Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism/Archive 2

Rewrite
Since I had some time I have rewritten the article. I suggest a better title such as chiropractic controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what the current content describes, and the title should match the contents. Be bold. Good going. This article can form the basis for a much larger article. I note that you have bolded controversy and criticism, and they should likely be part of the title. Hmmmm.....maybe Chiropractic controversies and criticism or some such beast? You can just move the article to the new title. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hughgr's edit changing this back into a redirect. I agree that the article as written was a POV fork.  QuackGuru had, for example, added the following:  "Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims ... that are ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment."    This sentence has been discussed extensively at the Chiropractic article.  QuackGuru has been involved in those discussions, and it has been explained that this violates NPOV by stating as if it's fact the opinion that something is "antiscientific" and that something is "ethically suspect".  Whether something is "ethically suspect" is always opinion, not fact, even if it's something clear such as that it's wrong to steal:  see WP:ASF.  Whether chiropractors' reasoning is "antiscientific" is also not established as fact but only stated as opinion.  All this has been explained to QuackGuru in previous discussions at Talk:Chiropractic, and the Chiropractic page uses prose attribution to make it clear that Wikipedia is describing what's asserted in reliable sources, not endorsing those judgements itself.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the solution is to word it (the whole thing, not just that one instance) in an NPOV manner by using attibution to the very notable and RS, not delete it after the wishes of chiropractor Hughgr. The subject is too large to be contained in the chiropractic article simply because of space issues. It wouldn't be welcome there either, as the deletionism of Hughgr and other chiropractors and chiro advocates has abundantly shown in the past. They don't tolerate much documented criticism in the main article. This leaves a large gaping hole (the elephant in the corner) in the main article, since the profession has been extremely controversial throughout its history. That aspect of its history isn't dealt with much at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the current contents (before this latest redirect) did not match the title, and the article was just about to be moved to an appropriate title. These contents did not match the spot the redirect has pointed to. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is a stub. It took a number of years to improve the main page. This can be written like Aspartame controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Fylsee/BullRangifer, still commenting on the contributor and not the contributions I see.... It should not matter that I am a chiro or that you are a chiro-skeptic. After all these years, I would have thought you would have picked up on that by now...--Hughgr (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious POV fork. I believe this article has been deleted before on the same grounds. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you see the Aspartame controversy page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Levine2112, THIS article hasn't been deleted, since it's a different article. Unfortunately the way it was created (initially using the same title as a previously deleted article) has caused some confusion. Look at this with different glasses, IOW forget the old article and its history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous article was never deleted. It survived AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect

Should we redirect the page or keep it like the Aspartame controversy page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * we should redirect the page, or simply delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to AFD this page. I could start the AFD discussion for you or you could ask an admin to do a procederal AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a issue with the page bring it up. No explanantion was given why anyone would consider this page to be a fork. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination
See discussion at User talk:Coppertwig.

I'm not sure I can access the source for this statement about vaccination, but it sounds rather effusive and I suspect it may be more of an opinion than a verifiable fact (WP:ASF): "one of the most effective public health measures in history". The ref used at the Chiropractic article for a statement about vaccination says "Although most public health authorities would agree that vaccination constitutes one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures of the last century, few, if any, would argue that there are no problems associated with their use."  I suggest the following wording (since this article is to be longer than Chiropractic):  "generally considered one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures, although not problem-free", to replace the wording I quoted earlier in this paragraph. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although not problem free is failed verification in that context and is a minority point. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by failed verification. "not problem-free" is my summary of the wording in the source "few, if any, would argue that there are no problems associated with their use". Do you think it's an inaccurate summary? Can you suggest another summary of those words?  How about "not free of problems"?  And I don't know why you call it a minority point; it says "although few would argue that", implying that almost all public health authorities agree that there are problems. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't this rejected at the main article. Only a few would argue is clearly a minor point. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Few arguing that there are no problems implies that most accept that there are problems. That's therefore the majority view: that it's not free of problems. The idea that it's free of problems is the minority view (or nobody's view, possibly: "if any").  How about sticking more closely to the wording of the source? That's often a way to overcome disagreement.  How about "generally considered one of the most cost-effective infectious disease control measures, although few would argue that it is free of problems."  This is a concession to the anti-vaccination POV, since I'm leaving out "if any".
 * I don't remember this wording having been discussed previously at the main article. (See my comment on this at my talk page.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which ref are you reading. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Busse 2005, Chiropractic Antivaccination Arguments, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the ref in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For some unknown reason the sentence Copptertwig objected to has vanished. I think this was the reason. I don't understand. I thought Coppertwig made the edit but to my suprise it was another editor. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Need for attribution
To cut down on the amount of (future) conflict here, I think it is imperative that this article be absolutely NPOV and uses plenty of attribution for every opinion, and even for many facts. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Prose attribution, i.e. not just giving a footnote, but saying in the sentences who said what. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added attribution as suggested. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

History
Now that I've thought about it (which I should have done sooner..) I think it's unfortunate that we "moved" this article, rather than just copied it. We've gotten the whole history of another article with it, and that's not good. This is a different subject. We should get the history cleared, except that that would remove the history of the previous article, which wouldn't be good either. What's the right way to do this? Can we temporarily (a few minutes) move this back, delete this current title, short history and all, and then copy the contents over here and start this article title up again? if we can get an admin with the right tools to help, we should be able to do this within a few minutes time. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a different article but I did use a couple of refs from the previous article and part of the first sentence. My sandbox showed I did use a tiny portion the previous article to form this newer article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a different article, and the less that other article is mentioned the better. Doing so only confuses people. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a different article but why bother tyring to fix something that would only confuse a few people. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in your wiki, editing your articles.
Hi, I have made some small edits, but for the most part I have kept 'removed' text in comments for ease of subsequent editing. Unomi (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits were not small. Your comments are vague and do not explain the reason for commenting them out. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They amounted to commenting out 4 lines that in each case were restating the information of the line immediately after or before, changing the text to reflect the source, ie including the numbers for psychiatrists in the Gallup poll, and using a full quote rather than a partial one. And yes, commenting out a line regarding vaccines which struck me as 'odd' and unadorned by narrative or explanation. They were hardly 'large' edits. Feel free to undo them if you believe I have made the article worse. Unomi (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You commented out a line regarding vaccines but then you added full quotes. This was very odd. What was the point about the quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am have trouble understanding the point about psychiatrists. I don't consider psychiatrists relevant because they don't do any similar to chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought dentists is more relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Could you point out 7 of the following that you consider to be 'health occupations'?

Advertising practitioners

Bankers

Business executives

Car salesmen

Clergy

Congressmen

Druggists or pharmacists

Lawyers

Medical doctors

Nurses

Policemen

Chiropractors

College teachers

Dentists

Engineers

HMO managers

Insurance salesmen

Journalists

Psychiatrists

Senators

State governors

Veterinarians

Stockbrokers

gallup poll

HO groups from RS


 * I added what I thought what more relevant. I am not interested in participating in a poll. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok let me ask you this, do you recognize the above list of professions? Where do you think it came from? Unomi (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They came from a ref. I think some are more relevant to chiropractic while others are irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean that the 6 other health care professions are more relevant than say stockbrokers, correct? If so, just so we are clear, could you name those other health care professions? Unomi (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I added to the page was what I believe to be most relevant. I am not interested in adding more other health care professions to this page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the article you refer to 7 health care occupations, I am trying to find out if you are agreeing with the RS as to what constitutes health care occupation. Unomi (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to add something that is related to chiropractic. Some could argue that stockbrokers would be more relevent but I disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that wikipedia content should reflect the information in the sources it purports to use? Unomi (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are not suggesting I added original research to the page. What I added to the page is referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am suggesting that you refrain from original research, and use the 7 health occupations as given by RS :) Unomi (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding about 6 or 7 health occupations is too many. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take the time to read what you are writing: A 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, chiropractors rated last among seven health care professions for being very high or high in honesty and ethical standards, with 36% of poll respondents rating chiropractors very high or high; the corresponding ratings for other professions ranged from 62% for dentists to 84% for nurses
 * This does a bang up job of making it sound like the other 6 health occupations ranged from 62%-84%, which would be inconsistent with what is stated in the source. :) Unomi (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re vaccination, flouridation
btw, from the source re flouridation I gathered why some chiros held their view based on ''Chiropractors have a drugless healing profession, but the feeling that fluoridation is medication is absurd. It is an essential nutrient that naturally occurs.''. IE that chiros are against all kinds of medication, if so this would probably be a better header than having it under 'efficacy'. I commented out the vaccine line because it seemed strange to have what 'some believe' as a criticism of Chiropractic, ie, some Chiropractors believe they are good singers etc. Unomi (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. You did add "Some continue to oppose flouridation in many areas as being an infringement of personal freedom." When it is about flouridation some is okay but some is not okay for vaccination. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Some chiropractors are concerned by the routine unjustified claims chiropractors have made.[1]" This is also in the article. Do you want to comment this out too. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'some' regarding fluoridation is part of an attributed quote and as such, per WP:NPOV is ok, remember that 'some', 'many', 'few' should generally be attributed directly per WP:NPOV. As for the latter paragraph, I did not get up there yet, but yes it should be attributed to those that are stating 'some'. If there is a source that shows that chiros are against medicine of all kinds then this could be the narrative glue that holds the statements regarding vaccination and fluoridation together. Anyway, I am the least of your worries, I am backing away from the article until it is clear if it is going to be deleted or not. Unomi (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You commented out a statement that is about some chiropractors but did not do the same for other similar sentence. I do not follow your logic. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to add the long run quotes about some chiropractors. You commented out some chiropractors and add long run on quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I started from the bottom up, I then noticed the comments on this talk page and on CTs talkpage and thought it best to wait for awhile so you could engage them without too much distraction. That I have left the other text alone is by no means an indication of consent. Unomi (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You disagreed with having a sentence about "some chiropractors" but then added large quotes about some chiropractors. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made this change to restore vaccination and removed the full quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

good sources please
please cite sources that stood the test of time and are cited themselves. first citation is not good enough for a controversial statement. 79.101.242.230 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source stated "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today." QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i am aware. however, can you find a better source for similar statement? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * for example, that reference has 6 citations (mostly self citations), while 3rd reference has 60 citations, and is a much better reference for controversial statements, as it has been cited by the scientific community. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be changing the sourcing rules we have here. The source is perfectly appropriate for the text and should be attributed properly. Just follow our V & RS policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me quote then WP:NPOV: Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. 


 * I am not changing any rules that we have here. It seems to me that first citation does not represent significant view as it is not quoted by scientific community. You can also consult WP:REDFLAG, a subsection of WP:V. I find the claim exceptional. Could you please find exceptional source? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the source in question. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is a review, and it is very recent (2008). I also don't see the statement that this is an "exceptional" claim to be accurate. There is a well-known schism among chiropractors with those who still hold on to the mystical beliefs on one side (the ones who still say they can cure everything from acne to allergies to ulcers via spinal manipulations), and those who have cast them off on the other. There's nothing "exceptional" about the claim, and the source is perfectly fine, in my opinion.


 * I also have to question the comparison of the number of citations to source 1 vs. source 3. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that source 3 was published in 1998, while source 1 was published in 2008. As such, source 3 has had ten extra years of being available for citations. Hardly a fair comparison. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point -- for the lead find a source that has stood the test of time, not some recent view on the very old subject. Also, I don't think it is fair that you disapprove my right to challenge the validity (exceptionalness) of a statement, as it is something, as stated in policies, that can be done by any editor. It is not exceptional for you as you have different experience and knowledge from me, but you must acknowledge that people are different, and that i based on my experience and knowledge find that statement exceptional. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)First off, we are all stating our opinions here (I even said as much in my comment above). You have every right to think that the claim is exceptional, just as I have every right to disagree with you. I'm not saying you are "wrong," I'm saying that I don't agree, and I'm explaining why. So far, three editors here disagree with you, and none have agreed. That doesn't mean you are "wrong," but it does mean that you haven't argued your position well enough to convince anyone (building consensus is at the heart of how Wikipedia works, after all).

Second, the fact that the source is recent is a good thing. Check WP:MEDRS. The source you are questioning is a recent review of relevant studies and sources (a secondary source, which is also preferred, I might add). In fact, WP:MEDRS says:

"Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years."

That is a perfect description of this source - a review published in the last two or three years. A recent review doesn't ignore older sources and studies - it takes them into consideration as warranted by today's standards. This is why I (and, I suspect, others) don't agree with your criticism of this source. Again, this is my opinion, but if you want to make changes, then it is opinions that you must sway. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * o.k., so here's the search for keywords, with second paper's citations being this and second paper there seems to be much stronger citation within last 3 years telling similar things:


 * A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation - rsmjournals.com
 * E Ernst, PH Canter - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006 - Royal Soc Med


 * Now, don't you agree with me that the topic which is (as the first statement sais) Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism. deserves as good a citation as this above that i provided, or do you really think that controversial statement should be verified with a recent and not well cited paper? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - I don't think I follow you. Are you suggesting that the source you mentioned above (the 2006 review from Ernst) should be used as a citation for the statement "Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism"? If so, then I have to asy that the source you list says no such thing. However, the 2008 Ernst review says exactly that. I may be missing what you're trying to say here, though, so if that's the case, please explain.


 * not first statement, others... first just tells stuff is controversial, and therefore presumably requires very good citations...79.101.174.192 (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That said, there's nothing wrong with the 2008 source. If anything, this 2006 source by the same author shows that he has a well-established track record in this field of study. Why would we embrace what he wrote three years ago, but set aside what he wrote last year? It just doesn't make any sense to me. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * because it is not just what someone sais that matters, but also whether other scientists acknowledge it. p.s. i also looked at some papers that cite that one, and there are quite a few of 'refutations' of validity of his method, so maybe that should also be noted in the lead? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's a review study. Is the "mystical" statement a new opinion generated by the authors of the review study, or is it based on similar information in the material they're reviewing? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the full text, but from what I can see, I can tell you that the statement is in the abstract. Maybe someone who has full access can say more. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The history of chiropractic is ‘‘rooted in quasi-mystical concepts.’’20 20. Meeker WC, Haldeman S. Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:216—227. This is from Ernst. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, in 2008 the New England Journal of Medicine said this about Ernst: "Ernst is one of the best qualified people to summarize the evidence on this topic (Alternative medicine)."


 * Indeed. Maybe it should also be noted in the lead what physicians in general think (paraphrasing -- chiropractic is widely accepted/recommended by physicians and its scientific validation should therefore be an imperative):, ...


 * There are barriers between primary care physicians and chiropractors for having positive referral relationships. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * interesting how diverse results people publish in different countries and times. its no strange that the topic is controversial. i think all these results should be presented, don't you? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the refs is generally about alternative medicine in 1998 and the other is in 2007. I would use the newer ref from 2007. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the information to history from two refs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i guess that still doesn't cover 'all sides', but i made my point. i'll let someone else 'jump in'. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
This article is merely a collection of the criticisms from the other sub-chiro articles. Quackguru is merely copying and pasting info from the vertebral subluxation and innate intelligence articles here so he can include information about Simon Singh. There is nothing in this article that isn't already covered in either the main chiropractic article or other related articles. This article is the primary definition of a POV fork and should be AFD'd.--Hughgr (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. If it is AFD'd then it would probably result in editors expanding the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i would too agree that this pov fork should be deleted... it also seems like the pov fork that QuackGuru wanted to create and was told by an admin that it would be a pov fork here 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

D.D. Palmer jailed
At Your Own Risk: The Case Against Chiropractic. Several chiropractors were behind bars. Look at that picture. We can add information about the jail thingy and upload the picture for the history section. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some ‘‘martyrs,’’ including D.D. Palmer himself, went to jail for practicing medicine without a licence.6,41 QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs to read. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"no drugs" philosophy of D. Palmer
The fact that D.Palmer defined chiropractic as "science of healing without drugs" is the introductory sentence of what seems to be a favorite Ernst source for this article. To pick and choose only certain parts and ignore this first sentence seems not to be NPOV.--stmrlbs | talk 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the ‘‘earliest known’’ publication14 on the subject, its founder (Daniel David Palmer) stated that, ‘‘chiropractic is a science of healing without drugs.’’15 This is the opinion of Palmer that does not add much to this page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is central. I think this was part of his drive to find another method of healing.  I'm not saying that I agree with Palmer's statement that there is one cure, but I think his drive to find a healing method without drugs was a force behind his development of chiropractic. --stmrlbs | talk  01:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is minor. There is evidence to suggest that D.D. Palmer had learned manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still (1828—1917), the founder of osteopathy.30 He combined the skills of a bonesetter with the background of a magnetic healer and claimed that ‘‘chiropractic was not evolved from medicine or any other method, except that of magnetic.’’31 There are a lot of things from the source that are minor. We can't include them all. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean tis is the opinion of Palmer?? it is fact that he stated this... and as the founder of chiropractic i dont see how this is minor? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That part is minor. The controversy is "According to D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race.[1]". QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That isnt a controversy thats a statement... until we have reliable sources saying that that statement is controversial then it doesnt belong on the chiropractic controversy and criticism page 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a controversy because Palmer claims manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isnt a controversy until you find reliable sources saying it is a controversy 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is from Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. It is a critical evaluation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement you are talking about may be from "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation"... but the statement itself is not criticism nor controversy... what we need for this article is either critical statements... statements about criticism or statements about the controversy... this statement is none of the above 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is controversial from a critical source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is neither documenting criticism or controversy and as such isnt suitable for this article... i dont know how you fail to understand this 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

history
this section seems completely irrelevant to the topic of the article and reads like a bunch of non-related sentences... the only text in this section that should stay is... does anyone agree? because if the text isnt about controversy and criticism i dont see how it belongs here... if this irrelevant text IS kept... then what is the inclusion criteria for the article? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts, leading to internal conflicts between straights and mixers which continue to this day"
 * "Despite heavy opposition by mainstream medicine, by the 1930s chiropractic was the largest alternative healing profession in the U.S.[5] The longstanding feud between chiropractors and medical doctors continued for decades. The AMA labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966,[6] and until 1980 held that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with "unscientific practitioners".[7] This culminated in a landmark 1987 decision, Wilk v. AMA, in which the court found that the AMA had engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade and conspiracy, and which ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic.[8]"
 * "The medical establishment has not entirely accepted chiropractic care as mainstream."


 * I disagree. I think the section is too short. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * well, we could continue to follow your style and add more irrelevent information that has nothing to do with the topic of the article, or at least hasnt been shown to have anything to do with the topic of the article... but maybe we should hear what OTHER editors think? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting image upload
Here is an image that would fit like a glove for the history section. We request an editor with the experience with images upload it to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen that on WP before. Isn't it already uploaded? I'll have a look. Verbal  chat  21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science
The charity Sense About Science has launched a campaign to draw attention to the libel case. They have issued a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes", which has been signed by myriad signers representing science, journalism, publishing, arts, humanities, entertainment, skeptics, campaign groups and law. As of June 13, 2009, over 10,000 have signed.

We can add this to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First sentence is all right, but the rest is tangential to the subject at hand, and more more apt for the SAS page. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sentences give context. When this is over we can explain what happened. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The second part is tangential to the subject of this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the second and third sentences are put together and slightly trimmed I see no problem with it. Verbal   chat  19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about The charity Sense About Science has launched the Keep Libel Laws Out Of Science campaign to draw attention to the libel case., over ten thousand signatures have been collected in support of their statement The law has no place in scientific disputes.? This is more succinct while still covering the charity and the signers. The list of categories of signers does not really add much, but the reception of the campaign is relevant to this article as a reflection on public reception of chiropractic. I could, though, see an argument that a reader should assume that if the campaign and statement were insignificant they would have been omitted. We should also add a source besides SAS. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good with me. It'd be nice to expand on it, but this is the minimum we should have now. Verbal   chat  08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section on Legal cases or Response of chiropractic associations to criticism under History? - 2/0 (cont.) 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism NPOV tag
I removed this tag as this article is about the well sourced topic of the controversy and criticism surrounding Chiropractic. The tag hasn't been justified here, and as there are no credible arguments here for renaming or removing this article then it doesn't appear justified. Verbal  chat  19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been WP:TAGTEAM reverted for placing a tag which appropriately describes this article. Which portion of the tag is  untrue?


 * This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.


 * This article uses both words in its title. Thus this article may not present a npov of the subject. And, per the AfD, many agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp  19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not explained what you think is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. The tag says "may mean the article does not present a NPOV". From WP:NPOV:


 * A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.


 * -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that you've already been reverted for adding this tag, please be mindful of WP:3RR. WP:BRD would suggest that if you have been reverted you should move to discussion. Not revert again and then make bad faith accusations of tag teaming, which is uncivil and not likely to help resolve the situation. Your justification of the tag is lacking, in that the tag should therefore be on every controversy and criticism article, such as Aspartame controversy. There are whole WP:RS on Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I would suggest the problem is with the wording of the tag and its misuse, rather than with the title of this article. Verbal   chat  19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want articles to not have controversy or criticism in the title then you'll have to propose that as an addition to NPOV policy or try to promote a new policy with that content. Verbal   chat  19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV already says that "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So it already is policy. We are not talking about other articles. We are talking about this one. Please see the AfD where many editors were in favor of renaming to a more neutral title. I have given much justification for the tag, and in return all I've heard is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not an explantion for the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made this change. No specific explantion was given to any NPOV problems for the content. The title is NPOV. There are many articles with similar titles such as Aspartame controversy and Criticism of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How much more explanation can I give? I have shown that the tag's language directly applies to this article's title. If you disagree, please explain how the tag's language is in any way false and I will drop this discussion. So far you have not even attempted to do so. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also a non-argument and no explanation for a tag. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I will bring the matter to NPOV/N and wait for a response from a WP:3PO per WP:DR. Please let's wait for such a response on this issue. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not given a specific reason for the tag. There are lots of articles with similar titles. The AFD did not go your way and now you are edit warring a tag into the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feelings on this. It doesn't really offer anything to help this discussion or solve this issue though. In the AfD, most editors felt that this article is either a clear POV fork and should be deleted or merged or this article should be retitled. Please review the AfD. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that'll be a waste of your time, but if you feel the need, then please drop a note at this thread to let us know where you've raised it, if anywhere. Verbal   chat  19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted it NPOV/N as stated above. Let's wait for responses and try not to poison the well. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have already poisoned the well by making a non-neutral comment at NPOV/N. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw this posted on the NPOV noticeboard and wanted to comment. The article uses the words "controversy" and "criticism" which "may" indicate a NPOV problem. This means that further justification for the argument that the title is inappropriate is needed. If the article is about criticism and controversy surrounding the field of chiropracty, then the title is appropriate. If the article has specific areas where NPOV is being violated, bring them up for discussion. As it is, the title seems entirely appropriate to me. The   Seeker 4   Talk  20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant NPOVN post, which fails to mention this discussion or even link to it, can be found here at the moment. Verbal   chat  20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The template is about the title of a section. Not the title of an article. Therefore, the template should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy controversy
Chiropractic has seen considerable controversy over its philosophy. Here is a ref about the Philosophy controversy. Any thoughts on expanding it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence
Evidence suggests that before the founding of chiropractic in 1895, D.D. Palmer visited visted A.T. Still, the founder of osteopathy, in Kirksville, Missouri, where Still started the first school of osteopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the text using another ref. I explained who is arguably the sole founder of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this controversial? u need a reference that states that this is controversial! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is controversial how chiropractic was started. Osteopaths who are also Wikipedians don't like the "bastardizeded form". The rivalry was not solely with conventional medicine; many osteopaths proclaimed that chiropractic was a bastardized form of osteopathy.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it isn't controversial just because you say so... see WP:CRIT... you need a source to say that it is criticism or controversry... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is from a source that says it is a critical review. QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * just because a source is a critical review doesnt mean that everythign within it is criticism... find a reliable source that says it is criticism or dont put it in the article... its that simple! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you did not read the source. If you have not read the source then I don't undersand why you are commenting on it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Forking issue
See recent discussions in and

Again as an unbiased editor I won't push for any action but I will say this. Chiropractic controversy and criticism is a fork of this article. I was under the impression that it was a legitimate fork but after seen your essay now I am in doubt. Nevertheless Chiropractic controversy and criticism is either a content fork, a point of view (POV) fork as per WP:POVFORK or a legitimate fork badly implemented as per WP:SUMMARY. The actions that Wikipedia policy suggest for these cases are 1. if content fork the merge with main article and delete. 2. if point of view (POV) fork merge any NPOV part with main article and delete. 3. if legitimate fork then a sub-section as per WP:SUMMARY in the main article and leave the articles linked but separate. Now it is up to willing editors to find consensus as to how to proceed from here. PS I will copy this into the Chiropractic controversy and criticism Talk Page.--LexCorp (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * as stated elsewhere i think this is a POVFORK... as such any npov content that is not covered at the chiropractic article and is relevant and important should be merged over there... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wanted the merge then you would not of made this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * please reread my comment... i do not support merging every piece of information into a criticism section but i do support merging some information to relevant areas of the article... further that section is not npov and so when i say "any npov content" it doesnt mean a bunch of POV conent into a pov section... i do NOT support a bulk merge of content and the content needs to be checked sentence by sentence to determine if it is relevant, if it is npov, if it is already in the main article... plz do not tell me what i would or not do 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this page was merged then why was this page not redirected to chiropractic. Because the merge was rejected. Editors seem to want to keep this article now. It is too big to merge anywhere and meets notability guidelines. However, editors can add material to other articles per WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fallacy. A merge was never rejected. Even the deletion of this article was never rejected. The AfD resulted in "no consensus". That's no consensus to merge, delete or keep. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus for a merge becuase this page was not redirected. Time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Time to move on. So moving on, we should now proceed to arrive at a consensus about the future of this article. From the AfD and from other conversations, we know that there are editors who feel that this article:
 * Should be merged.
 * Should be rewritten to comply with NPOV.
 * Should be retitled to comply with NPOV
 * Should be deleted as a POV fork.
 * I don't think many if any editor felt that this article should be left as is. So now we need to work to find a consensus on how to move forward. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Levine2112 ackowledged shortly after the AFD discussion there was no consensus. We do not continue the discussion over and over again to come to a different result. If you don't like the article you can AFD it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * there is no current consensus on what to do with the article and as such discussion should continue... please do not close this discussion as that would be disruptive editing... 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i believe that either any npov content should be merged with other appropriate articles (Chiropractic/History of chiropractic) or that the article should be rewritten to comply with NPOV... while i agree that it is a POV fork i think there may be some content worth saving... i do NOT think the article should be kept as it is now 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't continue a discussion when a few editors don't like the outcome. There was no consensus to delete the article. Since the AFD the article has expanded. I tried a merge but it was rejected. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the AfD and other discussions its apparent that a consensus has not yet developed. Anyone who doesn't want to participate in the discussion further certainly isn't required to, but lets leaving closing discussions to folks uninvolved in these disputes, ok?  I'd suggest since the regulars here have probably already had their say and are unlikely to convince each other that it would be a good idea to engage other members of the community through RfC or a similar process. Shell   babelfish 06:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love some more specific guidance here, Shell (or anyone else). If we were to have an RfC, what question(s) do you think we should be asking? (Should it be merged? Should it be deleted? Should it be retitled? Should it be rewritten?) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a couple of those options I wouldn't suggest. For example, I would say that the question of retitling the article has already been answered on talk here and the NPOV noticeboard.  The majority of editors felt that the title was appropriate for a subarticle (Oddly though, it seems like someone has removed the summary from the main article?).  I also think that due to the recent deletion discussion, opening another one this soon is unlikely to produce a different result.  That leaves either merger or rewriting.  In the case of a merger, since there are already other subarticles for Chiropractic, there would need to be a good policy based reason that this particular one should be merged back into the main article.  In the case of rewriting, someone would need to make specific suggestions on what they think should be reworded and why (those suggestions might even be tried here first before using further dispute resolution). Shell   babelfish 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shell for the excellent advice. Instead of complaining and trying to get this deleted, why don't critics of this article start making specific suggestions, just as you suggest? That's the way forward. I'll create a section heading below.  Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors are makiing vague comments that they claim there are NPOV problems with this article. If there is a problem with the text editors could be specific. The vague comments are non-arguments which I don't know what to do about. Specific suggestions would be helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable."
 * the criticism of chiropractic is already presented in the article Chiropractic in each section... as such this article is a blatant POV fork... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles tags and a reminder about arbitration restrictions
I really had hoped we wouldn't be here again, but another article about Chiropractic, same editors, same edit warring and other problems. Please remember that this article will come under the same Arbitration case as Chiropractic - if there's any confusion about what that means, please ask me as soon as possible. If the edit warring continues, those folks involved will receive a brief topic ban; repeat instances will result in increasingly longer bans.

Regarding the article tags, I've removed one because there is no need for two NPOV tags - please get a grip on yourselves. Also, we need an explanation of why the failed verification tag is in the lead or why it shouldn't be there. Please remember, the lead shouldn't actually need sources, since it is supposed to simply summarize the rest of the article which we would hope is already well-sourced. Levine, reverting to keep it in without discussing here isn't appropriate and QuackGuru, reverting to keep it out just because there is a source isn't appropriate either. Just in case anyone isn't aware, the failed verification tag does not mean that the sentence does not have a source but instead that the source does not support the sentence.

I notice that a lot of specific concerns have been added above - that looks like a lot to go through in one chunk. Had anyone considered maybe breaking them out one at a time and discussing them until you reach a consensus? Shell  babelfish 08:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shell, thanks for the input. Regarding what you said specifically to me, please know that above at the end of my comments about article issues, I clearly do discuss why I feel tagging is necessary. QuackGuru has not bothered to discuss my rationale on tagging (on anything else up there) whatsoever. I'm really not sure what more I could be reasonably expected to do here. QuackGuru's edit war was about the article tags. The "failed verification" tag in the lead is merely a red herring. If it wasn't about the tags, he would have just left the tags alone, but instead he chose to revert them 3 times without any discussion on the matter whatsoever. Again, what more could I reasonably be expected to do in the face of such blatant disregard of WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR?


 * As far as the specific concerns listed above by myself, please know that I was asked to do so by several editors above including yourself. My concerns are clearly numbered, so addressing them issue-by-issue shouldn't be a problem. If an editor wants to discuss them one at a time, that is perfectly acceptible and easy to do. At this point, no one has bothered to respond to any of the issues I've listed. That's frankly a bit disheartening to me because it took quite a bit of time and effort for me to put the list together. Obviously, there is no deadline on Wikipedia and editors can take their sweet time getting back to me on forming a consensus to address these issues, but until they do (or someone else does), I think it is entirely proper for the article tagging to remain in place.


 * With regards to the two NPOV article tags: it's fine that you opted to remove one. Please know that they do serve different purposes though. One is to alert the reader that this article may have POV issues, where the other is to alert editors that the article has been nominated to be checked for neutrality. I had made a post at NPOV/N stating such a nomination and requesting outside input. All that said, the nomination tag could serve a double purpose of both alerting the reader and editor of the disputed neutrality of this article.


 * Again, thanks again for your input here, Shell. I hope that you continue to monitor the goings-on here as I for one think it will be entirely beneficial to the consensus building process. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ethics and claims... new zealand
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Lengthy discussion collapsed for readability QuackGuru conveniently failed to include the information about how New Zealand Chiropractor's are allowed to use the title doctor as long as it is clear that the title refers to the role of a chiropractor... i added it in and he has been edit warring to change it to not be as clear as what the source says... so rather than getting banned again for reverting his poor edits, i want to know what u guys think makes more sense: OR to me, the second one follows the source much more closely and makes more sense... obivously the title refers to their chiropractic role in a yellow pages section under the heading of 'Chiropractors'... if it was under the heading of 'Physicians' or something, then yeah that would be different or if the section was 'Health Professionals' then yeah, they would have to clarify that their title refers to their chiropractic role, but being in the yellow pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors' is an EXAMPLE of how it can be shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some New Zealand chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a New Zealand Yellow pages telephone directory in a way that implied they are registered medical practitioners, when no evidence was presented it was true. Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’ such as in the Yellow Pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors' when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role.
 * Some New Zealand chiropractors appeared to have used the title 'Doctor' in a New Zealand Yellow pages telephone directory in a way that implied they are registered medical practitioners, when no evidence was presented it was true.[17] Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’, when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role, such as in the Yellow Pages under the heading of 'Chiropractors'.


 * It was miselading to claim under the heading chiropractic refers to their chiropractic role. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What OTHER role would it be refering to, when it is under the heading 'Chiropractors'??? SERIOUSLY! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru is changing the text to not be true to the source... the source states "chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" (it is also interesting that the source also states that "the protected title for medical doctors under the provisions of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2003) is ‘medical practitioner’ not ‘doctor'") 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need more clarification i found another source saying "in no way is it incorrect when the "Dr" title is used under the Chiropractors section of the Yellow Pages. Likewise, if a medical practitioner was to advertise in the chiropractors' section or hold themselves out to be a chiropractor they would be in breach of the HPCA Act 2003 and subject to disciplinary action." 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." From the source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The giant heading "CHIROPRACTORS" qualifies the use of the title 'Doctor'... as the sources show 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I showed under the heading chiropractic must be qualified according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * u failed to do any such thing and u continue to ignore multiple sources above showing this 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Being under the heading CHIROPRACTORS qualifies the use of the title... the source says "chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says the title must be qualified. Under the title is not qualified. The source gave examples. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the heading CHIROPRACTORS is qualified, and it is illogical to think otherwise. The source I provided backs this up... u may think this disagrees with your source, but that is ok... per NPOV we have to include ALL viewpoints, not just yours 70.71.22.45 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the title chiropractic is not qualified. The source we are using says it must be qualified. We should not have a misleading sentence in the article that tell chiropractors under the heading chiropractic it is ok to use the title doctor. It must be qualified to refer to their chiropractic role. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * u might think so, but that ISN'T what the sources say. Under the heading CHIROPRACTORS is qualified. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * since i didn't link the other source above and the dispute still isnt resolved, i will link to it here . again, quotiing with emphasis from that source "chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" . 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obvious from the source that ‘Doctor’ must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act." QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * it is obvious from the source that they feel that it IS qualified, by being under the heading "Chiropractors" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The heading "Chiropractors" is not qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The heading "Chiropractors" qualifies the use of the title on that page... this is the reason that "it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners" 70.71.22.45 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The heading "Chiropractors" does not qualify the use of the title doctor. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP editor here is absolutely correct. This seems to be a case of WP:IDHT on QuackGuru's part. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is not logged in. The editor is incorrect. The heading "Chiropractors" does not qualify the use of the title doctor. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you and agree with the 70.71.22.45 (regardless if the user is logged in or has an actual account). RfC would be a good next step according to WP:DR. In the meantime, stop editwarring and leave the text as it is in the given source. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are saying the IP also disagrees with me. It is clear the IP has an account and sometimes is not logged in. The sources says it must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." What you added was misleading. I suggest editors log in when possibly making controversial edits. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think it is clear that the IP has an account which they are not logging into, nor am I clear why you think it is appropriate to be discussing that here. What is germain to this talk page is discussing the clearest written sentence which best reflects what the reference is saying. The reference is saying that in NZ, Chiropractors are allowed to use the title ‘doctor’ when it is shown that the title refers to their chiropractic role. The "Yellow Pages" portion of the statement is an auxillary example of such a use and was included because the NZ Yellow Pages were the basis of a study which discussed the use of the title. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources says it must be qualified. "The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor." It is obvious under the heading chiropractic does not always qualify doctor. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This only seems to be obvious to you. As I said, a RfC may be a good next step for you to take. In the meantime, stop editwarring. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You deleted it from another page without consensus in edit war. The next step is for you to revert your edits and restore the text. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to talk the use of that information on another page, then I suggest you talk about it on that page's corresponding talk page. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a suggestion to move the material to another section of the article but no consensus to delete. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Not such as in the yellow pages. It must be qualified in the yellow pages. Such as in the yellow pages suggests no qualified is needed in the yellow pages. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * as i have explained to you countless times above and as the sources make clear, being under the heading CHIROPRACTORS qualifies the use of the title dr... what other type of doctor would you think you would find under the heading of CHIROPRACTORS??? plz stop your disruptive editing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be qualified. Such as in the yellow pages is not automatically qualified. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and no one is saying it is... however, under the heading "CHIROPRACTORS" is qualified... which is what the source says! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source states The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources states The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for sources
To facilitate an undestanding of this weird debate, will all of you please provide your sources and diffs in a list below this comment. Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * here is one of the sources... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the source is listed above says this:
 * "The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role.
 * In addition, chiropractors are listed in the Yellow Pages under the heading ‘Chiropractors’ and it is clear they are not holding themselves out to be registered medical practitioners."
 * which is pretty clear that it isnt a problem for a chiropractor to be listed in the yellow pages under the heading of ‘Chiropractors’ because the heading qualifies that the title is refering to their chiropractic role (again, what other type of doctor would you find in the yellow pages under chiropractors)... i think similar rules are in place elsewhere, where on a business sign it must say "Dr. John Doe, Chiropractor" or "Chiropractors: Dr. John Doe, Dr. Jack Smith, Dr. Jane Black"... the "however" in the source text is actually pretty important because it really shows that the use in the yellow pages isnt an abuve of the title 'doctor'... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that URL. It is a response, IOW a chiropractic quote. Where is the URL for the original quote that started all this?  Brangifer (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It must be qualified according to the source. The source states ''The article suggests widespread abuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors and others and uses the example of the Yellow Pages to emphasise this point. However, it should be noted that Chiropractors are permitted to use the title ‘doctor’ when this is suitably qualified to show that the title refers to their chiropractic role. The source states The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act.'' QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * QG, please provide the URL for the original source discussed by that quote. That quote is in response to something. I want that URL.  Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Found:


 * Study: Use of inappropriate titles by New Zealand practitioners of acupuncture, chiropractic, and osteopathy. Andrew Gilbey, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278
 * Editorial: Doctor Who? Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative “medicine” practitioners, by David Colquhoun, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 25-July-2008, Vol 121 No 1278


 * Brangifer (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"It should be noted that the Chiropractic Board is vigilant in its approach to the use of the title ‘doctor’ and publishes clear directions on the use of this terminology by members of the profession in its Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice as follows: The use of the title ‘Doctor’ must be qualified, for example, John Doe, Dr of Chiropractic or Dr John Doe, Chiropractor. Failure to qualify the use of the title ‘Doctor’ may contravene the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 and he or she may be committing an offence under that Act."

According to the source it must be qualified. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * }

Specific suggestions for improvement

 * 1) Diversify the sources. Currently, this article seems to be primarily driven by Ernst's POV. He is cited at about 20 times, mentioned twice in the article. Considering the article cites about 40 sources, we may assume that Ernst's POV account for about half of the article. This presents a serious WP:WEIGHT issue as well as WP:NPOV in general.
 * 2) "The core concepts of chiropractic, vertebral subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science." This misrepresents a critical view of chiropractic as if it were mainstream. There is science behind these concepts and (arguably) parts of that science are sound, despite what Ernst (a critic) says. This article should not be taking sides in this dispute among mainstream sources. As it is, it creates a WP:NPOV problem.
 * 3) This article simply regurgitates many items which are included in other articles, including Chiropractic, Spinal manipulation, Vertebral subluxation, Chiropractic education and History of chiropractic. This also creates a WP:WEIGHT issue.
 * 4) The History section spends too much time regurgitating what is already found in the History of chiropractic and have very little to do with documented "Criticism" or "Controversy". (i.e. The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, Daniel D. Palmer, manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured. and Chiropractic included vitalistic ideas of innate intelligence with religious attributes of universal intelligence to substitute science. ) As it is written, the article seems to try and create "criticism" or "controversy" where none is present in the sources, thus violating WP:OR.
 * 5) Chiropractic does not have the same level of mainstream credibility as other healthcare professions. A 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, chiropractors rated last among seven health care professions for being very high or high in honesty and ethical standards, with 36% of poll respondents rating chiropractors very high or high; the corresponding ratings for other professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, 62% for dentists, and 84% for nurses. This is an opinion which is stated as though it were fact and again tries to create a criticism or controversy where there is none, thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This also is repeated from the Chiropractic article, thus violating WP:WEIGHT.
 * 6) The largest chiropractic associations in the U.S. and Canada distributed patient brochures which contained unsubstantiated claims. Opinion presented as fact, thus violates WP:NPOV.
 * 7) Chiropractors, especially in America, have a reputation for unnecessarily treating patients. Opinion presented as fact, thus violates WP:NPOV.
 * 8) Sustained chiropractic care is promoted as a preventative tool but unnecessary manipulation could possibly present a risk to patients. Opinion presented as fact, thus violates WP:NPOV.
 * 9) A study of California disciplinary statistics during 1997–2000 reported 4.5 disciplinary actions per 1000 chiropractors per year, compared to 2.27 for MDs; the incident rate for fraud was 9 times greater among chiropractors (1.99 per 1000 chiropractors per year) than among MDs (0.20). Source fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 10) The whole New Zealand "usage of the Doctor title" comes from sources which fails WP:MEDRS and is repeated in Chiropractic education, thus violates WP:WEIGHT.
 * 11) UK chiropractic organizations and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by scientific evidence... This paragraph presents opinion as though it were fact and thus violations WP:NPOV. The source it cites fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 12) The Simon Singh stuff is too long and smacks of WP:RECENTISM and gives way undue WP:WEIGHT for the case.
 * 13) Not all criticism originated from critics in the medical profession. Some chiropractors are cautiously calling for reform... This paragraph duplicates text already in Chiropractic, thus violating WP:WEIGHT.
 * 14) The dogma of subluxation is the biggest single barrier to professional development for chiropractors. Presents opinion as fact and thus violates WP:NPOV
 * 15) The cost, effectiveness, and safety, of spinal manipulation are uncertain.This text duplicates text already in Chiropractic.
 * 16) Quackwatch is critical of chiropractic; its founder, Stephen Barrett, has written that it is "absurd" to think that chiropractors are qualified to be primary care providers... Quackwatch is not a particularly reliable source on chiropractic, and should not be cited or promoted, as we have far-more-reliable and equally-critical sources.
 * 17) Lon Morgan, DC... Unnotable critic, his opinion here violations WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not his soapbox.
 * 18) William T. Jarvis, Ph.D... Likewise, Jarvis is not notable nor worth emphasizing. This is a looooooong quote from an old source, violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
 * 19) Chiropractors historically are strongly opposed to vaccination... More WP:NPOV violation. This text is also repeated in the Chiropractic, Vaccine controversy,and the Opposition to water fluoridation articles, this violating WP:WEIGHT.
 * 20) Unscientific health care such as chiropractic is licensed by individual states. Jarvis WT stated "Practitioners use unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively opposed by every scientist."  This introduces more text which presents an unremarkable critic's opinion as fact. Thus violating WP:NPOV. The source is about 18 years old to boot and may have some WP:RS issues.

Finally, I would like to highlight a few bits from WP:CFORK and I think it will be clear to all why this article obviously violates this guideline:


 * A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.
 * (R)egardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view.
 * Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article mustinclude suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.
 * There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

In sum, this article has many problems. After we remove/fix the soapbox, weight and RS violating content, we'll still be left with a lot of POV text in under a POV title in a POV article. The AfD - while resulting in no consensus - revealed that most editors felt that this article is problematic in one way or another. Some suggested a title change, some suggested a merger, and some suggested total deletion. I personally don't think that this article is salvagable as its very concept violates WP:NPOV. While I am in favor of all out deletion, above I have described some very specific problems in this very problematic article and until these at least these specific issues can be resolved, this article should be tagged with labels highlighting its issues. I have gone ahead and tagged this article with the labels I think are most relevant. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing vague about this. --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

lede
Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism.


 * this sentence doesnt pass WP:NPOV or WP:V... i put a citation needed tag on it and [User:QuackGuru] added Ernst as a reference... but the reference used doesnt use the words controversy or criticism... so how can it be used to verifiy this sentence?? it fails NPOV because it only describes one viewpoint... how about the praise that chiropractic has been the subject of??

Edzard Ernst has stated that chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts which led to internal conflict within the profession.


 * why are we giving ernsts viewpoints a prominent display in the lede of the article?? hasnt there been dispute about similar text because the article actually doesnt say this even though the abstract does??

For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation.


 * this seems to be original research to me... the source referenced doesnt use the word battle or battled let alone antiscientific or pseudoscientific and uses the term mainstream medicine only once which isnt talking about a battle with chiropractic...

The core concepts of chiropractic, vertebral subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science.


 * this sentence is already in the main article Chiropractic and as such does not need to be duplicated here

70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence was changed and two refs were added to verify the text but it was blindly reverted. We don't need so many tags in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation.[3] This sentence is verified. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The text in the lead passed verifiecation and too many tags were added to the lead again. This was blindly reverting again and obvious WP:MEAT which is bannable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More evidence of blindly reverting or intentional disruption. The sentence in the lead passed verification but a failed verification tag was restored after verification was provided. The source stated "A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994)." The text is verified but the tag was restored. QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I chose to discuss the matter but other editors reverted without discussion of the matter whatsoever. I provided verification but it was ignored. Adding too many tags to the article is not approproriate. The reference supports the sentence in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My main contention with that sentence is not verification. If you read my comments above, this is the kind of sentence which misrepresents a critical view of chiropractic as if it were mainstream. If I reverted the "fv" sentence tag, it was only because you blindly (without discussion) were reverting the appropriate article tags in the course of your same edit. I know that I am not the first editor to tell you thing (probably at least the fifth), but if you would only break up your controversial edits into separate edits, then it would be much easier to avoid these issues. You will notice that in my second and final revert of your third revert, I made sure to leave at least one of your ancillary edits in place. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is verified and if you don't understand that then read the text I provided and read the reference. You have almost always bulk reverted when I edited separate issues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Verification is not the issue I have with the text. Please re-read my comment. Try editing issues separately and not bulk blind reverting, and we will see what happens. Refrain from edit warring and address the issues I have laid out above at your request. They are clearly numbered so it should be rather easy for you to address one-by-one. I think that's a good way forward. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verification is the issue. The text is verified but you bulk reverted. You have not followed your own advise of Try editing issues separately and not bulk blind reverting. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Verification is not the issue which I am discussing. Let's put it that way. And actually I did follow my own advice here where I left your ancillary edit in place and only reverted your vandalistic removal of the tagging. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You alleged that "only reverted your vandalistic removal of the tagging." Adding too many tags is not appropriate and seems pointy. Verification is not the issue for you but it is the issue for me. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why the fv tag should remain after verification was provided that supports the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the text provided does not support the sentence as written. the sentence says that subluxation is one of these anti-scientific/pseudoscientific ideas... the source doesnt say that at all! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation. The text provided does support the sentence. "A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994)." Please read the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you know what? i think i agree with you! remove the tag! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the editor who restored it in edit war should remove it not me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

history
The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, Daniel D. Palmer, manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured. D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, defined chiropractic as "a science of healing without drugs" and considered establishing chiropractic as a religion.
 * this is all covered in the chiropractic history article and none of it is criticism or controversy... it is original research to include it in an article on criticism and controversy when it is neither (unless we have sources that say it is)... as levine said above it is also a problem with npov/weight because it is already covered in chiropractic history

Evidence suggests that D.D. Palmer had acquired knowledge of manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy.
 * again... it is original research to put this in an article on controversy and criticism... although it should be in Chiropractic history 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Although D.D. Palmer combined bonesetting to give chiropractic its method, and "magnetic healing" for the theory, he acknowledged a special relation to magnetic healing when he wrote, "chiropractic was not evolved from medicine or any other method, except that of magnetic."
 * this sentence is kinda hard to read... it could be shortened to just the last part... but again.. its not controversy or criticism so why is it even in this article?? more original research! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oh yeah, it also fails NPOV because the original source says that he combined 4 things to create chiropractic... the other 2 were orthodox science and popular health reform... why wasn't THAT mentioned?? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to D.D. Palmer subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race.
 * line by line i'll go through this... but it is so much original research... where is the source that says this is criticism or controversy? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your problem with understanding this is exacerbated by the current title. This makes you think you can just delete everything that is the reason for the existence of criticism, and then it will be easy to delete the criticism as baseless. No, that won't work. It should be pretty obvious why that content is in this article. It is the subject of criticism, and one can't delete it and only list the criticism. Continued in new section below.  Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * one of the first policys i read on wikipedia was WP:AGF... please assume good faith in my edits and i will assume good faith in yours... this article is about criticism and controversy of chiropractic... even tho i think the article should be deleted as a povfork, if it stays it needs to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV... if it stays it SHOULD list controversy and criticism... but only controversy and criticism... anything else is WP:OR unless there is a source that it is the reason for the existence of criticism... please remove your asscusations that i want to delete the criticism as baseless... i have never said such a thing implied such a thing or shown such a thing in my edits! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When the text is sourced it is not OR. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * where is the source that says that this is criticism or controversy?? otherwise why dont we add every line of text from Chiropractic over to here?? i mean, thats all sourced, right?? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ernst says the source is a critical evaluation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i dont think that is enough... with that view every line in his article should be in this article because with that view every line in his article is criticism... i dont think so! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"It has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, innate intelligence and spinal adjustments, and consider subluxations to be the leading cause of all disease; "mixers" are more open to mainstream and alternative medical techniques such as exercise, massage, nutritional supplements, and acupuncture."
 * first of all why is this in the history section? this isnt history. second of all why is this in the article on controversy or criticism? i dont see either here. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The conflict within the profession is a controversy. This is from the rooted mystical concepts from the beginning of the profession. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * what conflict? this paragraph doesnt say anything about conflict i just says that there are two groups... it just says there is a lack of consensus among them on certain points of view... that doesnt make this a conflict imho... (although perhaps Chiropractic conflicts would make a better title for the page?) 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OR tag
Every sentence in the article is supported by a reference. There is no original research. Each sentence has a source and the source does support the sentence. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are speaking in general where I and the IP editor have made very specific claims of OR above. Please address those issues. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your allegations of OR are only allegations. Each sentence is verified. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree, but having this general discussion is fruitless until you can address the specific claims above. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence of OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag is removed but it would of been better if Levine2112 removed the tag or at least agree with the removal of the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to restore the tag but my issue with OR stand as documented above (which essentially ammount to describing something as controversial even though the source being used doesn't make such a description. Please address those concerns above. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of OR. When the text is verified and supported by the reference it is not OR. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided such evidence. 70.71.22.45 has also provided such evidence. It is now your option to try to refute such evidence. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation.[3][shown in citation given]
 * The text passed RS. It is not OR. I suggest you remove the fv tag you added to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text passed RS. It is not OR. I suggest you remove the fv tag you added to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recentism tag
The Singh case, although recent, is unique, even in the history of British libel cases and the history of controversial aspects of chiropractic. It has been incorporated in the main Chiropractic article and other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the coverage we are giving this topic inflates the importance and effect historically that it has received recent media attention. I think this artice (and several others) has become overburdened with documenting this controversy as it unfolds. I think we should make some consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight here. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You admitted it is a controvsery. That's what this article is about. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't a controversy. What I said it that we are giving this recent even far too much weight, as we don't know the significance of this yet. Consider the impact of the Wilk case. There we have the benefit of the historical perspective. We know the impact of the AMA actively engaging in unreasonable restraint of trade (which included knowing suppression of science evidence in support of chiropractic effectiveness), yet this article - which you say is about controversy - only dedicates one sentence to these conspiritorial acts by the AMA against chiropractic. This is symptomatic of the general POV problem this article suffers from: it has been crafted as an attack on chiropractic rather than a neutral look at the reception of chiropractic. This is why more editors felt that this article is a POV-fork in the AfD and other discussions than editors who felt the article was fine. It is terribly slanted and need to be reworked if it is to remain at all. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You never said it wasn't a controversy. That means this article is where it belongs. I do not see specific suggestions for expanding the Wilk case. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Simon Singh stuff is too long and smacks of WP:RECENTISM and gives way undue WP:WEIGHT for the case. And yes, we should expand on Wilk and talk about how the AMA actively suppressed scientific evidence supportive of chiropractic. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This culminated in a landmark 1987 decision, Wilk v. AMA, in which the court found that the AMA had engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade and conspiracy, and which ended the AMA's de facto boycott of chiropractic.[10]
 * The Simon Singh stuff is appropriate because it is a unique case. Material about the Wilk v. AMA is in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One sentence to Wilk - a landmark case, a whole paragraph to Singh - a case that hasn't even happened yet. Hence the WP:WEIGHT violation. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is more than one sentence about the Wilk case. Your argument was WP:RECENTISM but seems to be WP:WEIGHT. Hence I suggest the tag be removed because Singh case is unique. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * your statement that his argument was WP:RECENTISM is a blatant lie... plz again read above where he says "I think we should make some consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight here"... i think that is obvious that his argument was not just WP:RECENTISM. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * in fact... i have never read WP:RECENTISM and just guessed at what it was about... reading it now it says "Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight" ... so isnt that what we should be thinking about?? proportion, balance, and due weight? just like he said before? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." WP:RECENTISM is not a guideline or policy. So why is there a tag in the article that is not a policy? QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some editors employ the recentism tag at the top of articles to warn the reader that the content may be imbalanced towards recent perspectives on the article topic." read the essay yourself and youll find why there is a tag! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Title suggestion: Chiropractic's controversial aspects
A change of title might help, since that is indeed a problematic area here. Maybe Chiropractic's controversial aspects? It will be very easy to cite good sources which show that D.D.Palmer's belief (that subluxations are the sole cause of all diseases) is considered a controversial idea, and obviously a false one. Do you understand that point (about the controversial nature of belief in subluxations)? I'm not asking whether or not you believe in subluxations, as that is irrelevant here. We're talking about POV and criticisms in the real world. Do you understand what I'm saying? Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the advice of WP:CFORK, I'd be more comfortable with a title such as "Reception of Chiropractic" than the current one; a title under which we include both notable praise and criticism, the merits and faults, where we can move all of this out of the main Chiropractic article and into this one. But honestly that's a compromise position for me as I don't think this subject merits its own article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> ssnɔsıp 04:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reception of Chiropractic" is not what this article is about. There are many similar articles such as "Aspartame controversy".

QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most "controversy" articles are about controversy over mainstream practices. Aspartame controversy and Vaccine controversy are two - aspartame and vaccines are mainstream.  When the article is about controversy of a mainstream practice or product, the article has a tendency to maintain balance in spite of the fact that the article is about controversy because of the Wikipedia policy of making sure that the mainstream opinion is fairly represented.  This is not true for an article about alternative medicine.  All alternative medicine is by its very nature "controversial" because it is not the mainstream practice.  So, when an article is created about the "controversy" surrounding an alternative medical practice, it is usually because the creators have an axe to grind.  Much of this is just duplicated from the chiropractic and chiropractic history to try to find enough to create an separate article where there really isn't a need for one. --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  06:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAP doesn't really help this discussion. Please stay focused on the topic at hand. Also, read WP:CFORK (if you haven't already) paying attention to some of the passages I highlighted above. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 06:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * i think the name 'Chiropractic conflicts' might be suitable?? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Still seems POV Forkish. Per WP:CFORK we should try to find a title which can encompass both praise and criticism. I mean where else could we be expected to include reliable sources such as this one. I think "Reception of Chiropractic" is the best option presented thus far, however I'm open to other suggestions - provided that the suggestions allow for "suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals". -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The title I have suggested above allows for both sides of the questions and avoids use of the controversial words.  Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the word "controversial" not controversial? LOL. :-) "Reception of chiropractic" is clearly neutral, allows for criticism and praise. I suggest that we try to find titles more like this one (if not this one). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 07:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One at a time
Ok, since no one else seems inclined to do it and I'm a bit tired already of hearing the two of you tell each other that you're wrong, here's a single point made above to debate:

"Chiropractors historically are strongly opposed to vaccination... More WP:NPOV violation. This text is also repeated in the Chiropractic, Vaccine controversy,and the Opposition to water fluoridation articles, this violating WP:WEIGHT."

Levine - since this one was yours, can you please give more explanation about why you believe this is an NPOV violation? An entire article exists on the subject; summarizing here does not, in itself, violate any policy.

Others - Is mentioning the opposition to vaccination a violation of NPOV? Why or why not? Shell  babelfish 12:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell, a solid MINORITY of chiropractors are opposed to vaccination. Here is a Time Magazine article .  Plus, this minority is only becoming more vocal in recent times because of the recent publicity about some suspected and some real problems with vaccinations (contamination, mercury, etc.).  The article that QuackGuru uses as a reference doesn't say anything about all chiropractors being against vaccination .  . in fact, it says:
 * The extent to which anti-immunization views perpetuate the modern-day chiropractic profession is uncertain. The official 2002 policy of the American Chiropractic Association regarding vaccination reads as follows:


 * Resolved, that the ACA recognize and advise the public that: Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual's right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination.


 * The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws thereby maintaining an individual's right to freedom of choice in health care matters and providing an alternative/elective course of action regarding vaccination. (http://www.acatoday.com/pdf/2002_aca_policies.pdf)


 * The policy of the International Chiropractic Association is practically identical. By such noncommittal statements, both associations have distanced themselves from any official recognition of vaccination as an effective public health procedure. Although neither formally rejects vaccination, each emphasizes the risk aspect. The official policy statement of the Canadian Chiropractic Association is supportive of vaccination, stating, “The CCA accepts vaccination as a cost-effective and clinically efficient public health preventive procedure for certain viral and microbial diseases, as demonstrated by the scientific community” (Policy Manual; Motion 2139/93)''.
 * Later on the article does link the anti-vaccination views to modern supporters of DD Palmer's philosophy. But, this is a subgroup of some divergent groups in chiropractic.  However, Quackguru takes this article and interprets this as  "Chiropractors historically are strongly opposed to vaccination".  Ack.  --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple QuackGuru highly POV (mis)interpretation of the sources with the fact that he or likeminded editors have added this text to Chiropractic,Vaccine controversy,and the Opposition to water fluoridation articles (and to some extent Chiropractic history, and we have a larger WP:NPOV issue to look at. Certainly, WP:WEIGHT comes into play here as well. Modern anti-vaccination sentiment in the chiropractic community is a minority view and with this view blown out of proportion in not one but at least four articles, it is clear that we are giving the minority view too much of a detailed a description compared to the more popular views of public health within the chiropractic profession.


 * Sentences like this one are really symptomatic of the greater issue at play here: Anti-chiropractic POV pushing. This article has become a soapbox for pushing this POV and hence, this is why it has become a POV-fork. Look at how we define WP:POVFORK. This article fits the description like a glove. This is why so many editors agreed in the AfD that this article should a) Be deleted b) Be renamed to something more NPOV c) Be merged. Very few editors actually voted "Keep" without any qualifications. Per POVFORK, if we do choose to keep this article, we should rename it to something more POV. I have proposed Reception of chiropractic; under which we can include both noteworthy criticism and praise. This is precisely what POVFORK suggests to do in these cases. So the question is: Why aren't we following this very basic content guideline of Wikipedia? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The title Reception of chiropractic is a vague title and does not make sense. There are similar controversial articles to this one such as "Vaccine controversy" and "Criticism of Microsoft". The text in this article is similar to Chiropractic and Vaccine controversy. Editors complain this article duplicates other chiropractic articles but per WP:SUMMARY there will or should be some duplication. Editors argued for months about a vaccination section at the main chiropractic article. This is not about the text. This is about a few editors don't believe there should be vaccination in any chiropractic article. The first sentence explains historically chiropractors are strongly against vaccination then later in the paragrapgh it explains some chiropractors oppose to vaccination. The last sentence stated "Recently, other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health." The sentences summarize the references. Instead of going around in circles for months or years I suggest we bring in experienced editors such as FAC who understand NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

yes it is a problem because it is already mentioned at Chiropractic, where it is at least balanced to state that "Some chiropractors oppose vaccination", rather than implying that all chiropractors have and do oppose it, and again much more balanced to say "Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination"... comparing the two now can you see why what is here is nowhere near NPOV? where is the mention of the other side of the dispute? where is the mention that although maybe they were historically opposed to vaccination, that there is significant disagreement about the topic? or that some support it? where is the mention that only a minority of chiropractors are against vaccination?? where is the balanced coverage is the real question. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception of chiropractic is not vague. The current title violates WP:NPOV and pretty much assures us that this article is a POV Fork. From WP:CFORK:


 * The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.


 * Now I am sure that as the creator of this article you are sincerely convinced that there is so much information about chiropractic controversy and criticism that it justifies a separate article. But heed the words of the CFORK guideline. This article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions and/or rebuttals. That means both praise and criticism, critics and proponents. Otherwise, this article remains a POV fork and should be deleted as such. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note:So far only User:Stmrlbs seems to be addressing the actual point here. Levine, if you're going to make these points, can you agree to discuss them on their merits instead of conflating them with additional claims about forks, overwhelming POV etc.? Its unlikely that the discussion will make any headway if every issue turns into a meta discussion of the article. QuackGuru, if you could avoid getting pulled off topic here and just discuss the initial concern about the wording of the statement about vaccination (see User:Stmrlbs's comments above). Shell  babelfish 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please reread my first paragraph of my first response where I do address the actual point. I essentially agree with Stmrlbs points and didn't want to repeat them all, but my points about WP:WEIGHT stand: Modern anti-vaccination sentiment in the chiropractic community is a minority view and with this view blown out of proportion in not one but at least four articles, it is clear that we are giving the minority view too much of a detailed a description compared to the more popular views of public health within the chiropractic profession. Sorry about opening the scope of this up to the article in general. Anyhow, can we at least agree to leave the article tagging in place until these issues are resolved? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The current text in the article is:

"Chiropractors historically are strongly opposed to vaccination based on their belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; D.D. Palmer wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[40] Some chiropractors continue to be opposed to vaccination, one of the most effective public health measures in history.[6]"

I wonder if the third word "are" was supposed to be "were" since that would make more sense in the context of the sentence and in light of the points that current opposition by the profession is minimal. Does anyone else have suggestions on how to reword this bit to reflect the concerns? Shell  babelfish 19:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shell, the split in philosophies of chiropractic was early, starting with D.D. Palmer and his son, B.J.Palmer, and some of his graduates who started schools of their own. D.D Palmer was forming the basis of his theories about adjusting the body to reduce inflammation around 1896? and the splits were occurring around 1904 with the different schools emerging. D.D.Palmer was adamantly against anything allopathic, whereas his son had M.D.s in his school's staff.  Also, being against vaccines was not something that was limited to D.D.Palmer at that time.   Both in Britian, Europe, and America, compulsory vaccination was viewed as an infringement of civil liberties among many in the populace when "Big Medicine" was just emerging then.  Because of civilian protests against mandatory vaccination, a new Vaccination Act in 1898 removed cumulative penalties and introduced a conscience clause, allowing parents who did not believe vaccination was efficacious or safe to obtain a certificate of exemption. This act introduced the concept of the "conscientious objector" into English law . So, I think a more NPOV way of presenting this would be to say more about the very early split, and to also say that at the time, anti-vaccination sentiments were more prevalent for the reasons of that time and era.  --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you (or does anyone else) have any suggestions for how the bit of text could be rewritten to reflect the whole picture more clearly? Shell  babelfish 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if a more NPOV way of writing it is suggested, do we do this again where this topic is discussed - erroneously - in the main Chiropractic article? If we change the history here to make it more NPOV, then do we go  through the same thing again Chiropractic history article where a lot of this text was lifted?  Look at this paragraph:
 * Chiropractic does not have the same level of mainstream credibility as other healthcare professions. Public perception of chiropractic compares unfavorably with mainstream medicine with regard to ethics and honesty: in a 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, chiropractors rated last among seven health care professions for being very high or high in honesty and ethical standards, with 36% of poll respondents rating chiropractors very high or high; the corresponding ratings for the other professions ranged from 62% for dentists to 84% for nurses.
 * It is lifted right out of this section (2nd paragraph) of the Chiropractic article. This is the problem with this whole article.  Most of it is just pieces lifted out of the other chiropractic articles.  --02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin?

 * I've looked at this several times and I still don't get it. If we don't pick somewhere to start trying to work out those differences, I don't see how we can get anywhere.  If this isn't the right place to start, could someone suggest where they would like to start?  Do we even have interest from everyone involved here? I can help you guys resolve things, but only if you're interested in actually working on them - when things simmer back down to that point, please let me know. Shell   babelfish 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to start with the title and thus the scope of the article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 01:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok with me to start with the title. Anyone else? Shell, what are your thoughts? --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No specific suggestions were made to improve article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific suggestion to address any of the NPOV issues mentioned above? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem except that the article needs to be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think it needs to be expanded as well. If it stands any chance of being NPOV, it should be expanded to include praise as well as criticism. This expansion starts with us discussing the retitling of this article. Does that sound like a fair way forward to you? Meanwhile, please realize that many editors have expressed that this article suffers from NPOV problems, thus the need for the POV tag on the article. Please leave it in place until these problems can be resolved. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see praise criticism from any sources or specific suggestions to improve article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific suggestion on the table is to retitle the article to something which meets NPOV and therefore doesn't violate WP:CFORK. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific suggestion was to discuss a retitle but that was not a specific retitle suggestion. The previous retitle suggestions were vague titles. QuackGuru (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine that you feel that way. Just so long as we can all agree that retitling to something more NPOV is a reasonable first step forward. We should start the ball rolling on a retitle brainstorm session soon. As for now, I don't have the time. Maybe next week. Feel free to set it in motion however. I'm glad that we agree with at least a starting point. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as no retitle suggestions are being made then this discussion is not underway. We recently renamed the article "Chiropractic controversy and criticism". The title is neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:CFORK. A fact I've pointed out a number of times above. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not a specific retitle suggestion. The page is still here after AFD. Time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Next week. I promise. In the meantime, see WP:DEADLINE. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 23:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

a more recent example of POV push
Take a look at what QuackGuru just added to this article. He adds the statement "Most chiropractors do not inform their patients that neck manipulation has risks of stroke or even death. He omits the article's title in the reference, which is "Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes" written by Stephen Barrett.  The actual statement in the article is "As far as I know, most chiropractors do not warn their patients     that neck manipulation entails risks." Stephen Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, noted critic of anything alternative.. this is not a person that chiropractors would talk to about their office procedures.  This is Stephen Barrett's opinion.  But, does Quackguru present it as such?  no.. he adds it to the article as a fact, with the edit summary saying "Add material from the most notable chiropractic critic. "Most chiropractors do not inform their patients that neck manipulation has risks of stroke or even death." The omission of "As far as I know" is rather blatant, and imo, telling of the QuackGuru's intent with this whole article. --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 03:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Adminhelp
Please put a hat on the above discussion about Quackwatch as it doesn't contribute anything constructive to this page. It shouldn't be happening here. Everything after the first comment in the thread should be hatted. Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a note about the page 'not being a forum' to the very top of the page, and I have 'collapsed' the two largest threads on the page. I will also set the page to auto-archive threads over a certain age, which should keep things managable.


 * I hope this helps, cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Title suggestion: "Reception of chiropractic"
Per WP:CFORK:


 * Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

Thus far, this article only includes negative opinions (often times presented as fact... but that's another issue), most which have been copy-and-pasted from other Chiropractic related articles.

Continuing with WP:CFORK:


 * There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

The question becomes is is possible to refrain from using "criticism" and "controversy" in this article's title? My answer is "yes". This article can clearly cover both the merits and faults of the subject. There are many, many reliable sources describing the merits of chiropractic which can be included in this article.

Therefore, per this guideline's recommendation, I propose we use neutral terms in the title of this article and thus rename it to Reception of chiropractic where both the faults and merits of the subject can be discussed in a NPOV manner.

Agree? Disagree? Let's discuss. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception is a vague title. Reception is not what this article is about. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this article about? Please be as specific as possible. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead of this article is the inclusion criteria. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list article, so I am confused by your use of "inclusion criteria". Please, in your own words, describe what you feel this article is about. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead summarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with what a lead is. Please state what you think this article is about since you don't feel that this article is about how chiropractic has been received. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The references in this article show what this article is about. Read the first sentence in this article. See WP:RS. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is noted that you refuse to give a direct answer to my simple question. That aside, let's examine the relevant guideline here. Per WP:CFORK, any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article mustinclude suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals. From the first sentence which you asked me to read, this article is currently only about criticism and controversy (negative opinions) and thus stands in clear violation of CFORK. To rectify the violation, we must add suitably-weighted positive opinions and/or rebuttals. Doing so will change the scope of the article as defined in the current title to include "praise". We could rename the article to "Praise, criticism and controversy in chiropractic" but to me "Reception of chiropractic" is a much more succinct way to say the same thing. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References in the article about "anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas" are not about reception. According to which references this article is about reception. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References in the article about "anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas" are not about reception. According to which references this article is about reception. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru - could you perhaps be more specific about why you feel Reception of Chiropractic is inappropriate as the article title? What do you feel is the scope of the article?  What would you say are the primary points for using the current title? Others are of course welcome to jump in here too. Shell   babelfish 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The references in the article are about chiropractic controversy and criticism on a notable topic. The reception of Chiropractic is not what the sources are about. Reception seems to be about patient satisfaction. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The references in the article are about chiropractic controversy and criticism on a notable topic. The reception of Chiropractic is not what the sources are about. Reception seems to be about patient satisfaction. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The references in the article are about chiropractic controversy and criticism on a notable topic. The reception of Chiropractic is not what the sources are about. Reception seems to be about patient satisfaction. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the source by Kaptchuk that Quackguru cited has as a title, Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions - and the source includes a whole section, "THE ART OF MEDICINE AND CHIROPRACTIC'S EFFECTIVENESS", which not only on patient satisfaction, but on what chiropractic provides that conventional biomedicine does not. What is really illuminating is how QuackGuru either did not see that section or completely ignored it - but only saw the controversy and criticism.
 * If you take the source in its entirety, I think the source reinforces reception in the title, or even a title like the Kaptchuk's title which includes contributions as well as controversies. --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Controversies, contributions, criticism, praise. All of these discuss how chiropractic has been received. Hence, the impetus for renaming this to "Reception of chiropractic". I like Kaptchuk's title but the "origins" portion seems to suggest "history", of which we already have an article. Certainly, we will discuss the reception of chiropractic from a historical perspective in this article; that is simply warranted by the nature of a good Wikipedia article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about patient reception or patient satisfaction. "Reception of chiropractic" is not a notable subject. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reception - in this sense - means how a subject has been received. There is really nothing vague about it. Received by the world, received by science, received by peers, reception by government, received by the public at large. Patient reception can certainly be a part of it too. Given the sources available, "reception of chiropractic" casts a wide net and as a whole may allow for an article which is both notable and neutral in point of view. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How the subject was received by patient is not notable. It is a vague title and not often discussed in sources. It is not the scope of this article. Given the lack of sources available on "reception of chiropractic" casts a doubt on continuing this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Patient reception is just one aspect of "reception" (and an aspect which you have brought up). The sources that are criticisms of chiropractic are all describing the "reception of chiropractic" by critics. There is plenty of source material discussing the reception of chiropractic by governments, peers, the public. So isaying there are too few source dealing with the reception of chiropractic is equivilent to saying that there are too few sources dealing with the criticism of chiropractic as "criticism" is merely on form of reception. Even the Kaptchuk source which you provided discusses chiropractic's contributions (another form of reception). Do you care to address this point made by Stmrlbs above? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help explain a bit and make sure I've got this right (hop in an correct me if I'm off base). I don't think anyone has suggested that patient reaction or satisfaction be included to offset criticism. Instead, what Levine and Stmrlbs are saying is that instead of limiting the article to negative responses by experts, positive responses should also be included to give an overview of the current view on the subject. Patient responses (whether good or bad) would only be included if they were summarized by an expert in a reliable peer-reviewed source, the same way any other material is treated. Does that make sense? The question is, if the article includes both positive and negative reactions, in their proper weight, what would be the best title of the article? Since the article would no longer be solely about criticism, what title might encompass the scope? Shell  babelfish 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reception of chiropractic" is not what the sources are about. I don't know why we are continuing this discussion. If editors want to include text about patient satisfaction that would be for separate discussion in a new thread. With the current title editors can include rebuttals and positive reactions. See "Aspartame controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read what others are saying - at least one source mentions positive as well as negative responses. They have also suggested that other sources might be added.  No one has suggested using patient satisfaction, so please stop throwing out that non-issue.  This is not about a "Chiropractic Controversy" and thus the comparison to "Aspartame controversy" isn't comparing apples to apples.  If you don't like the title "Reception of chiropractic" do you have any other suggestions?  Remember, like other issues where the group of you has disputed over chiropractic content, its unlikely that anyone is going to walk away from this happy - if you can't have the title you want, think about what title you could live with... Shell   babelfish 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ther is no problem with the title. The first sentence is well sourced and summarizes the article. "Reception" of chiropractic is unsourced and irrelevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Others don't agree that there isn't a problem. Did you have any alternate suggestions since you feel reception isn't the appropriate word? Shell   babelfish 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't think of an alternative title that would be appropriate and summarize the body like the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell has summarized my thoughts (as well as stmrlbs' thoughts) beautifully. Thanks, Shell! If we are to include both positive statements and rebuttal to criticism (something which is necessary to bring this article up the NPOV standards), the current title does not work. In added defense of what seems so obvious to me, we can look at WP:CFORK which states that the word "reception" is much preferred as a neutral descriptor of an article over "criticism" or "praise". QuackGuru, if you have a better suggestion than Reception of chiropractic, please put it out here. But the current title has to change. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The current title is the best title because it summarizes the body which can include "criticism" or "rebuttals". A better suggestion would be to expand the article. Reception is vague and not the scope of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article also includes chiropractic praise and chiropractic contributions. That is not accurately reflected by the current title. Reception of chiropractic creates an umbrella title underneath which all of these elements fit nicely. If you have a title suggestion which can do the same, but is more to your liking, then please suggest it. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reception" of chiropractic is unsourced and an irrelevent title. The first sentence is sourced and relevant to this topic. The current title is appropriate and can include many significatant views. QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, I agree with everything Shell said. A title that encompasses both positive and negative views that make up the current view on the subject would be what is needed.  "Reception of Chiropractic" is fine with me.  --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since QuackGuru disagrees with reception, are there any other suggestions? Shell  babelfish 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought of Chiropractic quackery or Chiropractic pseudoscience but I think the current title is well sourced, more neutral, and summarizes the article better.
 * I don't understand why editors disagree with me when the sources led us to the current title. Chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the lengthy discussions above in which several editors explain why they feel having an article with only criticism, especially when picking only critical text from the sources your using, is a problem. The bulk of the discussion before this centered on expanding the scope of the article to present a balanced, yet properly weighted view.  Such a view would not only include criticism.  I'm concerned that the other title choices you mention are showing your bias again; lets not make this another battle about "good vs evil" please. Shell   babelfish 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of no better word than "reception" to encapsulate the scope of this article. Other words may not be quite as neutral, but the possibilities include: "Response to chiropractic" or "Perception of chiropractic". I considered "Reaction to chiropractic", but that sounds like adverse effect (i.e. allergic reaction to chiropractic, LOL :-). Maybe "Views on chiropractic"? Kind of eh. I still think Reception of chiropractic is the stongest and most neutrally worded. (That's probably why "Reception" is given as the example in the passage I've cited above from WP:CFORK.) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the article in its current state doesnt meet NPOV and i think that the title is a significant barrier to it meeting NPOV... it think we should follow the suggestion of CFORK and name it Reception of Chiropractic although to throw another suggestion out there we could call it Chiropractic Criticism and Praise 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The title Chiropractic Criticism and Praise does not represent the lead or the article body. We don't have many sources about chiropractic praise. We don't even have a small paragraph on it. The title is not a barrier to edit the article. I previously stated rebuttals can be included in this article. Before changing the title we would have to expand the article to include praise in the body and lead. But there is a lack of sources and article content on chiropractic praise making the title suggestion not relevant to the scope of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of ending this dispute, QuackGuru will you accept the title Reception of chiropractic once sources documenting "praise" and "critical rebutal" have been included in this article. If so, I will get to work gathering and including such sources in this article, then we can retitle, and then we can move on. Sound like a plan, QuackGuru? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reception of chiropractic" is a vague title. If you want you can expand the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it vague? It says "how chiropractic has been received", which is what this article is (or should be) about. Thus far, you are the only editor who feels it is vague and you haven't supplied a satisfactory explanation why you feel this why. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 07:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already specifically explained my view about the title suggestion. QuackGuru (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Verification Check (LEAD)
Wow, I just came across this article and will be doing some cleanup on it over the next while.


 * To start with, a verification check for: "Chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism"


 * The Kaptchuk source does state: " Chiropractors were charged with violating the medical practice act and the controversy generated publicity on a scale the licensing attempt had never enjoyed before. California chiropractors adopted the slogan, "Go to jail for chiropractic." At the height of the controversy, 450 chiropractors were jailed in a single year.62 Undeterred, many set up portable tables to treat fellow prisoners and visiting patients"
 * However, this material seems like it would be better used in History of chiropractic.
 * The source does NOT mention Chiropractic being the subject of criticism.


 * The Ernst source failed verification for the fact that Chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and criticism. I do not find that the title alone is enough to verify this sentence - in this context it means a "careful analysis".

DigitalC (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have deleted content that is part of the title. That's pretty serious. Instead of deleting such content, it should be rescued. The intent here should be to build the article, not weaken it or rob it of sources.


 * The rules for LEAD are that we summarize key elements of the article. Do you not see sourced content in the body of the article that justifies the use of the word "criticism" in the title (and thus in the lead, as required)? If you don't like the particular ref used at that spot, then find one from the body that justifies the use of the wording, rather than amputating an essential part of the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, the Kaptchuk source states: "Support for the original notion of subluxation was also reduced by continuous biomedical criticism that points away from, and finally discounts, bone alignment as the cause of back pain." As you know, much, if not most, of the criticism of chiropractic is directly in regards to this one thing, the vertebral subluxation, which has drawn "continuous biomedical criticism" against the profession. While you are correct about the Ernst ref being weak for this use, and your removal of it in that spot is thus justified, the Kaptchuk ref is okay, and others might be even better (so strengthen the point by adding them). Note that the word "criticism" doesn't need to be in a source. If it sounds like criticism, then it's criticism, even if the source never uses the word. Let's use some common sense here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the history of the talk page above, I agree with other editors (former editors?) that this page is a POV fork. I disagree with you strongly that "if it sounds like criticism, then it's criticism". That BullRangifer is original research, and you should know better. DigitalC (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should, in its entirety, be included in the main article, but that would be overkill, so this article exists, much to the joy of the profession, since here it won't be noticed as much by readers fo the main article. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Verification Check (History)

 * The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, Daniel D. Palmer, manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured. D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, defined chiropractic as "a science of healing without drugs" and considered establishing chiropractic as a religion. Chiropractic included vitalistic ideas of innate intelligence with religious attributes of universal intelligence to substitute science.[1] Evidence suggests that D.D. Palmer had acquired knowledge of manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy.
 * The source used is Ernst, as above. It says:
 * "The birthday of chiropractic is said to be September 18, 1895"
 * "On this day, D.D. Palmer manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor by the name of Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of his deafness" (this should be re-written in the article, as it is is too close to a copyvio)
 * "Palmer's second patient, a man suffering from heart disease, was also cured."
 * "Chiropractic was defined by D.D. Palmer as “a science of healing without drugs.”"
 * "Both D.D. Palmer and his son, B.J. Palmer, seriously considered establishing chiropractic as a religion"
 * "Chiropractic “incorporated vitalistic concepts of an innate intelligence with religious concepts of universal intelligence,” which substituted for science."
 * "There is evidence to suggest that D.D. Palmer had learned manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still (1828–1917), the founder of osteopathy"
 * It all passes WP:V, but I guess a better question is, "How is this relevant?" It doesn't read to me like controversy or criticism, simply history. Per WP:MOS article content should match the title (and vice versa). This content doesn't seem to match the title. I understand the need for some background information, but this section is huge! DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have addressed your concerns by retitling the section to make it clear why that content is there. Much of the profession's long history of internal and external controversy has roots that can only be understood if one knows something about certain elements in its history. These are mentioned above. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed my concerns. I agree that the retitlting of the section to "Historical elements that have drawn criticism and created controversy" is good. However, we need references that states that these historical elements have drawn criticism and created controversy. Seriously - do you think "The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895" is an element that has drawn criticism or created controversy? How about "Although D.D. Palmer combined bonesetting to give chiropractic its method, and "magnetic healing" for the theory, he acknowledged a special relation to magnetic healing when he wrote, "chiropractic was not evolved from medicine or any other method, except that of magnetic"?. This section is filled with WP:OR/WP:SYN violations. DigitalC (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it could be improved with more refs. I didn't write that section, but as one who understands the history of this subject, I suspect that some details might be provided as a contextual setting so readers can understand why controversy and criticism has always been rife both from within and from outside the profession. That's not OR or SYNTH, but maybe just a bit extra information. That's not a policy violation, but some bits, like those you mention, might be misplaced here. Otherwise it's just good article writing to provide context, but maybe you can improve it without removing context, something which would demand a deep understanding of this subject. Just stating criticisms without context makes for a very boring and bare bones article. Articles here should be interesting and inviting to read. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Singh's article not "critical"???
I added one word ("critical") to describe Singh's article and it was reverted by DigitalC as "original research and puffery". What is this world coming to when an article so critical it got him sued can't be described as "critical" in an article about criticism? Where's the common sense in that? Is that an inaccurate or novel description? If so, then that would be OR. This seems to be an entirely new application of the OR policy. I've never seen it applied in this manner before in such an obvious situation. It seems more like a twisted form of desperate wikilawyering. I suggest that DigitalC take this matter to the OR noticeboard and get a decision, rather than revert such an obviously accurate description. I'm restoring it pending an adverse decision from that noticeboard. If they reject it, they should also reword the policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a reference that said his article was critical, then add it. Remember, we follow the sources here at Wikipedia, we don't just make it up as we go along. DigitalC (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors are also supposed to employ common sense. Singh's article is clearly critical of chiropractic, and common sense tells us that any rational person would read it as such, including chiropractors (some of whom sued him due to what they clearly viewed as criticism). Singh openly refers to chiro treatments as "bogus" and he makes the following statement: "Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market." It is in no way original research to say that these are statements critical of chiro. In addition, the verifiable fact that Singh was sued for his statements in this article makes it abundantly clear that his article was indeed critical of chiropractic. This is not in any way OR.


 * Moreover, the article that discusses the lawsuit says: "Simon Singh expected to arouse controversy when he claimed that chiropracters knowingly promoted bogus treatments for illnesses including asthma and ear infections." If common sense coupled with the lawsuit aren't enough to definitively show that the article was critical of chiro (and they should be enough), then here is your source. They are describing a criticism that Singh made about chiro. Summarizing that statement as a criticism is perfectly acceptable, and in no way violates OR. We do not need to wait for someone to actually use the word "critical" before we can use it. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 16:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeesh, really - critical is a perfectly valid summary of that article.
 * On the other hand, I am not sure what using the word adds to this article that does not immediately follow from the rest of that paragraph, which describes the ongoing case. As a stylistic issue, it is preferred to remove unnecessary words. Even when they are accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to restore the word, not because of DigitalC's fallacious reasoning and edit summary, but because of 2over0's reasoning. Even though it is extremely accurate and aids in the flow of the sentence (nice prose is actually encouraged here), the word is unnecessary, since it is abundantly clear from the rest of the text that it was a criticial article. Why DigitalC failed to see this is puzzling, and I really think he should back off and see if others come with objections. His judgment seems to be clouded on these issues. Another one of his dubious deletions with a fallacious edit summary has been dealt with and even improved. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "His judgment seems to be clouded on these issues.". Please stick to discussing the edits, and not the editors. And no, I will not "back off". That sounds like ownership to me. I am free to edit this article, and will continue to do so. DigitalC (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the issue of what constitutes OR and SYNTH that I'm talking about, not this article, so no ownership is implied. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethics and claims
I have restored information from three good sources that was deleted, even though it clearly was on topic. I also went through the references again and used them better, thus tweaking the wording into a workable, very short, paragraph.

Instead of deleting such content, it should be rescued. The intent here should be to build the article, not weaken it or rob it of sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The material was not on topic, and per WP:MOS should not be in the article. The sources show no evidence of criticism or controversy, and to imply that they do is again breaking WP:OR. Building an article doesn't mean throwing together stuff that doesn't belong, and removing non-topical material is helping to build a better article. DigitalC (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am totally baffled by your response. How can it be off-topic when it is exactly on-topic? Seriously, are we even talking about the English Wikipedia, or is this the Twilight Zone? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it is neither controversial, nor is it criticism. It is simply the results of a poll. Show me a source that says this is controversial, because I sure as hell don't think it is controversial. DigitalC (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, it is a huge violation of WP:NPOV. Where is the flip side, that "Chiropractors did rank well ahead of 11 occupations rated in the poll"? Where is the coverage of the 1994 Harris Poll, which showed that patients were more satisfied with Chiropractors than any other health care provider? Where is the coverage of the study published in the Western Journal of Medicine that found that chiropractic patients had satisfaction rates 3 times higher than patients under the care of family physicians? How about the 2009 Consumer Reports Survery that found that Chiropractic was the most satisfying treatment for back pain? How about the 2006 study by the Health Quality Council of Alberta, which found that Chiropractors had the second highest patient satisfaction rates? DigitalC (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that would be off-topic in this article, but not in the main article where it's already used. You can't have it both ways. First you accuse me of including something that is off-topic when it's very much on-topic (look at the section heading!), and then you want to include subject matter that is definitely off-topic because it's not controversy or criticism, which is the subject of this article. That's just plain odd. Chiropractors have often been accused of having problems with ethics and honesty, and the poll showed that the public does have that opinion. This obviously doesn't apply to all chiros, but it does impact the profession. The research done by chiropractors has shown that opinion to be accurate, and the chiropractic source is the one stating that the profession came in "dead last" among all the healthcare professions listed. Do you want to compare apples to oranges by bringing unrelated professions into the picture? We could do that and show that chiropractors did rate above used car salesmen, but I doubt that would be helpful. Since you're having trouble understanding the reason why these facts are included in this article, I have written a one sentence lead for the section, which is good writing practice for long sections. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for it two ways. I'm pointing out that it is off-topic for this article, but that if you insist on having it in this article, that it should at least not violate WP:NPOV. If this article wasn't such a blatant POV-FORK, and was properly titled Reception of Chiropractic, then both the information that is currently in the article, as well as the information I posted above would meet inclusion criteria. You state that "Chiropractors have often been accused of having problems with ethics and honesty", but then commit WP:OR and WP:SYN to suggest that this poll showed that this public does have this opinion. The poll only reports numbers. For any analysis of it, we need a reliable source. As such, the poll is only a poll, not criticism. It certainly isn't controversial. As such, it remains off-topic. DigitalC (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions of EL
The links I added were on topic and had been a part of the chiropractic article for some time. They were arrived at by careful selection and by collaboration with highly respected chiropractic editors who followed the EL rules very closely. I have never seen them followed so closely before, which is why there are descriptions. They are obviously on topic and thus useful resources here. My edit summary was explanation enough for adding them, while the deletions smacked of vandalism with no justification based on policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Going by this edit, which seems to be where the nascent edit war is shaping up:
 * Homola (2006) is used as reference 19, and should not ordinarily be repeated as an external link. There are exceptions, but in general the additional points from the article should just be added to and cited in the article itself.
 * Homola (1963) should be formatted as with the online version as a convenience link, but otherwise this looks appropriate
 * Chiropractic Ethics: An Oxymoron? just crashed my pdf reader; no comment on how many other documents I had open, but someone else please evaluate it.
 * Keating certainly merits prominence in this article, but we should be careful not to over represent his writings. I note that not all of these are currently linked from Joseph C. Keating, Jr. - perhaps it could be a solution to add a more complete bibliography over there, retain the most relevant link here and accompany it with a wikilink to the more complete oeuvre.
 * Kent (1996) is weak, and would work better as an inline reference to a statement Some chiropractors also support EBM, or somesuch.
 * Andrews (1992) should be integrated into Ethics and claims, perhaps with Ernst (2009) (currently ref. 27).
 * Carter (2000) should be integrated into Efficacy; the second paragraph (Vertebral subluxation, a core ...).
 * PBS link looks solid
 * Novella is a notable to the topic, so his self-published (I think) writings are a good EL
 * I think Citizendium falls under ELNO#12, but I guess that that is debatable.
 * SkepDic covers many points that are/should be treated at this article, as well as links to additional resources covered by WP:ELYES.
 * Mencken is notable to the topic, though this could work better under History.


 * The brief summaries are I think good for this article, but even better would be to severely limit the size of the External links section and instead work most of these into the text as inline references. Deleting the list in the meantime does not serve the encyclopedia. Thinking out loud - what about a Further reading subsection corresponding to each section of the article? This creates minor maintenance issues, but might actually help with article organization. Also, given how disjointed paragraph transitions are here, the whole Internal criticism section could almost just be promoted to a proper section, immediately alleviating concerns regarding too many links. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiropractic Ethics: An Oxymoron? is a journal article from the Journal of Chiropractic Humanities. Any relevant content should be added to the article, and cite the article as a reference. However, we should also consider that this article is over 10 years old.
 * Homola (1963) is over 45 years old. Is it really relevant? Further, the convenience link should be deleted, as it links to a site that is anything but neutral.
 * Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side is a dead link. Why are we putting dead links into the external links section?
 * Faulty Logic and Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic is over 12 years old. Again, is it still relevant? Can we not find something better and more recent to link to? Conversely, if it IS still relevant shouldn't it be used as a reference, not an external link?
 * Critical thinking: Seriously? This passes as a good external link? Again, this is quite old. Further, it doesn't really seem to add much, except his opinion of 4 steps towards a solution. Finally, we get to this bullshit: "Please note that I said chiropractic research. This means research concerning the vertebral subluxation and its effects, not the symptomatic treatment of sore backs". I would again really like to see the justification is to why this is a good external link.
 * There are a few links to chiroweb.com. While I don't have a problem with the articles other than the fact they are old, WP:EL does mention that instead of linking to multiple pages of a website we should attempt to find a linking page on that website. I'm not entirely sure what we should do about the chiroweb links. Should we leave them the same, or
 * Subluxation - The Silent Killer is a dead link. Why are we putting dead links into the external links section?
 * DigitalC (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As 2/0 pointed out above, there is definitely guideline to defend the deletion, which is why they were deleted wholesale from the Chiropractic article in the first place. Relevant parts of the guideline include:
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * If the link is to an article, that article should be used as a reference instead, and have the article contain the relevant information.


 * Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * "The content of the Citizendium will always be open content" (CZ:Fundamentals). Does the article linked to really have a history of stability and a substantial number of editors? I would say there have been 4 editors that have contributed to the article (have more than 3 edits). I certainly wouldn't call that substantial.


 * Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links
 * This has been pointed out before, when these links were removed from Chiropractic and replaced with . I'm not sure that you were around for that, but then you do know about when these links were in the article. I certainly wouldn't consider the number of links that you included "a minimum".


 * No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
 * I pointed out the guideline when I trimmed the EL section. I obviously don't think these links are justifiable, don't think the length of the list is justifiable, and I think an editor using common sense would agree with me after considering the guideline. As such, the burden is on the editors who reverted the trimming of these links to justify why they should be included.


 * Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed.
 * I removed dead links, and separated that edit from the rest (diff). Yet this was reverted. I'd love to see the justification for that reversion. Again, that burden is on the editor reverting the removal.

Looking at WP:ELYES:
 * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons
 * Do we really consider the material here provited to be neutral and accruate? While a reference needs to be a reliable source, it does not need to be neutral. On the other hand, external links don't need to be reliable sources, but they should be neutral. I'm looking at chirobase here.

I will admit that I may be been a little overzealous, but that doesn't support reversions without discussion. A revert telling me to resolve the issue on the talk page isn't helpful, unless you can tell me why you are reverting the trimming. Again, the burden of the justification is yours, not mine. DigitalC (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated above, chirobase is a non-neutral attack site, and as such clearly fails WP:ELYES. Neutrality is not specifically mentioned in EL:NO, but I believe that it should not be used as a link for this article. No response has been provided in the last 10 days since I posted above about chirobase. Further, chirobase is already linked in the references section. DigitalC (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion that it's an "attack site", while it actually happens to be very on-topic for this article. (You also consider any criticism, including its documentation in this article, as an "attack" on chiropractic, and considering your COI, I can understand you, but that's not an editorially legitimate reason for deletion.) It is the largest database of chiropractic information on the internet (at least of skeptical, neutral, governmental, legal, historical, and even some positive, etc.). Dynamic Chiropractic might have more bytes, but I'm not sure, and most of it is definitely not on-topic here and many of its bytes are advertising for quack products, while Chirobase is very much on-topic here.


 * Stop and think about what you're saying. If sites that are on-topic can't be allowed, then where are we at? Your interpretation and application of "neutral" in this situation is rather dubious. I would contend that if an article is about a POV (which is obviously a bias and an allowed content fork), then its external links section will contain links that share the same bias, IOW they will be aligned neutrally to their subject matter. They will not be non-neutral (at cross purposes with) toward their subject.


 * The External links sections of main articles are allowed to have links that are both positive and negative toward their subject. That's been standard practice all along. That's why the main chiropractic article had an external links section contained both types. It wasn't because of a change of policy that the section was changed.


 * Let's apply what you're saying to the Chiropractic article. Under your interpretation, a link to the ACA website wouldn't be allowed, since it isn't neutral, but promotional. NPOV specifically allows the use of biased sources, and to a certain degree that applies to EL. This article is about criticism, and if you can point me to any other website that covers criticism better than Chirobase, I'd like to see it. No other website is more worthy of a spot here in the EL. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, this article must adhere to NPOV just like any other article. In this sense, "criticism" must also envelope positive-criticism, such as praise. As such, other editors have suggested renaming the article to Reception of chiropractic. Previously on this talk page, you have asserted that such positive reception does not belong on this talk page, which makes it so that it is NOT an allowed content fork, it makes it fail NPOV, and makes it a POV-fork. The article is NOT allowed to be about a POV.
 * The external links section of Chiropractic was changed because it did not comply with WP:EL. It was a long list of links, which WP:EL specifically speaks against. However, I don't see that as being either here or there.
 * I wouldn't know about the ACA website, since I don't think I have ever visited it. Is it overly promotional?
 * Finally, every editor has a bias, but your accusations of COI are bordering on personal attacks. You have a strong bias yourself in this area, and I'm sure it has been argued before that you yourself have a COI. DigitalC (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that no other website is more worthy of an external link from this article, then perhaps this article should not have any external links. Lots of featured articles have no external links. DigitalC (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Adhere to NPOV" doesn't mean "ignore valid criticisms." You're assertion that a site like Chirobase should be excluded from the ELs of an article about Chiropractic Controversy and Criticism makes no sense at all. I agree with BullRangifer's statements above - Chirobase must be included as an EL on this article. NPOV ensures that we present the arguments and follow the sources, and that is what is being done here. It does not mean that we avoid all criticism, or only write things that are neither positive nor negative. I'd also note that BR's statement that you have a COI is a statement of fact. If you make a living in chiropractics, then that means you have a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can't edit here, but it is worth pointing that out as all of us are prone to error when we are torn in multiple directions (e.g., making our profession sound more legitimate vs. writing a good article even if it means including negative assertions about our profession).
 * Finally, when you said above that "chirobase is already linked in the references section," that gave me a moment's pause. However, the only reference that links to chirobase is a reprint of an article from an ACA journal. That, in my opinion, in no way precludes us from using the larger site itself as a valid EL. If you disagree with me, then I would suggest merely removing the link to the article from the refs (there is no requirement to provide URLs for each ref), and instead including chirobase in the EL section. Or we could avoid that somewhat silly approach, and just agree that it's fine in both places due to the specific use of the site in the refs, and the importance of the overall site to the article. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 20:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not misrepresent my statements. I have never said that we should ignore valid criticism, nor have I implied that. Chirobase certainly does not meet WP:ELYES. It is a non-neutral site. *IF* it is to be included in the external links section, then we must balance the external links so that we can meet WP:NPOV. The only way to do this is to link to a website with positive reception (positive criticism) of chiropractic. BR's statement that I have a COI is NOT a matter of fact, and to assert that it is, is a personal attack. Please avoid those in the future - editors can be blocked for making personal attacks. You may also want to re-read WP:COI, to learn what a wikipedia COI is. One's profession has nothing to do with a wikipedia COI, only the editors aims do; otherwise a physiotherapist or a medical doctor or someone who runs a website/blog about quackery would also be deemed to have a COI here. I am here to make a neutral, reliable, encyclopedia. DigitalC (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the dead link leading to the JCCA article by Carter. If a valid link can be found, we can then discuss whether it is a good link to add. In regards to ethics, he also has a more recent (2002) article in JCCA (link). Perhaps we should link to here which gives links to some of his other commentaries about the "future direction" of the profession (again, they are still fairly old though). Please do not restore this link without discussion. DigitalC (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Carter (2000) at PubMedCentral. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See Also: History of discussion of this list of links at Chiropractic
Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_26 DigitalC (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing addressed at AN/I
I have started a thread to address the whitewashing of External links that's occurring:


 * Edit war developing over EL

Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. Nothing has been discussed and settled about removing those links, so please refrain from saying that the deletions are "per the talk page" or to "see talk" as that doesn't point to anything other than ongoing discussions. As a note (and to address some of what you're trying to delete):


 * 1) If a link is dead, I would suggest that we should first try to find a new location for the item in question before we simply delete the link entirely. If that doesn't pan out, then I would suggest using the item as a Further Reading rather than deletion. If dead link is the only reason for deletion (as seems to be the case with some of these), then that, to me, is no reason at all.


 * 2) Saying that an external link should be used as a source, and so it should be deleted from the EL section until it is used as such is nonsensical. I've never heard that argument, and I fail to see any logic behind it. If it's good enough to be used as a reference in the article, then it's good enough to be used as an EL until it is used as a source. Again, this argument completely fails.


 * 3) Saying that you are removing an EL because "it fails WP:EL" is about as unhelpful and uninformative a comment as I can imagine. What particular part of WP:EL does it fail, and why? I ask because other editors, including me, don't see the links you are removing as failing WP:EL, so without a little more information from you, we're destined to get nowhere with regard to building consensus.


 * Finally, please note that this is a holiday week in the US, so discussion on the talk page may be limited. I would ask that you refrain from taking lack of response as agreement, at least for a little while, as many people may have limited or no time to login this week. Thanks. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Per WP:EL, Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. I removed the links to dead URLs, and you are trying to say this is inappropriate? If someone finds a working link, we can discuss whether it is appropriate to re-insert it into the article.
 * 2) See WP:ELNO #2. As already quoted above, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. First of all, Homola (2006) is not a unique resource beyond what is in the article NOW, because it is already used as a reference. Further, other academic articles do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article WOULD contain, because they should be used as a reference (not an external link.
 * 3) The information has been provided above, and is fairly clear in my opinion. If you have further questions, please provide your input on this talk page. I am not a mind reader, and have expressed on your talk page that your input is welcome here - without a response.
 * 4) See also WP:ELMAYBE - the article contained a long list of links. I was working to trim this down. Some featured articles have no external links at all. If you can point me to a FA with over a dozen external links, I would appreciate it.
 * 5) From WP:EL: No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. I disagree that linking some of these pages meets the guidelines, and to me a list of links that are over a decade old does not meet common sense. I will repeat (WP:IDHT?), the burden of providing the justification is on the person who wants to include a link. I have yet to see any justification provided, even though I have provided justification as to why the links should be removed, above. DigitalC (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I think I made my position quite clear. If the reason for removing an EL is "dead link," then the first step should be to look for another URL for that link. Failing that, I support moving the link (in cases where it makes sense) to Further Reading. You did not look for alternate URLs as I suspected, and you simply deleted the links. Is that "inappropriate" per the letter of WP policy? No. But it is also not the best way to proceed.


 * 2) Of course any link used as a ref should be removed from the EL list. No argument there. However, this article is in the process of growing, and many links that may become refs are currently housed in the EL section. Removing them because "they should be refs" is nonsensical and it hurts the content of the article.


 * 3) As I said, this is a holiday week, and many people have limited time to spend on WP (myself included). I have replied to some of your points, but probably not all of them. For now, please do not take silence on an issue as agreement. I, for one, will get to your detailed responses after the holiday (though I don't believe I agree that your positions have been laid out in any great detail).


 * 4) Yes, length is an issue, but cutting good links for the sole reason of "the list is too long" would hurt this article (and any growing article). You seem to be jumping the gun with overzealous deletions, in my opinion.


 * 5) If you're only reasons for deletion are "dead link" and "doesn't make sense to me," then I would submit that your arguments for deletion are poor. In that case, I disagree that it is up to other editors to address each of your deletions in turn - it is enough to address your general objections, which has been done. As I said, you took an axe to an article, and then you expected other editors to use a scalpel to correctly parse your good edits from your bad ones. Among your mass deletes of anti-chiropractic links, I saw a number of things that, on their face, were improper. To me, it seemed that you were editing with an agenda, and deleting those things that didn't mesh with that agenda. In a case like that, it is not up to other editors to individually argue against each of the multiple deletions you made, and trying to claim that it is would seem an awful lot like gaming the system. I'm not sure how else to classify removing oodles of ELs that don't agree with your position, then pointing to policy to make other editors take on the burden of the legwork that you didn't do yourself. And that is inappropriate. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * per 2), It makes sense to me, and it makes sense to the people who crafted WP:EL. If you have a problem with the guideline, you should discuss that there, not here. It is clear that that is what the guideline currently says.
 * per 5) Again, as above I have outlined a fair number of the links and why they should be removed, please do not misrepresent my position that the only reason I want links removed is because it "doesn't make sense to me". This is blatant tendentious editing. This is not about editing with an agenda, but again, please assume good faith. Currently, the only links that have been removed are dead links, an article already being used as a reference, and a website that is not even close to being neutral (and was discussed in more detail above). Why? Because these should not be controversial deletions. Why there is controversy around these deletions, I don't know. I disagree that it is up to me to find alternate links for the dead links, but if they are found, then yes, lets discuss that links inclusion! Again, I'm not trying to game the system here, I am just following WP:EL. If you don't like what WP:EL says, here is not the place to discuss that. DigitalC (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your reading of WP:EL. You are making assumptions about what the article would say if it became an FA. In short, your entire premise for deletion rests on your belief that your view of the future article is correct, and that isn't much to base your deletes on, especially when others disagree with you. So what if my crystal ball disagrees with your crystal ball? Then what? But since that discussion seems destined to go nowhere, I'll fall back on ignoring all rules when following the rules would do more harm that good. As I stated above, removing these ELs from a growing article when they are perfectly good links because you think that maybe, someday, if this article makes FA status, then their content will already be covered in the article in some other way is ridiculous and would harm the article. If it wasn't clear that this was my position, then please consider this my clarification. Removing these links for the reason you have given absolutely harms the article. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I am trying to help this article move forward, but I don't agree that this is a case where we should invoke WP:IAR. Can you explain to me how else ELNO #1 should be interpreted/read? How would you interpret "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."? I am trying to trim the external links section so that we could have a few, GOOD links. Again, WP:EL explicitly states that the external links section should not have a long list of links (like this article currently does). Please show me a featured article that has a dozen external links in it. DigitalC (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My point about ELNO#1 is that it can be used to argue deletion for any EL on any article in WP because it is entirely arbitrary, and entirely open to an editor's discretion. At the same time, I can say that any given link would pass this test because it provides more detail on its given subject that an encyclopedia article is ever likely to contain (which is as it should be since sources generally go into a lot more detail than WP articles). As such, this is a pretty useless rule in my opinion, and using it to argue for or against deletion of a given EL holds no water at all as far as I'm concerned. Contrast this with some of the other items in ELNO, like social networking sites or commercial sites, which are much more easily identified and agreed upon, and I think the uselessness of ELNO#1 becomes pretty apparent.
 * That said, I never said the article should have a dozen or more ELs. What I said was that you were being too hasty in deleting links, and deleting links for poor reasons. Yes, the list should be trimmed (in my opinion, though I can pretty easily find FAs with lots of ELs, which means absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned), but it should be trimmed thoughtfully and carefully, and not simply axed so it meets a very arbitrary and non-quantified "keep it brief" guideline. Some of that is taking place now, via the integration of links into the article (thanks, BR, for getting this started). That effort will have the net result of shortening the list of ELs while also not harming the article. That is the point I'm trying to make here - that the goal of shortening the list may be good, but your means of getting there is not so good. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that James I of England is the best example. When it was featured (September 2005), it did not contain any external links. It was nominated in 2004 and I'm not sure its FA status has been reviewed in the 5 years since. In fact, many FAs have no external links, such as todays FA, Ngo_Dinh_Diem_presidential_visit_to_Australia. DigitalC (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I detect the sound of goalposts in motion? At any rate, and as I said above, I don't think that data point means anything one way or another. I could easily find you any number of FAs with 8-10 ELs - does that mean that if we get it down to any collection of ten that you will nod in agreement? Or should the question really be about the quality of the links, as I've suggested. Let's allow the work (below) to continue instead of comparing and contrasting current FAs with where this article may be in several years time. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Transity's explanations. I find DigitalC's mass deletions to be disruptive and destrucive, and would rather see a discussion of each link here. If we can agree that it's no longer needed or is superfluous, then fine. Considering DigitalC's actions of late, this just seems to be a continuation of Levine2112's whitewashing activities. He is now topic banned, and if this continues it might be appropriate to consider such a topic ban for DigitalC. This just seems to be an overzealous approach that smacks of whitewashing and a huge agenda. It isn't conducive to building NPOV articles where all POV should be represented using V & RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is WP:BRD, plain and simple. You make a huge introduction of external links to the article (over a dozen), claim that this has been agreed upon at Chiropractic (where no such huge list of links exists), and I remove some of them per WP:EL. This is not disruptive, and not destructive. If you want to actually discuss the links, go ahead, User:2over0 and I have started discussing the links above! As for all POV being represented, where is the praise and positive criticism in this article? How many of the dozen+ links that you added showed that view? Right, and you accuse me of violating WP:NPOV? DigitalC (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is titled "Chiropractic controversy and criticism." Do you really think it makes sense to include ELs to sites that are not critical about chiropractics? Because that makes no sense at all. The criticism was removed from the main article about chiropractics and this article was created to house it, and now you are actually accusing people of including too much criticism in the criticism article? I'm honestly not sure how you think that argument has any logical merit at all. I'm out the door for turkey. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:Criticism and WP:NPOV. Criticism involves not only negative criticism, but positive criticism (or praise) as well. To only include negative criticism is to violate NPOV and to turn this into a povfork. For the record, no criticism was removed from the main Chiropractic article. It is sprinkled throughout the article, and balanced for NPOV. Also, see above for the history of other editors who have opined that this article should be retitled Reception of chiropractic so that it is less likely to be a povfork, and more likely to end up npov. DigitalC (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the real violation of NPOV here is the Chiropractic article which is far too positive about chiro, and gives undue weight to an unscientific practice that is firmly rooted in nonsense. But rather than getting into that discussion any further, I agree with BR's approach of integrating where possible. -- <font color="800080" face="Verdana"> Transity (talk &bull; contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One common tactic that has been used in other topics is to force the creation of a criticism article, and push any view deemed negative from the main article to there. Later on, the criticism article is revisited on the grounds that it should be balanced... AndroidCat (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You noticed! ;-) It would be ideal if this were part of the main article, but it's been hard enough to get anything close to an NPOV presentation there. All criticisms are watered down and hidden within the main text. Whitewashing has occurred quite a bit there until the arrival of User:Dematt, a chiropractic editor who has been very fair and allowed criticisms as long as they were properly sourced. The article changed radically in quality and size during that time. The fact that the profession has a long history that has always been characterized by internal and external controversy and criticism has been diluted. BUT your suspicions are correct. By isolating most of the criticism into this article, some chiropractic editors hope they can wikilawyer well-sourced content totally out of Wikipedia. So much for trying to get the main article to reflect historic and present realities. ;-( We need more eyes on this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While one might believe that that is a common tactic (I don't, because there aren't many criticism articles), that isn't what has happened here. The criticism in the article Chiropractic has not been pushed to here, and is still very much present at the main article - it has NOT been isolated. It is located throughout the article, rather than tucked away from sight at the bottom of the article in its own section. There are two things that suggest that Chiropractic is fairly NPOV - some editors think it is too pro-chiropractic, and some editors think it is too anti-chiropractic. The second thing that suggests that it is fairly NPOV is that it is a relatively stable article. If we kept to the sourcing standards that are used at Chiropractic (10 year old sources not used for historical information make up less than 5% of the article, this article is at over 11%) I think this article would be much better. DigitalC (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Common in battleground areas of Wikipedia like Scientology or Prem Rawat, for example. DigitalC mentions a 10 year limit for sources (other than historic). Has chiropractic changed that much over that time? I can see that statistical information should use the most recent sources available, but I don't see how such a rule would work other than as a very rough rule of thumb for determining if an otherwise reliable source is still notable or relevant. AndroidCat (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true. There are indeed certain things where material can be outdated and should be replaced by newer data, rather than deleted. That applies especially to hard data like statistics, scientific research (see WP:MEDRS), etc., but not to POV, opinions, historical details, etc.. Since there has been no change at all in certain portions of chiropractic, some change in others, and a radical few reformers making a huge leap into a scientifically valid realm, it's an editorial POV whitewashing push to delete information that happens to reflect poorly on some members of the profession, in order to make the whole profession appear to have advanced into scientific legitimacy and eliminated the old fashioned views of the very vocal minority and many leaders. Chiropractic is still a mixed bag with lots of old criticisms still being valid. Criticisms are obviously going to be directed at the negative aspects, not the positive (as is done in the main article), and since this article documents those criticisms, they should remain. This doesn't document only present day controversies and criticisms, but the whole of chiropractic's existence, so none of it gets "outdated". Some of it, if it can be proven to be true, may become outdated, in which case the proof can be provided, but don't just delete without supplying that proof, in fact, don't delete, but supplement. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the criticism is still valid, we shouldn't have a problem finding more recent references (and external links for that matter). I also disagree that there haven't been major changes within the chiropractic realm within the last 5 years, let alone the last 10 years. DigitalC (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There have indeed been changes in many of the positive areas, but some of the negative areas are still problematic. They happen to be very basic ones like underlying philosophy, lifetime "wellness" care of asymptomatic individuals, unscientific claims and practices, unethical conduct, etc.. Until the profession openly and officially distances itself from certain beliefs (like vertebral subluxation), there will remain controversy and criticism. It still occurs within and outside the profession for good reason. That's what this article documents. Otherwise there are indeed positive trends within certain groups and in some schools. If you want to read a striking example of the great differences within the profession, you should read the description of an encounter between a modernist and a traditionalist teacher found here on p. 6. It's very interesting. It's in one of the more recent books and there is no indication that such things have changed significantly. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Keating link
I have integrated the Keating link about "Quackery in Chiropractic". -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

JC Smith
The JC Smith article "Chiropractic Ethics: An Oxymoron?" is now incorporated into the article. For some reason, I can't get the ref to format properly. Will someone fix it for me? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be the question mark in the title of the article. If that is removed, the link can probably be parsed properly. However I don't know that it is proper to alter the title in that way. DigitalC (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't alter titles if it can be avoided. I tried a sandbox version that appears pretty much the same as the templated citation version and it seems to work. I still don't understand why it didn't work before, but it looks good now. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

External links integration
Some of the following links could be integrated. If/as they are integrated, please strike them and sign that you have integrated them. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Internal criticism

 * Can Chiropractors and Evidence-Based Manual Therapists Work Together? An Opinion From a Veteran Chiropractor
 * Samuel Homola DC, a notable and outspoken dissident within the profession, expresses his opinion that evidence-based chiropractic is the only way forward. Taken care of by DigitalC 15:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiropractic, Bonesetting, and Cultism
 * Samuel Homola (entire book on-line). This book, published in 1964, contains trenchant criticism of the profession, and the following year Homola's application to renew his membership of the ACA was rejected. In 1991, David J. Redding, chairman of the ACA board of governors, welcomed Homola back to membership of the ACA, and in 1994, 30 years after its publication, the book was reviewed for the first time by a chiropractic journal.


 * Chiropractic Ethics: An Oxymoron?
 * JC Smith, a chiropractor in private practice, writes in 1999 that ethical issues are "in dire need of debate" because of "years of intense medical misinformation/slander" and because of well publicised examples of tacky advertising, outlandish claims, sensationalism and insurance fraud. Now incorporated. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Faulty Logic and Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic
 * Dr Keating critically distinguishes between sound and unsound arguments in support of chiropractic


 * Critical thinking
 * Christopher Kent, DC president of the Council on Chiropractic Practice, advises his colleagues of the importance of high standards of evidence, noting that in the past chiropractors were too ready to accept anecdotal evidence


 * Open Letter to the Profession (See Chiroweb for commentary.)
 * A 1992 letter from ACA attorney, George P. McAndrews, warns the chiropractic profession that advertising of scare tactic subluxation philosophy damages the newly won respect within the AMA.


 * Quackery in Chiropractic
 * A 1991 editorial from chiropractic trade magazine, Dynamic Chiropractic, where Joseph C. Keating Jr discusses his concerns for advertising products before they are scientifically evaluated. Integration accomplished. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

External criticism

 * Keeping Your Spine In Line, Adjusting the Joints, and Video - Alan Alda, PBS, Scientific American Frontiers, Web Feature (combines internal and external criticism)
 * Chirobase: Skeptical guide to chiropractic history, theories, and current practices - Stephen Barrett, MD, and Samuel Homola, DC (combines internal and external criticism)
 * Chiropractic, Skeptic’s Dictionary
 * Spin Doctors: The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination - Paul Benedetti, Wayne MacPhail
 * Chiropractic - H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, December 1924

Historical elements that have drawn criticism and created controversy
"The birth of chiropractic was on September 18, 1895. On this day, Daniel D. Palmer, manipulated the spine of a deaf janitor named Harvey Lillard, allegedly curing him of deafness. And his second patient, a man with heart disease was also cured. D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, defined chiropractic as 'a science of healing without drugs' and considered establishing chiropractic as a religion. Chiropractic included vitalistic ideas of innate intelligence with religious attributes of universal intelligence to substitute science.[3] Evidence suggests that D.D. Palmer had acquired knowledge of manipulative techniques from Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy.[3] Although D.D. Palmer combined bonesetting to give chiropractic its method, and 'magnetic healing' for the theory, he acknowledged a special relation to magnetic healing when he wrote, 'chiropractic was not evolved from medicine or any other method, except that of magnetic.'[1] According to D.D. Palmer, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure of all disease for the human race"

I have requested previously that someone point out how any of this is relevant to this article. To this date that has not occured. None of this appears at all controversial, and it is not criticism either. It is simply history, and belongs ONLY in the article History of chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Patricide controversy
Until we get the wording worked out at Talk:Chiropractic history, we shouldn't try any similar bold edits here that obviously do not have consensus. The text that you have proposed there, and that you tried to insert here still attempts to pass an opinion off as fact, instead of clearly denoting it as an opinion, as required by WP:ASF. DigitalC (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is clearly attributed using the sources with in-text attribution. If anything it is over-attributed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that "The book Trick or Treatment indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." clearly denotes "it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." as opinion? Because it doesn't. You have stuck the attribution to "D.D. Palmer died just a few weeks later", which is a fact not an opinion, but left the attribution off of the opinion part. In a sense, one could consider it over-attributed, but only because you are putting the attribution with the facts, not the opinions. DigitalC (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The book Trick or Treatment indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." clearly denotes it is a statement from the book Trick or Treatment. I added in-text attribution for the entire sentence. The attribution is "The book Trick or Treatment indicated" is at the beginning of the sentence for the entire sentence. Other sources are also attributed to the source. For example, the text says "Chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating, Jr. has described" is in-text attribution too. You don't have a problem with Joseph C. Keating, Jr. statement which was attributed the same way as Trick or Treatment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDHT. DigitalC (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DigitalC was unable to provide specific objection to the previous comment. The sentence is attributed to the title of the book using the exact text in quotes. Breaking up the sentence into more than one sentence is not the way it is wriiten in the book. DigitalC did not make any specific objection to the other sentences but deleted those too without any reasonable explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a specific objection, which you continue to ignore, which is that the opinion that "it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." is not clearly denoted as an opinion, as it needs to be per WP:ASF. Furthermore, adding the content to this article seems to be a massive violation of WP:OR. Where is the source saying that this is controversial? Let it stay in Chiropractic history where it belongs. DigitalC (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Across different chiropractic pages there is a repeated pattern of weakening the arguments from the reliable source. See here, here, and here. For example, this edit summary claimed to clarify the sentence. No, the edit whitewashed the disagreement with another source. The reason DigitalC deleted the text was because it seems like the person didn't like it that the text conflicts with other information from another source later in the paragraph. The editor thinks it is worth noting that one source is written by a chiropractic historian, best known for his published works as a historian of chiropractic. The other source is written by someone who has been described as "the scourge of alternative medicine", who has a noted bias when it comes to Chiropractic, and whose book has been described as "juvenile and condescending". There is past disruption.
 * You have not made a specific objection to my rebuttal to your proposal. DigitalC may have unintentially missed that the attribution is the text "The book Trick or Treatment". The sentence is clearly attributed in accordance with WP:ASF to the title of the book using the exact text in quotes. Breaking up the sentence into more than one sentence is not the way it is wriiten in the book. Splitting up the entire sentence would be taking the entire sentence out of context or weakening the strength of the disagreement with the recorded death as typhoid. The book strongly disagrees with the recorded cause of death. The book Trick or Treatment indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later - officially the cause of death was recorded as typhoid, but... The book disagrees with death recorded as typhoid by using the word "but". This is missing from DigitalC's proposal which weakened the meaning of the serious dispute with the recorded cause of death. Furthermore, deleting the content from this article seems to be a massive violation of WP:NPOV. According to the text which DigitalC was quick to delete it is a patricide controversy or it is described as a patricide controversy. NPOV is including material from both sources, especially when there is a disagreement. See WP:NPOV. It is not our job to decide which source is correct. It is our job to include both sides of the dispute or information. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent). Please stop repeating yourself, I have already responded to this before.
 * The edit summary said that I clarified, because I did clarify. Because you disagreed with this edit, I have proposed an alternate version at the relevant talk page, in an attempt to find a workable compromise. I have not found you to be willing on working on this proposal, but have made two minor alterations to it based on your comments.
 * "No, the edit whitewashed the disagreement with another source" - Far from the truth. Both sources were used, and were weighed against each other, per WP:NPOV. Again, because you disagreed with the way the sources were used, I proposed an alternate version at the talk page. Stop bringing up the old version if you aren't willing to work on the new version.
 * "The sentence is clearly attributed in accordance with WP:ASF to the title of the book using the exact text in quotes" - See WP:IDHT, as I have clearly demonstrated that I disagree. The opinion is not clearly denoted as an opinion, as it needs to be per WP:ASF. Instead, a separate clause of the sentence is attributed. This is a violation of NPOV.
 * "The book disagrees with death recorded as typhoid by using the word "but". This is missing from DigitalC's proposal which weakened the meaning of the serious dispute with the recorded cause of death." - I have used this comment to make a minor tweak to the proposal at Talk:Chiropractic history. Hopefully this makes the proposal workable for you. Is this massive wall of text really all about the word "but"?

DigitalC (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not provided a specific response to the most important parts of my previous comment.
 * For example: Breaking up the sentence into more than one sentence is not the way it is wriiten in the book. Splitting up the entire sentence would be taking the entire sentence out of context or weakening the strength of the disagreement with the recorded death as typhoid. Care to explain why you are taking the sentence out of context by breaking it up into seperate sentences unlike how it is written in the book. The sentence should remainn intact just the the way it is written in the book. As previously explained, the attribution starts at the beginning of the sentence without miss quoting or misrepresenting the source (taking the text out of context). It was an unattributed opinion the cause of death as typhoid which was fixed by including attribution at the beginning of the sentence for the entire sentence.
 * For example: According to the text which DigitalC was quick to delete it is a patricide controversy or it is described as a patricide controversy. NPOV is including material from both sources, especially when there is a disagreement. No specific rebuttal was given when QuackGuru explained how the text is relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC


 * That the official cause of death was Typhoid is not an opinion, it is a fact. As such it does not need attribution. "Splitting up the sentence" does not take it out of context or weaken the strength of the disagreement, however shunting Keating's view until much later in the paragraph certainly weakens his POV. DigitalC (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the source it was their opinion the primary cause of death. We can't assert opinions as a fact. The source uses the word "opinions". When the source says it was their opinions we cannot assert it as fact. They were persuaded to change their opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the controversy here about? I see that QG wrote a new section that DC removed. DC seems to dislike some of the wording of that section, but I am not seeing where the alternative proposal is. If this is truly the case, shouldn't we just restore QG's version and let DC tweak the wording? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the wording I proposed, see Talk:Chiropractic history where this originated from, before QG started spreading it to multiple articles. DigitalC (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [Edit: Actually, I will post the proposed text below it below DigitalC (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)]
 * "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later, with the official cause of death recorded as typhoid. However, according to Trick or Treatment, it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son, and there is speculation that it was not an accident, but [instead] a case of patricide. Chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating, Jr. has described the attempted patricide of D.D. Palmer as a myth and "absurd on its face" and cites an eyewitness who recalled that DD was not struck by BJ's car, but rather, had stumbled". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk)
 * I think that we probably should have something that indicates the controversy surrounding this subject. What is the controversy exactly? QG? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the controversy is over the attending physicians were persuaded to change their opinions about the primary cause of death. This is one part of a much bigger controversy. The source even says it is a patricide controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal from Talk:Chiropractic history by DigitalC does not explain if it is a proposal for this article and does not explain the mass deletion of citations and text from this article.
 * As previuosly explained: For example: According to the text which DigitalC was quick to delete it is a patricide controversy or it is described as a patricide controversy. NPOV is including material from both sources, especially when there is a disagreement. No specific rebuttal was given when QuackGuru explained how the text is relevant to this article. I would like a specific rebuttal or explanation for the mass deletion of relevant content for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me put it bluntly. The edit that I reverted was not ready for mainspace. It was poorly written, and violated WP:ASF as well as WP:WEIGHT. I also request a quote from the 'Chiropractic history' source demonstrating that this is in fact a controversy. DigitalC (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not explained what was poorly written and you have not shown how it violated ASF. You blindly deleted the text which says it is a controversy. It was proposed by SA to restore QG's edit and if any tweaks need to be made it can be done in mainspace. No specific proposal was made by DigitalC to tweak the text added by QG. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have clearly demonstrated above how it fails ASF. It also fails WP:UNDUE. It has spelling errors, and unnecessary repetition, such as "A few weeks later D.D. Palmer died. The book Trick or Treatment indicated "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later". It includes information which seems unrelated to the topic of the paragraph at best, or worse original research, such as "They had become bitter rivals over the leadership of chiropractic. B.J. Palmer resented his father for the way he treated his family, stating that his father beat three of his children with straps and was so much involved in chiropractic that he hardly known his children". It attributes facts, something that (I was under the impression) you believe should never be done, for example Keating stated "Joy Loban, DC, executor of DD's estate, voluntarily withdrew a civil suit claiming damages against B.J. Palmer, and that several grand juries repeatedly refused to bring criminal charges against the son instead of simply asserting facts. It also violates WP:COPYVIO, including an entire paragraph word-for-word (see WP:UNDUE again too) from QuackWatch. DigitalC (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not clearly demonstrated how it fails ASF. If it has spelling errors then you could of fixed the spelling errors. I have trimmed the text to avoid any perceived repition. I removed "D. D. Palmer died just a few weeks later".
 * "They had become bitter rivals over the leadership of chiropractic. B.J. Palmer resented his father for the way he treated his family, stating that his father beat three of his children with straps and was so much involved in chiropractic that he hardly known his children". It is sourced from Trick or Treatment. It is not original research and gives context to the patricide controversy.
 * When you are quoting the source you are supposed to say 'Keating stated' unless you rewrite the text. If you rewrite it then you can remove the 'Keating stated'. I shortened the part from Chirobase. Although we disagree I will attempt a compromise base on your comments. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made this compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Death of DD Palmer
I have moved this from the lead for discussion here:


 * The 2008 book Trick or Treatment states that in 1913 B.J. Palmer ran over his father, D.D. Palmer, at a homecoming parade for Palmer School of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa. A few weeks later D.D. Palmer died in Los Angeles. The official cause of death was recorded as typhoid. The book Trick or Treatment indicated "it seems more likely that his death was a direct result of injuries caused by his son." Chiropractic historian Joseph C. Keating, Jr. has described the attempted patricide of D.D. Palmer as a "myth" and "absurd on its face" and cites an eyewitness who recalled that D.D. was not struck by B.J.'s car, but rather, had stumbled. He also says that "Joy Loban, DC, executor of D.D.'s estate, voluntarily withdrew a civil suit claiming damages against B.J. Palmer, and that several grand juries repeatedly refused to bring criminal charges against the son."

I think this is more appropriate for the biographical articles for both men. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the lead of the history article and per summary summarised it in the history section of the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it's very well summarized and accurately represents both sides of the issue neutrally. Good job. Silver  seren C 02:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was appropriate to summarise in the lead of the biographical articles for both men.. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One editor suggested on my talk page without a specific objection to the text it was not appropriate to add the same text to two articles.. I added similar text to at least five articles. I added similar text to Chiropractic, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, History of chiropractic, Daniel David Palmer, and B. J. Palmer. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there. You could also have answered on your or my talk page, you know? Anyway. You said:  User:Jargoness, we added similar text to five articles. Similar, to me, is okay. Exact same text, again to me, is not. Regards -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No specific objection for using the exact same text was given. What is the problem with using the extact same text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be just me, but I've always thought that articles should contain the same informations when correlated, but not the same text. So, again, that is my specific objection; if the articles are just the same, then why not directly merging them (I'm exaggerating, but that's to make my point)? That part of text is not a quote either, so.. -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have a problem with the text. Your problem is the text is the same in different articles. It is expected that some articles will have overlap. You can rewrite it as long as it is still neutral and summarised the body. I don't see it as a problem that different articles overlap with the same text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's what I've been trying to say. I don't have a problem with the text itself. I have a problem with the fact it's the same in two different articles. I'll see if I can rewrite it one of these days.. -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 02:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ..Or not.. -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You suggested you don't want to rewrite it anymore. On 15:40, 16 May 2010 BullRangifer proposed to include the text in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I suggested it has been removed. -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. First you suggested it be rewritten not deleted. "Or not" meant you have withdrawn from rewriting it. Do you want to rewrite it or not? QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said: I'll see if I can rewrite it one of these days... Then I saw it has been deleted and wrote: Or not, which meant "there might be no reason to rewrite it anymore since it has been removed from the article". Is it more clear now? (You seem to be taking all this personally, and I want to assure you I look at the content, not to authors) :) -- Jargon ๏̯͡๏) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Every article should have a summary in the lead. There is even more reason to rewrite it since it has been removed from the article. See WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Quackery", the social contract, and Murphy's Podiatry article
I removed this sentence from the second paragraph: "Quackery is more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions which is a violation of the social contract between patients and physicians."

It is based on the following from Murphy:
 * "Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery. This is the social contract as it applies to chiropractic physicians."


 * "The chiropractic profession has an obligation to actively divorce itself from metaphysical explanations of health and disease as well as to actively regulate itself in refusing to tolerate fraud, abuse and quackery, which are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions." (intercite to here)

I think it has some problems:
 * The term 'quackery' is derogatory. Though Murphy uses it, most other medical sources do not.  I think it would need to be in quotes attributed to Murphy or replaced with a more neutral term.


 * Murphy's intercite uses a small study from California which hasn't been cited by any other studies except Murphy's.


 * The characterization of chiropractic as more 'Quackish' than other health professions is a bit broad to be cited to Murphy alone.


 * The phrase, 'which is a violation of the social contract', takes both Murphy's comparison and his ethical evaluation as fact, when they are opinions. At least, the sentence needs to be reworked to present the judgments as such, requiring more than one citation from an individual author to present them as broad fact.  ASF is not for opinions, or individual conclusions, unless broadly held, or (possibly) from a systematic review--which this was not. Ocaasi 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The source is from a chiropractic journal, but can't really speak for the profession as a whole, so it would need some attribution to put it in context. Also, chiropractic journals, it has been argued on these and similar pages are not reliable for medical research, so should it generally go the same way in both cases?


 * This is about social conduct not medical related information. In this case we could add some text to clarify the text. The term 'quackery' is sourced in accordance with V.
 * "A commentary stated that quackery is more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions which the social contract between patients and physicians. "
 * Or this version.
 * "Chiropractic authors stated that fraud, abuse and quackery is more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions. "
 * Both proposals clarify the text. The second proposal is more concise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the shorter proposal and included the attribution in the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial deletion of sourced content
This change and this change deleted sourced content that was accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly an SPA. You should go ahead and revert him. You might want to go check the other edits made by the user as well, since a lot of them have the References Removed tag on them. Silver  seren C 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I took a look at the other edits. Most of the edits were reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific proposal using a recent systematic review
"Vascular accidents after upper spinal manipulation are a well-recognised problem (e.g. 1,2). Dissection of a vertebral artery, caused by extension and rotation of the neck beyond the physiological range of motion, is thought to be the underlying mechanism (2). Several deaths have been reported as a consequence. Some proponents of chiropractic seem to believe that the critical evaluation of this evidence amounts to a ‘scare story’ (Chairman of the UK General Chiropractic Council) (3) or to ‘puffing up (the evidence) out of all proportion’ (President of the British Chiropractic Association) (4). A responsible approach to serious therapeutic risks, however, requires an open discussion of the facts."

"This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic. Usually high-velocity, short-lever thrusts of the upper spine with rotation are implicated. They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death (1,2,26,30)."

The above paragraphs verify the text in accordance with MEDRS and V. This proposal is for Efficacy.

A 2010 systematic review found that numerous deaths since 1934 have been recorded after chiropractic neck manipulation typically associated with vertebral artery dissection. Some chiropractic proponents seem to think that a critical evaluation of the research is tantamount to a 'scare story' or to 'puffing up (the evidence) out of all proportion'. A reasonable approach to serious risk from chiropractic therapy, however, requires an open examination.

This is the systematic review. QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Terribly written
Terribly written article filled with bad/weak sources and undocumented statements of fallacy. The way the article is strung together seems to create original opinion, something I understand is prohibited at Wikipedia. Please organise and clean up this article or simply delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.193.26 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical evaluation
The source is a Critical evaluation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I made this change to summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

D.D. Palmer Death Conspiracy
The last paragraph in the Historical controversial and critical elements section, that detailing the death controversy of D.D. Palmer, seems incredibly out of context with the rest of the section. It is biographic in nature and seems like it would be better suited to the biographical page of D.D. Palmer. I fail to see what value it adds to the Chiropractic controversy page. I would recommend relocating/removing it.Brakoholic (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought advertisements were illegal in wikipedia articles, and still you can see it under "ethics and claims".There is an add for the pharma founded organisation "Sense about Science". It must be removed.--Karl den tolfte (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

POV Fork
This article likely qualifies as a POV fork as commented previously by two editors. If there is consensus, I nominate this article for deletion. DVMt (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In what way is it a POV fork? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree at best this article is POV fork and at worse specious. The author appears to reference recent research to support his/her claims. The articles quoted are current-ish i.e. 2005, whereas, that article is quoting a 1909 source. To use information from 1909 to characterize foundational practices of any profession is specious. I renominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.86.182 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Category Manipulation (ha!)
Borayner feels that multiple categories that aren't specific to Chiropractic should appear in specific categories. Please explain rationale. DVMt (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? If one of the major criticisms of chiropractic is that it's pseudoscientific, surely this page belongs in the pseudoscience category? Why would you remove that? bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * DVMt is a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Categories restored. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream Medicine
The article mentions a controversy with "mainstream medicine", whose link redirects to simply "Medicine". Mainstream medicine is a weasel term used by practitioners of pseudoscience, and I'd argue that it should be removed, but I don't want to change it unilaterally. --128.252.110.200 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In this sense, "mainstream" is used by mainstream editors and others as a contrast to "alternative medicine", which by its nature is always in opposition/competition with the mainstream health care system. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No need for a separate article because it violates WP principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism. This entire article is a POV fork with a complete reworking of the main chiropractic article. DVMt (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would happily merge all this content into the main article. Keeping this article as-is would be the second-best option. Removing criticism altogether is not a good option. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have the same for ADHD. This is not a POV fork but a subarticle. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The subarticle contains significant duplication from the main and thus produces a very unbalanced viewpoint. I would also consider working on trimming the duplication.  DVMt (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a POV fork. bobrayner (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That remains to be seen. I've made a claim, I've provided the evidence below.  You haven't formally rebutted the evidence, and happen  not to like it.  So, in order to advance the discussion further, what exactly, with the evidence presented below, do you disagree with?.  These 'debates' can get tendentious real fast, so I'll just to the point.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Jmh649 you claimed it was a not a POV fork, I rebutted your claim. Please see the section below and provide evidence that supports your claim.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Try a RfC. What you need to do is convince others. You have not convinced me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will consider, RfC. You seem to have a habit of dodging my questions and have a different standard of treating individuals who have an interest in some of the potential benefits in CAM differently.    Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand the purpose of a subarticle like this. An improper fork would not contain much duplication, because it would be an attempt to sneak information into Wikipedia without mentioning the subject in the main article. That's what defenders of chiropractic would like. They'd like to remove all criticism and hide it here, but that was not allowed, and that's not what's happening here. We just go deeper into the topic here. Doing so in the main article would create "weight" and "undue" issues.

Skeptics, who see the negative aspects of chiropractic as a huge issue, may tend to wish for more negative content in the main article, and I've seen it argued that the main article should be dominated by such subject matter, but I don't think that would be good. Do you? I really doubt it. That's why we have some of the content duplicated, but you'll find more stuff here which is not mentioned in the main article. The justification for this subarticle is that the subject itself is worthy of much deeper coverage than can be done in the main article without creating the named issues.

It's a compromise which should satisfy believers and skeptics alike. If you wish to upset the delicately-balanced apple cart, which has been stable for some time, we can easily add much more negative content to the main article.... Either it stays here, or it ALL gets included there, because a merge will not end with it being deleted completely. Some duplication is simply what's necessary to avoid the main article violating NPOV and being a whitewash with all negative content removed. Bob Rayner's comment above is right on target (see: bobrayner 15:17, 25 May 2014). -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a compromise which should satisfy believers and skeptics alike.' It's not about belief. You don't need to 'believe' in chiropractic, because it's not a religion. The main article is already unbalanced, because the arguments of skeptics are the same as here, and haven't evolved. They're about vaccination, fluoridation, subluxation is the cause of disease, practicing outside of musculoskeletal medicine, x-ray overuse, ethics, overtreatment, kids, death, whether or not to be in primary care, etc. Same old, same old. These, of course, are notable and legitimate. The concern of a white-wash is unfounded. Ernst has his papers and his book, QuackWatch is a reliable source at WP. The skeptical viewpoint will be represented. However, the weight of it will be directly proportional to the a) conditions commonly treated by chiropractors b) # of chiropractors who are practicing 'scientifically' (i.e. orthodox biomedical view) vs. how many are practicing in an unorthodox (fringe) manner. The duplication is not necessary. The quotes are puffery. Wikipedia is clear about articles devoted to criticism.
 * The weight of the issue will also determine its degree of coverage. Skepticism of chiropractic is not new. It's a huge subject that is as old as the profession itself, and that must be documented here. Including all of it in the main article would be an undue violation and make it look like there is nothing sensible in the profession, and we know that's not true. The main article is fairly well balanced now, but if you keep pressing this issue, as others have done before you, the end result will not be what you wish. You need to study Pyrrhic victory. I don't see how you can avoid any duplication at all. The skeptical/mainstream POV must be mentioned in the main article, but if we do too much of it, that article gets unbalanced. This article allows for covering the subject without overwhelming the main article. Of course this article could get expanded even more, if that's really what you wish. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that main article is balanced, and I am aware of pyrric victory. Two wrongs don't make a right.  If you're up to it, we can collaborate here if you wish to try to resolve the issues.  If we can't get it done together, we can do an RfC.  How does that sound?  DVMt (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that DVMT is totally wrong about belief in chiroquactic, when he states "It's not about belief. You don't need to 'believe' in chiropractic, because it's not a religion." This is total nonsense and typical of our wikipedia fringe pushers. It must be a belief, as there isn't a jot of real evidence to support the claims of the practitioners. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We know how you feel Roxy, and not liking the use of manipulative therapies for spinal and other musculoskeletal  disorders, has nothing to do about beliefs, but scientific investigation and evidence.  I would please ask that you be civil and not mischaracterize me as a fringe pusher and extend a bit of  good faith.
 * Using ad hominems and name calling doesn't add much to the discussion. Thanks.  DVMt (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all rather nebulous because we don't even know what your specific objection is. You haven't stated which content should be added or removed, or suggested a specific edit. Without that you are just complaining that you "don't like it". We can't use that for anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been rather clear on what my objection is. What's not clear is what you're going to do to help improve the situation.  We can start by trimming down the duplication.  Then we can get rid of the puffery quotes.  DVMt (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to be specific. Make a suggestion right here, in this thread, using exact wording. For example, which exact wordings do you consider "puffery"? That's a good place to start, because we can always try to improve content. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to make things plain for you, your initial comment in this section references Criticism sections, but you apparently didn't notice conveniently ignored this portion:
 * "Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it;  see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details."
 * Although your objections have been roundly rejected by multiple editors, I'm now giving you a chance to at least be more specific about a specific issue you mention, the "puffery" objection. Let's work on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) edited 01:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The attack is not necessary, Brangifer. I stand corrected.  But I did not 'conveniently' do anything, as you assumed. Please  assume good faith.  However, that doesn't the explain the amount the large amount of duplication and the unnecessarily excessive use of quotes.  The idea contained therein is already expressed; and are easily summarized without the need of quotes.  So let's get rid of the puffery quotes and duplication altogether, and be succinct. DVMt (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No attack was intended, but I can see what you mean and I have amended my comment accordingly. You still need to be specific, since we will need to deal with this one sentence/phrase at a time anyway. Start with just one example. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for amending your statement, I appreciate it. There are bigger issues pressing at the main article.  I'm going to put this on the backburner and we can revisit it at a later date.  DVMt (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplication
'Main article

Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices.[35] Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination,[27][28] one of the most cost-effective public health interventions available.[205] Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[27] claiming that it is hazardous, ineffective, and unnecessary.[28] Some chiropractors have embraced vaccination, but a significant portion of the profession rejects it, as original chiropractic philosophy traces diseases to causes in the spine and states that vaccines interfere with healing.[28] The extent to which anti-vaccination views perpetuate the current chiropractic profession is uncertain.[27] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[28] The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination;[27] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[206] Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors, some of whom continue to oppose it as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health.[207] In addition to traditional chiropractic opposition to water fluoridation and vaccination, chiropractors' attempts to establish a positive reputation for their public health role are also compromised by their reputation for recommending repetitive lifelong chiropractic treatment.[35]

No single profession "owns" spinal manipulation and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, raising concerns by chiropractors that other medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors.[31] A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.[31] Two U.S. states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM,[64] some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM, and some states allow only chiropractors to perform SM, or only chiropractors and physicians. Bills to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM are regularly introduced into state legislatures and are opposed by physical therapist organizations.[65]

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.[6][39][40][41] Similar results were found in the 2003 Gallup Poll.[42]

Although there is no clear evidence for the practice, some chiropractors may still X-ray a patient several times a year.[49] Practice guidelines aim to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure,[143] which increases cancer risk in proportion to the amount of radiation received.[144] Research suggests that radiology instruction given at chiropractic schools worldwide seem to be evidence-based.[145] Although, 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.[145]

This article

Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition.[85] These include some elements of the chiropractic community.[85] The reasons for this negative vaccination view are complicated and rest, at least in part, on the early philosophies which shape the foundation of these professions.[85] Chiropractors historically were strongly opposed to vaccination based on their belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; D.D. Palmer wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[10] Some chiropractors continue to be opposed to vaccination, one of the most effective public health measures in history.[11] Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors in the U.S. Some chiropractors oppose water fluoridation as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Recently, other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health.[12]

No single profession "owns" spinal manipulation (SM) and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, raising concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors. A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks.[86] Two U.S. states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM,[87] some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM, and some states allow only chiropractors to perform SM, or only chiropractors and physicians. Bills to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM are regularly introduced into state legislatures and are opposed by physical therapist organizations.[88]

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.[6][39][40][41] Similar results were found in the 2003 Gallup Poll.[42]

Quotes in the article
""Chiropractic is a freak offshoot from osteopathy. Disease, say the chiropractors, is due to pressure on the spinal nerves; ergo it can be cured by "adjusting" the spinal column. It is the sheerest quackery, and those who profess to teach it make their appeal to the cupidity of the ignorant. Its practice is in no sense a profession but a trade - and a trade that is potent for great harm. It is carried on almost exclusively by those of no education, ignorant of anatomy, ignorant even of the fundamental sciences on which the treatment of disease depends." (p. 29)[46]"

""Non-scientific health care (e.g., acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy) is licensed by individual states. Practitioners use unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively opposed by every scientist."[48]"

"According to David Colquhoun, chiropractic is no more effective than conventional treatment at its best, and has a disadvantage of being "surrounded by gobbledygook about 'subluxations'", and, more seriously, it does kill patients occasionally. He states that chiropractic manipulation is the number one cause of stroke under the age of 45.[72] "

""chiropractors may X-ray the same patient several times a year, even though there is no clear evidence that X-rays will help the therapist treat the patient. X-rays can reveal neither the subluxations nor the innate intelligence associated with chiropractic philosophy, because they do not exist. There is no conceivable reason at all why X-raying the spine should help a straight chiropractor treat an ear infection, asthma or period pains. Most worrying of all, chiropractors generally require a full spine X-ray, which delivers a significant higher radiation dose than most other X-ray procedures".[24]

""So long as we propound the "One cause, one cure" rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers' Innate should be rejected."[83]"

"Chiropractic is a controversial health-care system that has been legalized throughout the United States and in several other countries. In the United States in 1984, roughly 10.7 million people made 163 million office visits to 30,000 chiropractors. More than three fourths of the states require insurance companies to include chiropractic services in health and accident policies. The federal government pays for limited chiropractic services under Medicare, Medicaid, and its vocational rehabilitation program, and the Internal Revenue Service allows a medical deduction for chiropractic services. Chiropractors cite such facts as evidence of "recognition." However, these are merely business statistics and legal arrangements that have nothing to do with chiropractic's scientific validity."[84]"

These are all point violations and moreover appear to be a soapbox for Skeptics Barrett, Colqhoun, Sighn, Jarvis, Ernst, Quackwatch. Without the excessive use of quotes and duplication from the main page, this article is a collection of primarily primary sources that were once in the main article, but usurped by newer sources. By removing the duplication and puffery, there isn't anything that isn't already covered in detail in the main article, thus, is a POVFORK and a COATRACK. Although I don't object to covering the criticism, the evidence demonstrated here shows that minus the quotes or duplication, there really isn't much left that merits a stand alone article. DVMt (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute of Neutrality
This article seems to be incredibly one-sided. There is little to no citation of the benefits of Chiropractic practices. Furthermore, the article makes opinionated claims with no citations, such as the following: "The core concept of traditional chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, is not based on sound science." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.143.58 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Overview Section
I'm not pro or anti chiropractic, but the first section of this article (doesn't have a title). Seems more like a collection of criticisms, than an introduction to the article. The first paragraph seems fine, but the others are specific criticisms about chiropratic views on vaccinations and a court case from 2008.

Again, I'm not opposed to the content itself, just the placement.

Any thoughts? Tcxspears (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I organised the text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)