Talk:List of people in chiropractic

Dubious content

This article lists many persons who predate chiropractic, and even now-living persons who are not chiropractors! There needs to be some kind of inclusion and exclusion criteria here. Right now it's anyone whom chiropractors wish to credit with somehow supporting their cause.

This should be limited to highly notable chiropractors or chiropractic personages (preferably with their own articles) who are indeed historical (IOW they are deceased). It should also include a short description (with references from V & RS) of why they deserve to be mentioned here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept delineated above is sound in many areas; but in a profession only a hundred years old, there are still people who are making history in this field and some are very much still alive. I do agree, however that inclusion here should connote something more than, e.g., an individual who creates his/her own technique, unless, that technique becomes a pervasive and accepted method taught in the colleges. In other terms, this page should include only those whose work has materially and "notably" changed the profession in some positive way, nationally, or internationally. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose splitting this page

To accommodate the controversy, with which I agree, I propose splitting this page into two pages: to wit; one to remain "Historical Figures in Chiropractic", and the other for the living; "Prominent Figures in Chiropractic". We can move someone to the former after they are deceased.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What controversy is that? Anyway, this page is waaaay to small to need splitting. Among other things, most of the entries in this page are unsourced, and will have to be removed unless they become sourced. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article should be List of chiropractors (by analogy with List of chemists, etc.), and its lead should be something like this:

This is a list of famous chiropractors in alphabetical order. It should include those who have been important to the development or practice of chiropractic.

Please see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) for more about this naming convention and usage in Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I support a retitling/move. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved

I created a separate list of [1] which contains all those living DC's who are by celebrity or professional contributions, considered prominent DC's.

Now these are all Deceased, and thus really HISTORICAL.

We still need articles on some of these people. In fact, some of the ones missing pages are significantly more Historically important that some of the ones I found with articles. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be ignoring the previous thread, in which there was a consensus that these are list articles and should follow the usual naming conventions for lists. Eubulides (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this needs retitling. I'm going to be BOLD and follow our conventions. Also your point about size is also releveant. The newly titled article can have sections for historical and living chiros, IOW a merge. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies to User:Eubulides, et al, but I knew that there were a bunch of other prominent and dead (historical) figures whose pages were hiding under "American Chiropractors", "Canadian Chiropractors" and "English Chiropractors", whose pages were already written (and not by me) which were meritorious of inclusion in this otherwise, thereafter longish list. And will get longer. The whole thing needed alphabetizing, and references added, and I took that bull by the proverbials. I hope there's no ill will caused ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, PS, all of these are surely deceased. Except perhaps Dr Sandoz, (Who must be getting up in age if still with us) however, if anyone can find that out, please correct this. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Need for a new title

The new title, List of chiropractors, is okay, but now that non-DCs are included, we need another title. How about List of prominent persons in chiropractic? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that people like David Chapman-Smith (who is not a chiropractor) should be in the list. However, the proposed name would be a bit tricky, as a lot of people on that list are not prominent in chiropractic, but are prominent in other fields (and they happen to be chiropractors). If we change it to List of prominent persons in chiropractic then Gordy Ainsleigh would have to be removed, for example, and many other people would need to be removed as well. Is that OK? Or perhaps we need to rethink the lead sentence as well? Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Three things are inextricably tied together: (a) Title, (b) lead, and (c) contents (and not necessarily in that order ;-). We need to resolve this somehow by tweaking one or more of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also, in principle have no problem with single list. But, the title is now clearly WRONG. Kirkaldy-willis, Dardik and Chapman-Smith are ALL not DC's but are very important figures in the development of the profession. So calling this "List of Chiropractors" is a problem. Since my work was clearly not appreciated, you will have to solve this conundrum alone.

This was why I felt that "historical figures and those merely currently prominent who are members of the field or working in the filed was the way to go. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the situation we have been discussing. BTW, your work is definitely appreciated(!), but the lists were so short as to not warrant separate lists. One list can do it. Sometimes creating sections for different groupings works nicely. Otherwise just identifying them and documenting why they are notable is enough. The descriptions can be larger, even using several sentences, which makes for a much more informative list. Often the LEAD from their biography can be used in its entirety, or at least summarized if it's long.

The titling conundrum can easily be solved. We just need to find a suitable title. List of chiropractic notables could cover both DCs and non-DCs, since their notability can be of widely varying types. Do you have any suggestions? I have retitled this section to draw more interest and to reflect the subject matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest List of people in chiropractic, by analogy with List of people in alternative medicine and List of people in systems and control. I don't know of any article title using the "List of XXX notables" formula. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good enough to me. It allows inclusion of notable people who aren't DCs, but who have significance to the chiropractic profession. Since Drsjpdc has withdrawn from this, go ahead and move things, and then fix the lead accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdrew only indavertently. That wasn't really my intent. I like the title , "List of Chiropractic Notables". I think that solves the problem. Can we all agree to just do that? HOw long does this need to drag on? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also want to say that then the lead-in is inappropriate, as it implies something positive for all those listed, and you insist on keeping the black-eye Donsbach. Assuming that I can;t prove that he was never a DC at all, (in which case, I assume that we can remove his name) then the lead should say

"This is a list of chiropractors and other people who have been important (positively or negatively) to the development or practice of chiropractic; they do not necessarily have DC degrees. This list is in alphabetical order."

^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That lead sounds about right, but the title List of chiropractic notables isn't good. Wikipedia list articles don't use "notables" in their names, for good reason: Wikipedia guidelines are that articles should cover only notable topics, which means that putting the word "notables" in the title is not only redundant but a little bit weird (along the lines of "methinks you do protest too much"). In contrast List of people in chiropractic is firmly in the naming conventions already used here. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See Texas State University Notable Alumni
See Montreal General Hospital ¶ "Notable Physicians"
also, Adelaide Hospital, ¶ "Notable Physicians"
etc. etc.,
I HAVE an idea. We change this to List of people in chiropractic, but LEAVE the redirects, like there are in medicine, for allopaths, "List of Notable Chiropractors", and "List of Prominent Chiropractors" ???^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Eubulides (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Donsbach

Under this name it is clearly stated that he was an "unlicensed Chiropractor". Where is the reference that he ever WAS a Chiropractor and not just some charlatan posing. Why does Chiropractic need to have this association, if you cannot prove that he was a member of the profession? And, that could be hard, as it appears that HE couldn't prove he was ever a Chiropractor.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In the article on Mr. Kurt Donsbach, there is a reference from the San Diego Union Tribune which quote the district Attorney as saying:

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said Donsbach “preyed on vulnerable patients who were looking for medical help.” An investigation by the FBI, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the District Attorney's Office led to his arrest. Donsbach was booked into jail in lieu of $1.5 million bail and was scheduled to be arraigned today.

Dumanis said Donsbach is not licensed as a physician, chiropractor or naturopathic doctor.

So, why is he even here. I agree he should have his own article, he certainly passes the Notability test for criminals.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt he's a chiropractor, but according to RS is not licensed "in the State of California". I don't know if he's licensed anymore, anywhere. You should read this article about him:

• The Shady Activities of Kurt Donsbach

• "Donsbach graduated in 1957 from Western States Chiropractic College, in Portland, Oregon, and practiced as a chiropractor in Montana, "specializing in treatment of arthritic and rheumatoid disorders."

The list will include notable personages related to chiropractic, both good and bad, unlike your statement you removed here. That's life here at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Stephen Barrett as a source is like using the National Enquirer. All his stuff fails in WIKI:POV etc.,etc. Can we independently confirm (where did Barrett get this from?) that he was ever licensed in Montana?^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 03:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that he was licensed in Montana, only that he practiced there. It would be nice to know if he was also licensed there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I repeat that he is "self proclaimed" as a DC, until there is one shred of reliable reference that shows he was ever licensed. The Santa Monika cite is essentially "self proclamation". He could claim on that page to be God himself. Its' not a reliable source. If I did this you and WikiDan would come down on me like a ton of bricks. BTW: if you can come up wioth a single RELIABLE source for his having been licensed, then I will accept his inclusion in the list, otherwise please undo your revert.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but even though Barrett's credibility as a journalist and researcher have been questioned and attacked many times, the attacks have never been shown to hold water to any significant degree. Sure, he's not perfect, but when he writes what he writes on this matter, you can be sure he has researched the matter and is correct. This is apparently new information to you, but it's been a well-known fact for decades. Donsbach is one of the most notorious ducks of all time. By contrast, Barrett is highly respected and considered a RS for the subjects he analyzes. Be careful about attacking him in such a manner. He is a living person. As such the WP:BLP policy applies to him, and your negative comments violate that policy and, since he is also an (inactive) editor here, the WP:NPA policy as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you have posted here is incorrect. What has been determined is that Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, etc. are to be determined as reliable or unreliable on a case by case basis. Given that he doesn't cite any sources in the casewatch reference, I find it to be unreliable, and to fail WP:SPS. If Donsbach is as notorious as you say (I've never heard of him), then surely we can find better sources and remove the Barrett source. For the sake of clarity, I am not advocating for Donsbach to be removed from the list, as I feel that the Moss source is a reliable source that supports his inclusion in this article. DigitalC (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of his/their reliability in general, not just here at Wikipedia. (Note my use of the modifier "for the subjects he analyzes", so we aren't in total disagreement.) Here we have a special definition. At Wikipedia QW has been found to be reliable for its purpose, and its information doesn't "... mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research,..." (WP:ELNO#EL2) All mainstream RS consider it reliable and trustworthy. Only fringe and scam sources attack it when it exposes them and defends mainstream science and medicine. You can read more about the lengthy discussions of its reliability here:

• An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source.

• Another significant discussion can be found at RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

I completely agree that it should be used wisely and on a case-by-case basis, just like all other RS we use here. None of them are RS in ALL situations. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The following source twice lists him as "Kurt Donsbach, DC", once in Table 1, p. 66 ("Tijuana clinics presently treating US cancer patients"), and once in Table 5, p. 74 ("Border clinics with significant involvement by US citizens"): Moss RW. "Tijuana cancer clinics in the post-NAFTA era". Integr Cancer Ther. 4 (1): 65–86. doi:10.1177/1534735404273918. PMID 15695477. Eubulides (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a little investigation of my own, and found that it would be pretty easy, under the current privacy conditions in law which exist in this country to call oneself almost anything one wants, as long as you have no license under which to operate upon. I called Western States and they refuse to confirm or deny that he ever went there. Thus, you too, could masquerade as a Western States graduate. Unless you had to prove it to a government agency. I'm not saying he was never licensed. But so far all we have is Barrett's word, which you seem to lionize, and Donsbach's. Strange bedfellows those two. In this they see to agree. Naturally any source that simply says "he's a DC", in the context of quackery, has an automatic ax to grind by doing that, as they get to use this obvious fraud, to pain with a broad brush all the rest of a profession which has been working hard to improve its image, and distance itself from this kind of quackery. So, only in that we agree that Donsbach is a problem, I guess I agree with Barrett on ONE point. On the rest of the context of the articles your cite, I would certainly accept what they say. But as I explained, just because they use a degree that HE uses, doesn't mean its a real degree, any more than his ND, or MD degrees. Which BTW: is he listed in quack MD's and etc.? He claimed those degrees too! Why are WE stuck with him? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moss 2005 (PMID 15695477) is not a source that is "in the context of quackery". It's a relatively neutral and high-quality source that gives both sides of the controversy over Tijuana cancer clinics. Although of course it covers the unsavory side of these clinics, it also defends them against some of the charges made against them by antiquackery forces, on the grounds that it's "unfair to tar them all with this same brush". It also says "there are some reasonable arguments to support the continued existence and functioning of the border clinics and to encourage the inclusion of clinic directors in the broader dialogue between CAM and conventional medicine." If there's any "ax to grind" in that source, it's an ax that grinds in favor of Donsbach etc. Eubulides (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Moss is a promoter of alternative medicine, not a skeptic, but he's unusual in that he's one of the only ones who will admit any wrongdoing in the field. Moss is also one of the few alternative medicine promoters who distanced himself from Hulda Clark. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that I failed to adequately communicate what I meant. I was trying to say that the very fact that Donsbach use the DC degree, ONLY means TWO things; a.- that he uses the degree, and MAY or may not be masquerading as a DC; and, b.- that others (especially those of a like disposition to that of Barrett, who clearly thinks that ALL Chiropractic is quackery) will simply use the fact that HE uses the degree, to present him negatively,(along with our profession in general - "guilt by association"). It does not PER SE prove in any sense that he actually HAS that degree, even if the source is otherwise generally reliable for its content.

What we really need is something like the NJ site for the Dept of Consumer Affairs, which, in Dardik's case shows exactly that he, a.- had a license; and, b.- lost it in 1995. Or, we need some kind of confirmation from Western States that he ever went there. My issue is that I want to confirm or refute that there was a DC degree, or a license anywhere, before we fully accept this guy as someone whose behavior is used as an example of "Chiropractors", i.e., in this list.

This is a little like your "liar paradox", Eubilides. NO? If the man says he is a DC, and is lying then what? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any paradox here. We have a reliable source and can use it to support the claim that he's a chiropractor. Reliable sources aren't perfect, and they're sometimes incorrect, but I see no reason to think that Moss is incorrect on this point. If we find a later reliable source that disagrees, we can change the article later. Eubulides (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have another; I just received back an e-mail from the executive director of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, saying that "there is no record of Donsbach having been licensed there (at least in the last ten years)"; plus the usual disclaimers. How can I post this for you? Naturally he could have been licensed there during the Lincoln administration, but there are no records left to prove yes or no. I suppose that I COULD have been licensed to practice Surgery in Alaska when it was a Russian territory, but I think the burden is on me to prove this. And he probably can't, or I really think it would have been an exhibit in his trial.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to start reading edit histories, because I've already commented on this above. We don't know that he was licensed in Montana, only that he practiced there. It would be nice to know if he was also licensed there. Note that 1957 is a half century ago, so even though it's not the Lincoln era, it might as well be, because records aren't always kept for very long. Barrett started tracking Donsbach back when those records were readily available, and he uncovered evidence of Donsbach's fraudulent faked ND degree and false claims of being an MD. If he had faked his DC, I'm pretty sure Barrett would have also exposed that as well. There is very good reason that Barrett has never been successfully sued for libel. He does his homework well and tells the truth. You know, something just dawned on me. You are the first one to my knowledge who has ever questioned Donsbach's DC. I'm afraid that's not a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

TG that Clark wasn't a DC, or you'd have her prominently displayed in the list too? :) ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

World Agency Presidents

I noted that the founding President of the WFC is in the list, as is David Chapman-Smith. As the Presidents of "notable" International Organizations are automatically themselves notable, I have added the other Presidents. Waynethegoblin (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate list name

Brang, Eubulides; this title is clearly not realistic. There's no one list name that really describes this entry. THAT's why I split the list. Historic Figures did fine to describe those who were gone and who contributed to the profession's history. Prominent Figures in Chiropractic really does allow all the people listed. But "List of Chiropractors" does not allow inclusion of people like Kirkaldy-Willis, Dardik and Chapman-Smith, and there are others somewhere yet to be listed who are not DC's. Why was this merged to CREATE a problem that I frankly thought I fixed? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 00:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Need for a new title above. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded to that, there. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Self Promotion Issues

People have been placing their own names in this list recently, and at least four or five have had to be removed due to self promotion. This one * [[Dr. Michael McCracken]], DC: Tuscaloosa, Alabama was just removed for the same reasons. It did not even try to support a basis with any reference at all. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Ahmed Fares, not a reputable source, and self-advertising with website external link has been removed also. Padmeone (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

removal of Donsbach

Someone keeps replacing the entry for the notorious Kurt Donsbach... I removed it as it is a.- weasel worded to make it look like DC's are not "doctors", when all DC's are Doctors, and in most States "physicians", and b.- there is no record that he was ever licensed as any kind of doctor at all... thus an appropriate listing would be in "List of people masquerading as Doctors", not here. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)