tried first, with adjunctive pharmacologic intervention. Manual therapy is a physical treatment used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths and other practitioners to treat musculoskeletal pain and disability, and includes massage therapy, joint mobilisation and manipulation.".75.152.109.249 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And another source, cochrane: For this review, chiropractic was defined as encompassing a combination of therapies such as spinal manipulation, massage, heat and cold therapies, electrotherapies, the use of mechanical devices, exercise programs, nutritional advice, orthotics, lifestyle modification and patient education. The review did not look at studies where chiropractic was defined as spinal manipulation alone as this has been reviewed elsewhere and is not necessarily reflective of actual clinical practice.[emphasis mine] [93] More than just back crackers.Jmg873 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You are a single purpose account, every word you have written on Wikipedia, as far as I can see, is promoting chiropractic, so I understand your limited exposure to our policies and guidance. That does not excuse your constant use of bait-and-switch. The fact that chiros are known as back-crackers not as general musculoskeletal therapists is context for the fact that inclusion of studies on knees is going to be puzzling for the reader. That context is combined with the substantive point that (a) the studies are weak and (b) neither the abstracts nor the categories even mention chiropractic. The relevance of these studies is not established. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am promoting a neutrally written chiropractic article. It appears these sources that were deleted might be MEDRS compliant. QuackGuru (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So they might be, but, if you'd like to go back and read what I wrote, you'll note that neither the abstract nor the categorisation mentions chiropractic, so while there may be sources identifying non-spinal manipulation as a practice within at least a subset of chiropractors, to use that to justify inclusion of two papers that do not appear, on the face of it, to relate to chiropractic sufficiently to mention it in the categories or abstracts, would be WP:SYN. And we don't do that. Add the fact that the evidence is weak and equivocal, and I see no good reaosn to include it. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care if it's included in the article or not, the statements and source aren't very significant. The part that concerns me is your reason for removing them. You removed it with the explanation "Chiros don't do knees", which you've yet to support with evidence; a problem with WP:V. The counter-point has been cited.

Aside from that, I also have a concern that you believe because I oppose your views of chiropractic, that I am POV pushing. As I said before, if you think I've done a bait and switch, please let me know what you're referring to so I can be more cognizant of that in the future.Jmg873 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I believe you are POV-pushing because you have no interest on Wikipedia other than promoting chiropractic.

I have already expanded at length on what lay behind the necessary brevity of my edit summary. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your criticism of my edits. While they are primarily on one topic, they are not designed to push any agenda. My goal is not for the promotion of chiropractic, or to modify the article in a biased way. My goal is a neutrally written article, that is all. You and I seem to differ in what we think that is. You're right though, I am new to the policies and procedures. I am trying to learn them, and I fully intend on branching out to other articles of interest. For example, what do you suggest I am "bait and switching"? Help me learn so I can be a better editor. Jmg873 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jmg873, please do not be concerned, you have done nothing wrong. There is no policy against being an SPA and that JzG/GUy has used this argument shows that they are running out of, or lacking altogether, any policy or source based argument. Further, this article is under 'discretionary sanctions', so discussing you (as an SPA) rather than staying focused on content and sources, could be seen as a violation. The sources that guy removed are very relevant to chiropractic in that they are regarding manual therapy (something chiropractors do according to reliable sources ) for a musculoskeletal condition (that chiropractors treat according to reliable sources). One of the 2 sources that JzG deleted even explicitly states chiropractic as one of the professions that uses manual therapy to treat conditions such as knee OA: "Manual therapy is a physical treatment used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths and other practitioners to treat musculoskeletal pain and disability, and includes massage therapy, joint mobilisation and manipulation." I would think that continuing to argue against inclusion of these sources is ridiculous.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is also no policy against deleting positive reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I love it when grudge-bearers come along to give terrible advice to POV-pushers. Sure, there's no rule against being an SPA. However, when an SPA is pushing a POV, as is the case here, their status as an SPA is taken into account, and the result is much more likely to be an editing restriction or outright ban. And in the last ten years and more as an admin here, I have seen the community's tolerance for such accounts steadily reduce, and its willingness to impose restrictions has increased along with that. So advising a POV-pushing SPA to keep on keeping on, is about the worst advice you could give. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you still support your reason for removing it? QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That is great Guy, as a 10+ year admin then you know better and you know that JmG873 is not pushing a POV. JmG is arguing in support of inclusion of a MEDRS compliant source that itself describes manual therapy as relevant to chiropractors. You, on the other hand, are arguing against inclusion of an policy-compliant source, based on a reasoning that the high-quality source itself contradicts and that multiple other sources tell us is incorrect. If you continue to argue against inclusion of the source in the face of policy and source based reasons for inclusion, and when you yourself have provided no policy or source based arguments, then you are the one pushing a POV.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary: it is my firm view that JmG873 is pushing a POV, since every action he makes is weighted towards chiropractic. As noted above, the issue here is not reliability, it's relevance. Being a S does not confer relevance. Please also log in, because you clearly have been here before and probably have an account and there are enough topic-banned editors that you don't want to be shut out on suspicion of being one of them. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy, so far I have seen every position taken by JmG supported by sources that he/she provides (so I do not care what their POV is), whereas, you have provided no sources or policy and you continue to steer the discussion towards being about editors rather than sources and content (thus your POV is still unsupported). Rather than focusing on other editors, please recall that this article is under discretionary sanctions and everyone should please keep your discussion relevant to the content and sources related to this article. Any further comment about other editors and not regarding sources and content is going to result in reports to ANI so that discussion here can stay focused appropriately. If you have a concern, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard and avoid discussing other editors here at this talk page. I prefer to maintain no account and this is allowed, just as being an SPA is allowed. If you are concerned that I am a topic banned editor then feel free to ask me at my talk page, or report me to the appropriate places (checkuser I think), otherwise, lets stay focused on content and sources, please. You have still not provided any source or policy that supports your position that these 2 secondary sources are not relevant for this article. Sources have been presented by JmG that supports the idea that chiropractors use manual therapy and treat knee OA? Moreover, I have quoted text from one of the sources in question that supports that they are relevant to chiropractic. Do you still feel the sources are not relevant? Can you please support your position with source or policy (no more unsubstantiated opinion please).2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency between use of sources and POV-pushing. Acupuncturists have been doing it for years, so have homeopaths. My mind is conjuring up a picture of Nicolas Cage with a bird on his head.

I do not know if you are a topic-banned editor, but you are very obviously not a passing randon anonymous user. It is highly likely that you have an account and are deliberately not using it.

I already stated clearly several times why the sources are not relevant. They relate to the puzzling (to the reader) knee, they are weak evidence and not in any way compelling, and the sources themselves don't even mention chiropractic in the abstract or categories. It gives the storng impression of a standard SCAM tactic of using a positive study on a closely related practice, to imply validity.

If JmG873 wants to include the claim that chiropractic is effective for knee pain, then we need reliable independent secondary sources that say chiropractic, (not arbitrary manipulation therapy) has a significant effect on knees that is clearly not down to bias. These studies fail on more than one criterion there.

The core issue here is that A union B is not the same as A intersect B, but SCAM proponents have a very great tendency to imply that it is the same. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Guy here, and would like to point out that not any of the arguments given here by you (IP-editor) or JmG873 have even bordered on being coherent. You can't restate falsehoods over and over again and press minor sources to include any potential benefit for chiropractic. The major sources such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews from the biggest and most widely recognized independent sources do not corroborate the "weak evidence" found in fringy chiropractic journals. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

CFCF, please provide specific examples of where "falsehoods have been restated over and over" so that we can make sure not to repeat them again. I will offer an example, Guy has suggested repeatedly that these secondary sources, which are examining manual therapies for musculoskeletal conditions, are not relevant to chiropractors. This is a falsehood that has been clearly shown, repeatedly, with reliable sources in this discussion, yet Guy keep repeating this falsehood. Guy, you suggest that "we need reliable independent secondary sources that say chiropractic, (not arbitrary manipulation therapy) has a significant effect on knees", but this is ridiculous, based on no policy, and you have clearly not read single source that has been provided here. Chiropractic is a profession that applies treatment modalities, such as those categorized under 'manual therapies'. Please read the quote from the secondary source you are saying is not relevant again: "Manual therapy is a physical treatment used by physiotherapists, chiropractors, osteopaths and other practitioners to treat musculoskeletal pain and disability, and includes massage therapy, joint mobilisation and manipulation." No credible researcher publishes a conclusion that "X profession is effective for Y condition"; Research examines specific modalities and in this case, modalities that are specifically related to chiropractors. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I am arguing that these papers are not demonstrably relevant to an article on chiropractic. See below: one of them doesn't even mention it and the other includes two old papers using chiropractic manipulation but does not discuss it in the abstract, does not include any category or keyword for chiropractic, and does not separately analyse effect by type of therapy. Neither of these papers provides acceptable support for any claim of efficacy for chiropractic. They are irrelevant to this article. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rather than repeating ourselves any further, I have posted at the project medicine page for additional perspectives here. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So I have now obtained the sources. Jansen contains zero instances of the word chiropractic. French says that two of the included studies used chiropractic, but does not separate out effect size by type of manipulation. I have no idea why we're even discussing this any more, the determined focus on my original edit summary is being used as a smokescreen to obscure the very obvious fact that these two papers absolutely do not support any claim of efficacy specifically for chiropractic, so they are WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE in this article on chiropractic. If you want to include them in the article on manipulation therapy, be my guest, but they very clearly do not belong here. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In the news

Chiropractor who claimed he could cure cancer convicted of false advertising is covered in a large number of news sources today. Several sources are quoted who state that this is a common issue. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There are tons of news about medical malpractice, i.e. [94]. not sure what point you are trying to make.. 93.87.214.143 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:RECENTISM. And to avoid individual cases since this article is broadly speaking about an entire profession. Information should be broadly based, such as surveys of an appropriate sample size. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on both counts. This is a striking prosecution, and that is reflected in the number of sources covering it. It was in British newspapers as well. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 2014 cost analysis

Recently a 2014 cost-analysis of chiropractic was removed here because it was a primary source. The use of this source pertains solely to cost, not a medical claim, so WP:MEDRS does not apply; a primary source can be used.Jmg873 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All articles should be based on secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the requirement for secondary sources only applied for medical claims. Is this not the case? Many other non-medical claims in this article use something other than secondary sources as their main support.Jmg873 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the WP:PAGs. There are no firm rules, but articles should be based on secondary sources. Primary sources can sometimes be carefully used, typically for mundane facts to build on the secondary source base. But adding primary research on a contentious topic is not good. Also see WP:SCIRS. Quite apart from anything else, there is a WP:WEIGHT issue – without secondary sourcing it is impossible to know whether the inclusion of primary information is WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna say this still broadly falls under MEDRS, since it is still potentially a source of health information that someone may use to make a medical decision. Which medical treatment may be more cost effective, is still information about a medical treatment. It would be nice if everyone took a minute to visit Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and about 200 people a day actually do, but we get 500,000 million unique visitors a month. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Sorry, I understand that there are no requirements, I meant the general guidelines. I'm not going to push hard on this study. I think it's a relevant add, but I understand your concern about WP:WEIGHT. I'm still trying to learn here, thank you for your patience.

@Timothyjosephwood: If your concern is people using this page to make a decisions about medical treatment, there is a great deal about this page which is truly troubling. As I said above, if you don't think this is appropriate here, I won't fight that. I consider it relevant, but I don't think it's inclusion or exclusion has an overwhelmingly positive or detrimental impact on the page. Jmg873 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessarily my concern about this information in particular, but it is more-or-less the rationale behind requiring exceedingly high standards for medical information project wide. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I understand the purpose of having stricter guidelines on source quality pertaining to medical information; hence MEDRS. I just didn't consider this edit that variety of information. That said, if the entire page is more or less approached like that, I'll keep that in mind for my edits in the future. Thank you.Jmg873 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Eh... when you start lumping in missing work, disability, and worker's compensation, your awfully close to, if not outright making a claim about disparate health outcomes. TimothyJosephWood 16:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Economic considerations are probably not WP:Biomedical information, but this is an undesirable source for other non-MEDRS reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really seeing how reduction in work time missed and cost of disability payments isn't implicitly a matter of how a treatment works; whether a treatment works, and to what degree, but meh, six of one half dozen of another. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I'm no longer arguing for inclusion, but I was curious about what you said. Could you elaborate on what non-MEDRS reasons cause this to be an undesirable source?Jmg873 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

See my replies above. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I thought you were referring to something additional. Thanks.Jmg873 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 2 secondary sources on Lower Extremity efficacy

Two secondary sources were removed here, with the explanation That is... not good. 'Limited or fair' evidence in the opinion of chiropractors primarily based on a search of chiropractic sources, is semantically equivalent to 'no good evidence'. The sources specifically say an evidence level of B or C (varying based on condition)[95][96], which is defined in the full texts of the study here and here. One of those two studies is a clinical practice guidelines, which is extremely relevant to the topic. Both sources comply with WP:MEDRS.

Other articles were removed for not citing "chiropractic" specifically in the study. Now, these two studies are being removed for primarily using chiropractic sources? That doesn't make sense. Please explain why these studies should be removed.Jmg873 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: You reverted an undo I performed here, saying "see talk", but gave no further explanation. Can you elaborate on your reversion?Jmg873 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to promote chiropractic by collecting every bit of crappy evidence that can possibly be used to make it seem as sciencey as possible. Crappy evidence is crappy evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct, Wikipedia is not here to promote anything. This page is here to provide WP:NPOV information, using WP:MEDRS as a guideline for reliable sources. The information you removed comprises the top two tiers of this infographic from the WP:MEDRS article about the hierarchy of medical evidence. Do you have any policy or guidelines references to why these sources should be removed? Considering chiropractors treating lower extremity problems is common, as evidenced in our previous conversation (and again at the common uses section for NHS), it is relevant to include the evidence that exists on that topic. One of these sources is a WP:MEDRS compliant national clinical guideline, published by chiropractors about the scientific evidence available on chiropractic treatments for scientifically researched lower extremity conditions. "Coming from chiropractors", or coming "from the opinion of a chiropractor" does not automatically make something crappy evidence. Jmg873 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And thus we exclude crappy evidence compiled by True Believers. Job done. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

are you arguing that any research done by chiropractors which demonstrates efficacy is "crappy evidence"? Jmg873 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that these were based on crappy studies. Admittedly a lot of SCAM studdies are crappy, because they are designed to confirm a belief and support marketing, rather than to test any hypothesis, but not all of them are. These were. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering it's been 4 days and the only rationale for removal that's been given is "crappy evidence", I've made a post at the RS:noticeboard here Jmg873 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Crappiness is a pretty good reason for exclusion. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Medical claims: "reliable, third-party, published sources". That journal is first-party. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of the word "some" in the lede

A changed I made was reverted here

I didn't remove the word "unverified". I put it in context by using the word "some", and cited a reliable source which put it in the same context. Not all MSK disorders chiropractors diagnose and treat are unverified (which is what the previous text implied), but some are. The part of the NHS text I was specifically referring to was Some uses of chiropractic treatments are based on ideas and an "evidence base" not recognised by the majority of independent scientists. and Chiropractors, says the GCC, are "concerned with the framework of the muscles and bones that support the body (the musculoskeletal system)" and with treating health conditions by helping the musculoskeletal system to work properly. [97] Jmg873 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ledes summarize bodies. It's a bad idea to bomb the lead with novel content, especially when it's attempting special pleading. The key concepts underly chiro are pseudoscientific and that needs to be clear & prominent here (even if some Chiros in reality branch out into less scammy areas). Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no special pleading. Nothing was ignored or favored in place of something else. Nor is there novel content; the evidence section discusses other things that chiropractors treat that are "verified problems". As do the various clinical practice guidelines here The word "some" is justified by the cited source, and other verifiable conditions treated are verified by the guidelines (among many other sources). Contextualizing the pseudoscientific aspect of Chiropractic in the second sentence rather than the first is still extremely prominent. I'm also fine with it being in the first sentence, but I believe it should be contextualized. Jmg873 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is novel content. The evidence section indeed discusses other things that chiropractors attempt to treat, but it's clear that there is no evidence of effect. Chiropractors' own guidelines are hardly an independent source of information about what can be treated. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The trend I continue to notice in this article is that chiropractic research demonstrating efficacy must use the word chiropractic to be relevant, but not be published by a chiropractor, to be trusted. However, if research is published by a chiropractor that demonstrates no effect, that can be considered. There are serious issues with WP:NPOV in the article that need to be addressed. I'm fully in support of acknowledging the things wrong with chiropractic, because there is plenty wrong with it, but the editors here do not properly give WP:WEIGHT to evidence on both sides. Clinical practice guidelines are listed in WP:MEDRS as the most reliable source of information about a medical topic, but because it's chiropractic, that is somehow irrelevant. Jmg873 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The trend I continue to notice is your abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. All of my edits have been NPOV. My mistake for bringing up a more general discussion, let's stay on-topic. Independent sourcing can be good because it generally allows for a reduction of bias. Cochrane is an independent organization that does unbiased work. Ernst is an independent researcher that has a strong bias. In general independent researchers are good, but that doesn't mean that clinical practice guidelines should be ignored. Jmg873 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In what way is Ernst biased? -Roxy the dog. bark 13:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a reference to a discussion happening simultaneously at the RS:Noticeboard here. Simply, There have been a lot of errors, omissions, etc. found in Ernst's research pertaining to chiropractic. Some studies have brought up specific problems with his articles. [98][99][100]. My point in bringing that up is that an independent reviewer is not inherently better for being independent. Jmg873 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chiropracters all. They would say that wouldn't they. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, Ernst isn't the topic of this conversation. The use of the word "some" in the lede is, as mentioned above. Jmg873 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. But when you start spouting nonsense like that, expect to get called out on it, like you were at the RS noticeboard here. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Every single POV-pushing SPA in the entire history of Wikipedia asserted their edits are NPOV. This assertion works better when you're not up against people with tens of thousands of edits across a wide range of topics. See also m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the talk page is for a discussion of edits, rather than editors. If you'd like to discuss me please do so at my talk page. Jmg873 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean you retract your sentence above "the editors here do not properly give WP:WEIGHT to evidence on both sides"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have been more specific, some editors, rather than all. More importantly, yes, I retract it for the fact that this isn't the appropriate venue for that discussion; I should not have brought it up here. Jmg873 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

Please remove all bias claims and fearmongering from this page. Chiropractic is a patient centered alternative form of healthcare. There are claim on this page that chiropractic leads to death. None of those claims are made on Medicine, surgery, or therapy even though they all have blemishes in their history. Get with the times. The last person that edited this was a person named "quackguru." Obviously this page is not being honest or fair. Please fix. LiveHonest (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} tag should only be used when you have a specific request to change the article, such as "change X to Y" or "add X before/after Y". It should not be used for generic requests to fix the article or to request permission to edit the article – such requests will generally be declined. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)