Talk:Naprapathy

Spelling etc.

Hello. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and would not presume to correct or edit another's work without some discussion first.

The author has a couple of typos he/she may wish to clean up.

Both "chiropractic," and "prerequisites" are mispelled in this sentence: The NCNM offers a 36 month, residential, evening program which costs about a third of the tuition at a chiropractc school, and has fewer prerequsites.

This is a fragment:

Although the term Oakley Smith Method is trade marked, the word naparathy is not and their other signature methods or naprapathic techniques such as the Rose method (which is taught at the NCNM), or the Christiansen method (which is not.)

Finally, for my own information, please identify the school which provides (or claims to provide) a DN degree via an online program.

Thank you very much.

P.S. I am an employee of the National College of Naprapathic Medicine. We have no intention of inserting any kind of slant in this article, buy we may like to contribute to a future version.

Rtstone 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find spelling errors and such, just correct them that is the idea behind the Wikipedia. You can also insert the name of the collge and a link to that college so long as it is presented as a FACT and not an advertisement for the college

64.107.0.169 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Psychotherapy?

Psychotherapy? What in the world does psychotherapy have to do with this article? 132.150.8.242 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

At the moment there are two very similar articles, this one Naprapathy and the other one Naprapathic medicine. Since "Naprapathy" is the older more complete article and has a simpler name more in-line with what I think people will be searching for and what people usually call it, I suggested that "Naprapathic medicine" be merged into this article.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - --Kudpung (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Naprapathtreatments this new article is a clear fork of this article, suggest the two be merged mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - --Kudpung (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

This article is way below the bar for notability, which greatly impedes efforts to find reliable sources for verification. This seems to be an extremely fringe alt-med profession. Delta13C (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we only have a mention in Quackwatch to lend it notability, which ain't enough really. AfD maybe? (Add: a brief mention here too. Maybe it's worth a sentence at Chiropractic?) Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add that there are two states that license naprapathic folks: Illinois and New Mexico. Regardless, there is little chance that this article meets GNG. I think some remarks in chiropractic would be the best choice. Delta13C (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google Books finds numerous mentions, including one that gives a description from an encyclopedia. Maybe it isn't as well known now as it once was, but notability is not temporary. This edit summary is misleading, as not only was it not merged, but no discussion took place on the talk page of the article it was proposed to merge this to, and there is no mention of this topic in the article. Discussion should be started there, and then if consensus is reached, it can be merged. If that fails and you still doubt its notability, you can take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Until a decision is made, this should be restored to a suitable version - such as the last revision before the redirect. Peter James (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is completely inappropriate and misleading. Naprapathy is its own distinct field that has been around since 1907. We should go back to the last revision before the first redirect and work on adding citations to that rather than lumping it in with Chiropractic. Ebeck999 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The redirect from Naprapathy to Chiropractic should be eliminated and we should work to create an article that explains what naprapathy is. It is not well known in the united states, but that is exactly why it needs its own article. Naprapathy is widely known in Scandinavian countries and there are many schools for it around the world. This is not pseudo science, and a cursory search under google scholar will show many peer reviewed articles studying this therapeutic technique. It certainly deserves it's own article. We should go back to the last revision before the redirect. The decision to redirect was made by 2 users without the consensus of the talk page. Ebeck999 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done We have one or two reasonable sources saying this is an offshoot of chiropractic and we must reflect them. The merge has been reviewed and it stands. You could try and argue for a split at Chiropractic, but without sources it'd be futile. Also be aware of our WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]