Jump to content

Talk:Chiropractor/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Revert warring

E, will you please revert your revert. I gave good reasons in my edit summary. You have not addressed these reasons. I will expand on them for you. The material deleted was repeated, albeit in a slightly different form, on the main chiro page. You know as well as I do that that material is subject to an ongoing POV discussion and the issues are not yet settled. It is thus wrong of you to attempt to reinsert it. A link to the chiro article will serve just as well and avoid making wikipedia look ridiculous by having two or more different definitions of chiro on various pages. Mccready (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns on my talk page. Please refrain from making major edits and discuss your concerns on Talk first, not the other way around. Also, 1RR hardly makes a war, so please don't cry wolf. EBDCM (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Again I have edited your edit to indent. Please remember to do so. No you have not addressed my concerns. Please re-read the above and do so. If you abuse me once more, as you just did on your talkpage, I will consider gathering a list of your recent abuses, the advice you have been given by other editors to desist and my repeated pleas to you to desist and present these to AN/I. Please desist from uncivil behaviour. Mccready (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mccready, how could you possibly find my previous reply to you uncivil? I simply asked that you get consensus on talk pages and bring up major edits there so we can collaborate on them together. I abide by treat others how you want to be treated. You have treated me and other chiropractors with contempt for no other reason than me being a DC. If my tone is short with you it's because you have treated me the same way. I also question the veracity of some of your edits, because you cannot seem to acknowledge when scientific studies refutes your edits and arguments. I would be more than happy to never talk to you again, but because you insist on daily editing of CAM it looks like we're going to have to co-exist. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can't see it, please ask someone you trust to point it out to you. Your comment above is uncivil ("I would be more than happy to never talk to you again"). Please address the issue of substance in your edit. This is the third time I've asked. Mccready (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was reversed because major edits require some kind of consensus, preferably, and at least need some discussion in a talk page. The edit was reversed because a quick definition of chiropractic is appropriate in an article about Doctor of Chiropractic. It provides appropriate context for the subject matter. However, I would rather not talk to you (my POV) because it is my personal experience, and other editors, that you are a difficult editor to get along with. Your previous history of blocks (repeat offender) disruptive edits (repeat offender) and accusation of gaming the system makes me somewhat skeptical of your editing intentions. Editors and admins can feel free to go to your talk page and see what I'm saying is factual. I hope I have answered your query. EBDCM (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

QG pov tag

QG, please show with V:RS and not assert your own opinion that Chiropractors are not Doctors.--Hughgr (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to show that chiropractors are doctors. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The name of the degree conferred upon graduates of accredited chiropractic schools is "Doctor of Chiropractic". Enough said. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In the USA, chiropractors can legally use the title "Doctor of Chiropractic" (DC). Hughgr and Levine2112 are correct, and the article is properly sourced on that point. End of discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If it was being implied that Doctor of Chiropractic was the same as a medical doctor, that would be one thing. But, in this case, it's used in the same sense as Doctor of Divinity: To indicate a degree level higher than a Masters degree. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD

The AFD was closed.

I've explained in some detail, the basis for the decision, and then decided to make a couple of the more obvious "move things around and add useful sections" edits to speed it on its way towards being a stable article, if that's where it is taken. I havent edited or deleted any text in doing so, just reordered it a bit to kickstart the next bit of cleanup. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was closed but things have not changed. The article is worse now. It reads like a promotional advertizement for the chiropractic industry. There was no cleanup. The article has been given a chance. Now its time to merge it or send it straight to the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The AFD was closed along time ago and things have gotten steadily worse. This article is inflated and redundant. There is the main Chiropractic education article that covers this topic. A lot of text here is unreferenced. This article is a bit of an embarrassment. It is largely a POVFORK of a controversial discipline. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
According to Levine2112's edit summary the article has problems. The article is a promotional piece. It is essentially spam. Me thinks it is a big problem. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I made this change to redirect to the chiropractic education article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Too bold. Please join us in the discussion below. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The problems with this article have not been fixed after about a year so I made this change. We should not ignore the problems brought up in this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Background to chiropractic section

This section seems to be written in order to advocate chiropracty. It reads like an advertisement, and should probably be at least rewritten extensively, possibly trimmed heavily. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Chiropractic education seems to cover the same material better, and also explains that degree names vary somewhat by country. I've decided to try out a redirect there, and see what people think. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bold. These are separate subjects. Just the same as Doctor of Medicine and Medical education. I agree that this article has issues, but deleting it is just too easy. :-) It needs to be written with more sources for sure. We may want to revisit the BLS source now, since it has recently been updated. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is duplication, spam, and a promtional ad. The article is largely POV too. Please participate in the discussion above. See Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic#AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep it here in this discussion. The one above looks like it died last July. I agree that this article needs some work. It is a notable subject though and thus there should exist an article on this topic. Let's work at making this one better. I think the first step is sourcing. Again, the BLS source has been updated by some three years since the one we have used in this article had been published. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have placed notification at ANI letting them know about the current situation. Please standby. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologise, I didn't mean for this to turn into an edit war. How about I leave this be until the situation settles down a bit? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we can resume discussions now. What do you think of using the updated BLS source in order to source more of this article and get it more inline with WP:V? Are there other sources which you'd like to use as well? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of chiropractic, and have been successfully treated for neck pain before. However, I don't see the point of having a "Doctor of Chiropractic" article that's separate from "Chiropractic" -- can someone make a convincing argument for it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say whether or not it is convincing, but following the lead of Medicine, there are also article for Doctor of Medicine and Medical education. Essentially, there is an article for the discipline, one for the occupation/degree and one for the education. In the same way, Chiropractic has Doctor of Chiropractic and Chiropractic education. I would assume that if we are in favor of deleting Doctor of Chiropractic then we would also be in favor of deleting Doctor of Medicine. Is that the case? Or have I made a convincing argument to preserve (and rework) this article? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If we decide to keep/improve this article, then I also think we need to address the redundancies with Chiropractic education which Shoemaker's Holiday has pointed out. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There's lots of things we could do to fix the redundancies - move content around, merge, trim material, etc. I think that the first thing we need to do is figure out about how much of the world this article applies to in its current form. If this article describes a situation in North America alone, say, then we need to start being very specific about geographic location. If there are similar but non-identical degrees in many countries, we need to have a lot more use of subsections. If we have a naming problem between countries or jurisdictions, then we need to decide what to do about that. And so on and so forth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A better parallel would be Osteopathic medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. There's a lot less duplication between those two articles than this and Chiropractic. Are there chiropractic practitioners who are not DC? If so, it makes sense to split them: if not, not so much. (Medical Doctor should be split from Medicine because of Nurses, if for no other reason...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There are non-chiropractors performing chiropractic (a lot of times without license to do so - masseuses come to mind). There are even MDs who perform "chirotherapy". I think this is fairly popular in Germany. There are arguments that other professions such as physical therapy, have practitioners performing chiropractic maneuvers. Is this what you are asking? If we are to follow the Osteopathic model you mention above, then would we be keeping this article and rather deleting/merging the Chiropractic education article? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm going to combine my responses to several threads here:

- First off, I think we could do better than the BLS source for most of this article, since the Bureau of Labour Statistics is great for discussing, you know, labour statistics, but it's not exactly the first place I'd go for medical advice.

Now, as for the thornier problems:

1. Is Doctor of Chiropractic used worldwide? If it's North America only, say, we need to make that explicit.

1a. If it isn't worldwide, are we better covering this with similar titles in Chiropractic education instead?
1b. If it is reasonably worldwide, should of Chiropractic education be merged here?

2. Do we need the Background of chiropractic section? It's rather off-topic. If we deleted it, would we still have enough context? Could any missing context be set out neutrally in one or two paragraphs instead of the huge multi-page section we have now?

I think answering these questions would be a good first step to deciding what to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, my answer to 2. is that we probably need some context, but what we have isn't very good. Question 1 is important for figuring out the context and framing of this article, and I'm not sure what the answer is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd strongly recommend a merge to Chiropractic education, this entire article could be covered by a paragraph in that article, which would avoid the obvious redundancy of having two articles on this rather minor topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tim that a merge might be desirable. The Chiropractic education article isn't very large and can bear the inclusion of this subject. The DC degree isn't universal, and that needs to be made clear. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the problems here is that the "doctor of chiropractic" qualification lacks the recognition of doctor of medicine, but is very obviously used to assert parity by some of the less scrupulous. We already know that there are parts of chiropractic whihc verge on fraud, and other parts which have at least some mainstream support. Comparing this with chiropractic education I see a fair bit of support for the idea that they offer competing POV on the same subject, and it would be fallacious to compare with doctor of medicine since that has a very much wider currency. A merger would seem to make sense, at least in the first instance, with a potential split one day if that article becomes too long. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So far in this discussion only one editor is strongly in favor of keeping this a separate article, the other editors who have commented either are unconvinced of the utility of this article, or support a merge, either to chiropractic or chiropractic education. Do people agree that this a fair summary of this discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have no problem with merging this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I support a merger with Chiropractic education, but there's way too much material here to merge it all into Chiropractic. There may be one or two points here that are worth mentioning in Chiropractic #Education, but the vast majority of this material should be moved to Chiropractic education, if a merger is to take place.
  • There are a few points in Chiropractic #Education that don't seem to be covered either here or in Chiropractic education; it would be helpful to mention them in the merged article, whatever it is. I didn't study the pages carefully but they don't seem to cover WHO guidelines, conversion programs, residency, postgraduate education, which countries have established programs, sources of funding, straight vs. mixer curricula, number of people with degrees, or disciplinary actions. Not that I have time to write a lot of details about that stuff! But for starters these points can be copied from Chiropractic to the merged subarticle.
Eubulides (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually say to go the other way and merge Chiropractic education into Doctor of Chiropractic. This is more aligned with what has been done with the Osteopathic medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine model (There is no Osteopathic education article). In any case, I think we need to do a formal AfD and open this up to the rest of the community. Yes? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
See subsection "Merge the other way?" below. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge the other way?

(Proposal withdrawn; see below. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Levine2112 (LV) has said that LV would be in favour of merge if it goes the other way, keeping Doctor of Chiropractic and turning Chiropractic education into a redirect. Is there consensus for doing it this way? (If no objection, then no need to AfD. My own position on the merge is neutral.) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

???I don't see any evidence that "Doctor of Chiropractic" is more notable than general chiropractic education. That's kind of like saying PhD is more notable than graduate school. Seems really weird. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible oppose education into doctor: The Doctor of Chiropractic degree, as winkled out above, is only used in a few parts of the world. We cannot cover degrees and education not called Doctor of Chiropractic here. Nor should we mislead the reader by implying that this degree is universal. The merge into Chiropractic education is the only direction that make sense from a worldwide perspective - and Wikipedia seeks to have a worldwide perspective. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not disagreeing, but I don't see the information about "Doctor of Chiropractic" only being used in a few parts of the world ... could you tell me where that information is, preferably based on reliable sources? Also, it seems possible to me that only a few parts of the world have chiropractors (or chiropractic education) at all to any significant extent. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How could an article on the degree "Doctor of chiropractic" discuss chiropractic masters degrees? To merge the article on education in general into this specialised article on one particular degree, you would have to delete all the content in chiropractic education that doesn't relate to this qualification. I don't think that is a wise course of action and I'm puzzled why it is even being proposed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing proposal in response to Tim Vickers' point about masters degrees. Since Levine2112 was the only one opposed to the current configuration and there is also some opposition to this proposal, it seems to me that no further discussion is necessary. By the way, Levine, there's no reason to assume that "Doctor of Chiropractic" is as notable as "Doctor of Medicine". Thanks for your comments, everyone. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig claims his position is neutral but attempted to steer the conversation to Levine2112's suggestion. According to Coppertwig: he was not aware that one topic was broader than the other.[1] However, Coppertwig made a suggestion trying to merge the broader topic into a smaller topic. That was not neutral position because Coppertwig was trying to suggest the same proposal as Levine2112 without giving any specific reason to support his position other than to support Levine2112's position. When Coppertwig is unware which topic is broader then why make the suggestion. A neutral postion or comment would of been which article would be best for the merger without suggesting which direction for the merger. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2013

As per the discussions above, the article has been produced and compliant with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Please see WP:COMPETENCE prior to editing. Regards, DVMt (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of secondary source, a systematic review

BR has deleted a systematic review here [2] stating 'one man's opinion doesn't suffice'. Why are you deleting a WP:MEDRS compliant secondary source which supports the claim made? DVMt (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

Regarding this caduceus:

It appears this is the work of John T. Takai, and it must be purchased:

Contrary to what is claimed, it is not DVMt's "own work." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to it being taken down. I'm going to do my own photoshop work this week and use caduceus I've developed. DVMt (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources

Bobrayner has deleted sources that are compliant with MEDRS standards. I'm going to restore the version prior to his edit. DVMt (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. No reliable source says that Hippocrates - or other ancient medics- performed chiropractic, because it was invented a century ago. To imply such a deep history is synthesis. By the way, this is the article on "Doctor of Chiropractic", not "history of chiropractic". bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary, Hippocrates practiced manipulative techniques, they've been around for a lot longer than just Still and Palmer. Don't delete reliable sources. DVMt (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hippocrates did not do chiropractic; Hippocrates was not a doctor of chiropractic; why are you so determined to keep this synthesis in an article about "Doctor of Chiropractic"? You're even using edit summaries about "reliable sources" whilst adding a dead link.
I have removed the same synthesis from Chiropractic treatment techniques and Philosophy of Chiropractic and Chiropractic education. The same text is also on Manual therapy and Spinal manipulation; I've left it on those as it might actually be relevant. It's unfortunate that the promotional fluff gets copied to various different pages but the critical stuff gets buried. bobrayner (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is DVMt reinserting copyvio, too? We've already had the chat about copyright violation; why does it keep on happening? bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't engage in an edit war with you Bob, despite the fact that you are deleting reliable sources (again). Do you deny that Hippocrates used manipulative techniques? DVMt (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You are engaging in an edit war [3] [4]; not for the first time. Citing a dead URL but still insisting it's a reliable source. I left the text on the articles where it is relevant, but this article is about "Doctor of Chiropractic"; promotional fluff about Hippocrates does not belong here, because chiropractic was invented many centuries after Hippocrates. Incidentally, I'd be quite impressed if you could point out which volume of the Hippocratic corpus says that Hippocrates practiced such "manipulative techniques". bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think 1 reversion counts, Bob. Ok, the link is dead, I will find the original paper. The point is that manipulation was used a long time before chiropractic and osteopathic "brought it back" in the 19th century. Given that chiropractors do the majority (90%) of manipulations, it's within reason to give a small synopsis of the history. It's not meant as an endorsement of Hippocrates on 'chiropractic' merely that they both use(d) manipulative techniques. A very quick PubMed search yielded this [5]. DVMt (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: Found it here [6] Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
DVMt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A broader problem

The sources added by DVMt aren't actually about "Doctor of Chiropractic"; this raises broader concerns about synthesis and notability. So, I have reverted to this version. bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that DVMt reverted the edit, saying "Discuss changes at talk" even though DVMt has not actually discussed this issue or replied to this thread at all. DVMt, it would be helpful if in future your actions did not so blatantly contradict your claimed intent. bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You were bold and I reverted you per BRD. Read the history of the talk page if you have a problem. It was discussed to keep and improve the article. Your blanking is tantamount to vandalism. DVMt (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have read the history of the talkpage; have you? Four years ago, another editor said "This article is a bit of an embarrassment. It is largely a POVFORK of a controversial discipline". Recently it's got even worse. I reverted to the last clean version. You were bold; I reverted. BRD, yes? bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You are basing it on a discussion 4 years ago. The page was rated in February 2013 by WP:MED and it got a B rating. I was not bold; you were being bold by blanking the article and then doing a redirect without discussion. Quit vandalising the article. DVMt (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus here for any redirect or deletion of the article. What is the specific issue with content or language or sourcing? DVMt (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue is the lack of sourcing. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

About that recent redirect

I am neutral on this subject, but I am surprised to see that the article was blanked and redirected to Chiropractic education without any discussion - triggering an edit war for which one user has been blocked for WP:3RR. IMO that user was correct that the article should not have been redirected, at least not without a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since the redirect is contentious - and when that user reverted the redirect (that's the "revert" part of BRD), other users should not have reinstated it. The neutrality or sourcing of this article may need improvement, but that is no reason to blank and redirect the article. I am going to undo the redirect and restore the article, not because I am a supporter of chiropractic (I am not), but because I am a supporter of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. If someone thinks the article should be redirected, let them list it for discussion; if someone thinks the article needs improvement, let them tag or improve it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW I do think this article should be trimmed to about one-third its size, focusing on the degree itself - where it is awarded, what its requirements are, etc. - and deleting all the stuff about philosophy, methods, history etc. which belongs in the main article Chiropractic, not in an article about the degree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
There, we now have an article about the degree itself. Now we can clean up any remaining issues with sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted this edit for a few reasons:

  1. The source seems to be a blog and does not satisfy WP:RS
  2. The text added does not accurately summarize the source. The source does not say "The title of D.C. is unprotected in other countries and may be used by anyone, regardless of educational level, such countries have accepted the chiropractic diploma as qualification to practice" as was added to the article here. The source says that 36 countries legislate chiropractic and there are few where the actual license or certificate is not necessarily and some where the profession is illegal.
  3. The information is outdated and incorrect. The WFC has just completed a comprehensive report that was requisitioned by the World Health Organization - Status of the Chiropractic Profession. You can see that much has changed since the 'blog' source was written. 48 countries now have legislation to protect the title and educational standards for chiropractors.
  4. The article already discusses that there are differences in education and legislation between countries. As such, the article does not really benefit from the addition of an old blog or a summery of it's content.Puhlaa (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I warned the ip. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge into Chiropractic education

I think a merge would resolve the problems with this article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The recently-built content is just a replay of the same old problem of synthesis, coatrack, and neutrality problems caused by reliance on in-universe sources. It may be possible to merge some parts into other articles (ie. Chiropractic education), but this article, as a whole, has to go. bobrayner (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, DVMt, if you disagree with somebody, the best way to resolve the problem is to discuss it on the talkpage, cite sources, explain policies &c. Stalking that person and reverting their other edits on completely unrelated pages, in which you have no interest except to the extent that you can annoy the adversary, is a very bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Mass deletions without discussion are a very bad idea. Some editors feel that mass deletions of topics or data they don't like or fit their personal beliefs OK, others disagree. I'm the latter. DVMt (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen the extensive discussion about the problematic content you put in this article? Pretending that it didn't happen, rather than solving the problems, only underlines how important it is for other editors to push forward in removing the problems - despite your reverts. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen the history on the page, and nowhere does it state that it should be merged or deleted. But given the heavy handed manoeuvres by y'all I'm not going to fall for the trolling editing behaviours. My momma told me not to get into pissing matches with skunks, so I'm going to go to the proper channels and get this resolved. DVMt (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Bobrayner hit the nail on the head. User:DVMt, I don't see any trolling editing behaviours. I have discussed things here and the chiropractic page. And now you have followed me to another article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no discussion that has any resolution to merge, you did not post at the merge noticeboard, nor did you discuss get consensus or attempt to do so. There are rules to follow. Controversy seems to follow you around, perhaps if you collaborated and discussed things prior to unilaterally deleting, censoring, merging without due diligence things would go better. Trolling behaviours also include you posted a bogus notice at my talk page, which Middle 8 warned you about and then you deleted and now disruptive editing here. Look 2 section above, there were concerns about a bogus re-direct and you did it again. DVMt (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes merge seems reasonable. This appears to be duplication of content better dealt with somewere else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Concern was that DVMt was using extra accounts in an attempt to keep this page such as this one [7] for which they were blocked. And now they are back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Poisoning the well is noted Doc James. Does this mean we should merge Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Doctor of Pharmacy and the other health professions into their respective education pages? We should be consistent across the board, no? DVMt (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal of overlap. One can do a bachelors in pharmacy. Can one do a bachelors in chiropractics? It seems like both can be dealt with on the one article in this case. I have not looked at all other cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BSc or MSc seem to be the norm internationally [8]. Do your due diligence, take a look at the Doctorate page and see if any other doctoral professions are merged. If not, we need to be consistent across the board. DVMt (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We could look at moving "chiropractic education" to here. But were it is is a broader term and thus better IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This article was talking about all types of education such as "A 5 year integrated bachelor degree; BSc (Chiro). A 2 - 3 year Masters degree following the completion of a bachelor degree leads to the MSc (Chiro)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging 'chiro ed' to here could be done if that is the middle ground. DVMt (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't merge This article is comparable to numerous other articles including Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. It's true the article needs a massive trim, and I will undertake it when time allows. About half of the stuff currently in the article should be removed, including most of the licensure details, and the worthless section pointing out that chiropractors (like anybody else) can go for advanced degrees if they want. I see the article has been redirected again, without consensus. That's three times in the past month, ten times in the past two months. This is ridiculous. I am going to go and request move-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I misread the history. The previous eight redirects were in 2013, not 2014. In any case this is history repeating itself. Blanking/redirecting an article like this is contentious and must not be done without due process. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MelN. Mel, I can start the process by moving the advanced degrees stuff into the main article. I don't mind any trimming that is a duplication, so long that it's already somewhere else in this current form. DVMt (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"Scope of practice" should also be removed from this article IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Anything else you feel should be merged/moved/delete we can discuss. Happy editing! DVMt (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So is the "Regulation and accreditation" just for DoCs or is it for the field generally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The profession generally. You cannot call yourself a chiropractor or claim to practice chiropractic without going to an accredited school and meeting the regulatory requirements of the country/state/province. DVMt (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I was going to request deletion of the detailed information about licensing by each state and country, thinking it is way TMI. But I see that such sections normally are included in this type of article (see Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) so I guess it should be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been awhile, but I think I was using both those article specifically as a template for this one. DVMt (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Doctor of Chiropractic" vs. "Chiropractor"

The lead sentence says that the title "Doctor of Chiropractic" is used in North America. But then the article goes on to describe practitioners in many other countries around the world. Are the terms "Doctor of Chiropractic" and "Chiropractor" used interchangeably? If so, is this an article about practitioners of chiropractic in general, rather than about "Doctors of Chiropractic" specifically? Should the article title be changed to Chiropractor? Or at the least should the current redirect term "Chiropractor" be redirected to this article instead of to Chiropractic? We really need to straighten out the difference, if any, between the terms. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic can be redirected to Chiropractor. The DC acronym is primarily used in North America, but the page should reflect a global viewpoint. DVMt (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So we should request that "Chiropractor" be deleted to make room, then move this article to "Chiropractor" while leaving a redirect at "Doctor of Chiropractic"? That makes sense. If we are agreed on this, we just have to request speedy-deletion of "Chiropractor", using the code G6 "technical deletions" and explaining why in the edit summary. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The current article at chiro is much broader in scope than this one. Maybe merge to Chiropractor#Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation or put on the subpage chiropractic education? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Chiropractic" is already at 147,000+ bytes so I think it's better to leave this as a fork. "Chiropractic education" largely duplicates this article. IMO the two should be merged, but that can wait till later, and in any case it should be formally proposed as a merge discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So, are we then going to merge chiro ed with this DoC and rename the hybrid "Chiropractor"? That's reasonable and I do agree a formal merger should be done. DVMt (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Later. Let's get this article renamed first. And let's give the rename idea a little more time for feedback before we do it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Out of curiosity, what is a generally acceptable length to wait before doing the rename? If this case occurs again, I want to learn from the experience to do it right. DVMt (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say 24 hours is an absolute minimum. Not all Wikipedians are in the same time zone. We shouldn't make a change like this before some people even have a chance to wake up and get to the computer! --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I figured as much. Thanks for your help, Melanie. DVMt (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The current article at chiro is huge mess, under dispute with ownership issues playing a dominant theme [9] by your protege, QuackGuru. The current version you prefer suffers badly in readability [10] as well. So I agree with your proposal Melanie. It makes the most sense and we won't end up with a bigger mess that is already the main article. DVMt (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure and I oppose replacing the entire breadth of chiro with a very small subsection of it. The current article at chiropractor is much broader in scope. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You're talking apples and oranges. There is no article called "chiropractor' it's called chiropractic. And you're conflating them. How about we stick to the subject at hand. DVMt (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. You are indeed correct I missed this difference. Yes happy to have this moved to the redirect at chiropractor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad we can move forward. DVMt (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, all. I have submitted the request for the move per G6. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
On second thought I don't think the redirect page qualifies for speedy deletion since it has a history. Requesting the move below. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Doctor of Chiropractic → Chiropractor – Per consensus at Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic, "Chiropractor" would be a better name for this article, because it is more inclusive. This article describes all practitioners of chiropractic, not just those who are titled "Doctor of Chiropractic", so the more general title Chiropractor would be more accurate, with a redirect from Doctor of Chiropractic. However, there already exists a redirect page at "Chiropractor", and it doesn't appear to qualify for G6 speedy because it has a significant editing history. We are requesting that the target page at Chiropractor be deleted to facilitate this move. MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede changes

..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system"...[11] This is what the WHO source says.

..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health.[1] This is what the current lede says. I think this is a WP:COPYVIO. I checked the edit history. I think this edit ("concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system") originally added the copy vio. Where does the source say it is a medicine? QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example from Dentistry Dentistry is the study, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases, disorders and conditions of the oral cavity, especially the teeth, and to an extent related conditions in the maxillofacial (jaws and face) area. Is that a copyvio as well? Do quotation marks change the situation? Can we really be editorializing what a profession professes to be doing? Looking for clarification on the matter. Neuraxis (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say using the exact words of a reliable source, less than one sentence worth, to support the definition of the article's subject is not a copyvio. It should be sourced but need not be in quotes. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There was consensus at the chiropractic page it was a copyvio for the same text. The text should at least be in quotation marks but quotes do not have an encyclopedic feel. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there was you insisting it was copyvio, and we have we have an observer, in Melanie, who disagreed with your personal interpretation. Neuraxis (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You replaced sourced text with text word per word from WHO at chiropractic. That was not an improvement. The recent previous discussion resulted in the copyvio being removed from chiropractic. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I see you're coming out to battle (again). I'm not going to be baited. We have seen this from you before regarding chiropractic article. Despite after promising to improve his behaviour [12] and stop editing chiropractic [13] he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic [14], and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom [15]. He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour [ [16]and continued to be disruptive [17] Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening [18], [19],[20], [21], [22], [23], [24] His chiropractic article [[25] has become unreadable [26], while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy [27]. Please QuackGuru, enough already. 8 years of the same old same old. Neuraxis (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Neuraxis, you previously stated the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. This was the same sentence that was in your sandbox that is currently in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractors practice chiropractic medicine, a health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health.[1] Chiropractors emphasize manual and manipulative therapy for the treatment of joint dysfunctions. Chiropractic is generally classified as complementary/alternative medicine.[2] None of this text is about the chiropractic degree and thus irrelevant to this page. I could not verify the claim "chiropractic medicine". This might be OR. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Describing the profession and stating that it is CAM is not part of being a chiropractor? There needs to be this contextual information to make it readable. Also, it is fundamentally germane to the topic. A cursory search on Pubmed revealed that this journal [28] is indexed. So, there is our verification. Neuraxis (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the chiropractic degree not the profession. The text added to the lede does not belong in this article. You wrote "So, there is our verification." Verification for what exactly? I previously asked for verification for where the WHO source says that Chiropractors practice "chiropractic medicine". QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The WHO document does not contain those words. Actually, using the word "medicine" in connection with "chiropractic" is very controversial. This was one of the big objections to the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine reform group. The rest of the profession saw their use of that phrase as traitorous. Chiropractic has always been in opposition to medical practice. Chiropractors practice "chiropractic", they don't practice "medicine", even "chiropractic medicine". Since that wording seems to be OR, I'll remove it from the article until RS justify calling the whole profession that. I can imagine some RS can be found which uses the expression, but we'd need more than that to justify using it broadly for the whole profession. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested page move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Calidum Talk To Me 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Chiropractor → Chiropractic degree – This page is specifically about the chiropractic degrees. It is not about the profession of chiropractic in general. This article describes all degrees of chiropractic, not the profession in general, so the more general title Chiropractor is more vague and less accurate. To facilitate this move, I have started this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment in #Requested move 1 which occurred in June 2014 (ie. last month) the current title "Chiropractor" was decided upon. Further, in 2009 at #Merge the other way? it was discussed to merge this article into Chiropractic education. Why would a separate article on the varoius types of degrees exist separate from the education article? If there is a separate article, shouldn't it be a profession article instead of an article on the various types of degrees out there, which would be covered as part of the education article? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment If there was a merge the title would be Chiropractic education because the title Chiropractor is about the profession in general and not about the degree or chiropractic education. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think QuackGuru's heart is in the right place, and we would probably agree that the content of the article doesn't really match the title; but my preferred solution would be to shift the content back towards what a chiropractor is & does, rather than letting it stand as a promotional piece on how chiropractors are well-educated professionals and how great it is to sit a degree in chiropractic. bobrayner (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

only in two languages?

The article appears only in English and one of the N.A. native languages. How come no links are provided to any doctor with a similar profession to other languages? Are the 'chiropractors' a specialty only for English speaking countries? Sorry, but it's a kind of Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.125.34 (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors on each language version of Wikipedia are responsible for their own content. They operate independently of each other, so apparently no one has written this article in another language. There is nothing strange about that, otherwise other language Wikipedia's would also have the same number of articles as the English version. Do you want to translate or create this article in another language? Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess and requires cleanup

Chiropractors practice chiropractic, a health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health.[1] Chiropractors emphasize manual and manipulative therapy for the treatment of joint dysfunctions. Chiropractic is generally classified as complementary/alternative medicine.[2]

The first sentence is a copyvio from the WHO source and not about the chiropractic degree. The 2nd and third sentence are not about the chiropractic degree. A lot of text is about chiropractic education but it is not about the degree. This article is a mess. QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge into Chiropractic education

The Chiropractic education page is a broader topic than this page. What is in this page that is not already in the Chiropractic education page? This is a formal merge discussion after the title change. There was a previous WP:CON back in 2009 for a merge. Without consensus in 2013 the page was restored. This was a waste of time. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

CON can and has changed. We discussed this already above. Let sleeping dogs lie. Neuraxis (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this comment the merge discussion can take place after the title change. Without consensus in 2013 you restored the page against consensus. Please show with diffs where you got the consensus to restore the page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Using a 2013 reversion that was supported by MelanieN last week here [29]. You seem to be fanning the flames. There was consensus for keeping this article separate from education, just like the Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Physical Therapy have their own pages. You need to be careful about falling back into tendentious editing. Neuraxis (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to oppose a merge; there is precedent for separate articles at other professions. But I agree that there is a great deal of overlap between the two articles. The overlapping material should be removed from one or the other article, but they should stay separate articles IMO. If there is consensus for this approach, I am willing to undertake the trimming, since I seem to be a "neutral" party here, while some other editors seem to have long-established pro- or anti-chiropractic editing histories. Offhand my hunch is that a lot of the detail such as the licensing information should be removed from this one and retained at the education article, but that's a preliminary hunch - I haven't studied the articles in detail, and won't unless there is consensus here to proceed along those lines. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, I agree the article has too much overlap and requires trimming. This article is specifically about the chiropractic degree. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be moved to the current redirect at Doctor of Chiropractic (DC). This current title is ambiguous, while the DC title is very specific. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The title is ambiguous and incorrect

I think the title "Doctor of Chiropractic" is used only in North America. The title "Chiropractor" is misleading and ambiguous. The only title I think would work is "Chiropractic degree". User:Calidum, the current title is wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The title is at odds with the content because of who[30][31][32][33]? QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the title should be? Is it still chiropractor? QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish you would discuss this at the bottom of the page, where my question is posted that you are apparently responding to. The issue is not "what do I think the title should be", it's "what IS it?" As I am looking at the article right now the title is still "chiropractor" even though there was supposedly a decision to move it to "chiropractic degree". Why was it not moved? Do you know? --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
First, what do you think the title should be as of today? QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I chose not to participate in the recent move discussion because I didn't have a strong opinion about this page, except that it should not be titled "Doctor of chiropractic" as it used to be. My question below was an honest one, and I still don't have an answer; you say you know the answer but won't share it. Why are you being like this? Do you own the article? --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you agree or disagree with changing the page to Chiropractic degree? I think you don't want to give me a specific answer. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with changing it to Chiropractic degree, and also with eliminating about half of the text which is duplicated elsewhere. And the redirect from Chiropractor should go to Chiropractic rather than to Chiropractic degree. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved??

Back in July there was a proposal to move this page to "Chiropractic degree". The closer stated "The result of the move request was: page moved." The first paragraph of the article now talks (without a proper lead) about educational paths to a chiropractic degree. And yet the article is still titled "Chiropractor". What gives? --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess that this edit is a sarcastic comment from User:QuackGuru implying that it's my fault that the article is titled "Chiropractor". My question here is a different one: why is the article still titled "chiropractor" when there was supposedly a decision in July to move it to "Chiropractic degree"? That decision was closed as "move", but it appears no move took place. Looking at the discussion, there was one argument in favor of the move, one argument against, and one third opinion; does that mean somebody decided there was actually NOT a consensus to move, in spite of the discussion being closed as "result = move"? I am just very confused about that move request and how it relates to the current title. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
For some reason QuackGuru is responding to my question in this section by posting in an older section above. The issue is not "what do I think the title should be", it's "what IS it?" As I am looking at the article right now the title is still "chiropractor," even though there was supposedly a decision to move it to "chiropractic degree". Why was it not moved? What is the title SUPPOSED to be? Does anyone know? --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Yes I did. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll fix it now. Calidum Talk To Me 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up, Calidum and SmokeyJoe! So, no mystery here, just a simple typo. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But I notice that even though there was no consensus for the move at that time, User:QuackGuru has changed the lead of the article so that it is about the chiropractic degree. Do we need a new move request, or what? --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Chiropractic degree. For the article on chiropractors and the treatment you can read Chiropractic.
We need to be patient and wait for a miracle to happen on Wikipedia to fix the title.
Or someone can move the page or start a Wikipedia:Move review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it. QG, you need to grow up and play by the rules. Calidum Talk To Me 14:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractor/Archive_18&oldid=1136333154"