Talk:American Chiropractic Association

Staying on topic
I have limited content to stuff that is uniquely about the ACA. Other articles cover other aspects about the profession. As the main contributor has a clear WP:COI, I suggest that they proceed very cautiously and neutrally. The article must not sell the ACA, but neutrally describe it. Wikipedia's law of "unintended consequences" does apply here. A good, neutral presentation is what we need. -- Fyslee/talk 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

article reads as if it was written by the ACA
anyone else notice its as if the ACA wrote this article?

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:7D11:60ED:AD62:6369 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of term 'pseudoscientific'
A user has edited the description of the ACA to include the term 'pseudoscientific'. As there is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", it is commonly used as a pejorative term, and the citation provided (to a 2008 blog post) is not to a peer-reviewed publication.

As the use of perjorative language is inconsistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it seems as if it should be removed. How do others feel about this?

Note: this is not intended to start a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of chiropractors; this is simply a question regarding neutrality. Radmap (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. The term as well as the referenced blog post are clearly not neutral. I am in support of both being removed. Inn8user123 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)