Talk:Chiropractic treatment techniques/Archive 1

Article started
This isn't for long explanations or lots of refs. That should be done in the individual articles. Hopefully this will also inspire editors to expand existing articles and create new ones, even if they are only stubs. Please help develop this as an important Grand Central Station on the subject. -- Fyslee / talk 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Change of title
Where is the discussion for the change of title? Does this change have a consensus behind it, because it sure is wrong as can be. It's just plain wrong grammatically and screws up existing wikilinks. -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For other people's benefit: Naming_conventions. II  | (t - c) 08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to keep reading: Exceptions. Now where is that discussion? Controversial changes with such far reaching consequences need to have a rather thorough discussion before implementing them. -- Fyslee / talk 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying "there needs to a be a discussion", you should attempt to discuss and provide an argument. Your argument on "alternative cancer treatments" comes down to just an assertion. (I guess I could be accused of the same thing, but the weight is on non-plural form.) Nevertheless, I think you might; this article is about disparate treatments, so it is analagous to the Zeno's paradoxes example. Feel free to try and get this page moved back, and I'll stop trying to get alternative cancer treatments moved. II  | (t - c) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a deal. Thanks for being so cooperative. -- Fyslee / talk 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources
Brangifer and TippyGoomba have deleted reliable sources. Please explain why you delete systematic reviews and other reliable sources. Thanks. DVMt (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you both deleted the material, don't you have to discuss why you deleted it as well? Maybe I don't get BRD?  DVMt (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given there is no discussion as to why the reliable sources were removed I have reinserted it. Please discuss what specific problems you may have prior to reverting.  Thank you.  DVMt (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion of reliable sources without any discussion is tendentious editing. Please discuss at talk what your specific issue with the text is.  This is clearly a case of avoiding discussion.  DVMt (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference details
There is currently an orphaned reference on the page. Looking through the page history it doesn't look like the info was ever there, but it is a bit of a mess so I might have missed it. Dagenais was lead author of three papers in 2008, , does anyone know which paper supports the text in the article? Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the least readable articles in all of Wikipedia.
says it all. It is more turgid than the worst parts of the tax code. Collect (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

''Many chiropractic treatment techniques are available for use by chiropractors. They primarily specialize in manual and manipulative therapies with an emphasis on spinal manipulation. The medicinal use of spinal manipulation can be traced back over 3000 years to ancient Chinese writings. Hippocrates, the "father of medicine" used manipulative techniques,[1] as did the ancient Egyptians and many other cultures. A modern re-emphasis on manipulative therapy occurred in the late 19th century in North America with the emergence of the osteopathic medicine and chiropractic medicine.[2] SMT gained mainstream recognition during the 1980s.[3] Spinal manipulation/adjustment describes techniques where the hands are used to manipulate, massage, mobilize, adjust, stimulate, apply traction to, or otherwise influence the spine and related tissues.[4] It is the most common and primary intervention used in chiropractic care;[5] In North America, chiropractors perform over 90% of all manipulative treatments[6] with the balance provided by osteopathic medicine, physical therapy and naturopathic medicine. Manipulation under anesthesia or MUA is a specialized manipulative procedure that typically occurs in hospitals administered under general anesthesia.[7] Typically, it is performed on patients who have failed to respond to other forms of treatment.[8] There has been considerable debate on the safety of spinal manipulation, in particular with the cervical spine.[9] Although serious injuries and fatal consequences can occur and may be under-reported,[10] these are generally considered to be rare, with mortality rates far lower than those seen in allopathic medicine.[11] Chiropractors may also use other conservative therapies such as exercise, electrical modalities, health, nutrition and wellness counselling and ergonomic advice in a holistic paradigm espoused by in traditional/complementary and alternative medicine'' is at the 5% mark.

''Many techniques are used by chiropractors, generally emphasizing spinal manipulation. This dates back more than 3000 years in China. Hippocrates, the "father of medicine" used them,[1] as did the ancient Egyptians and others. The system re-emerged in the late 19th century with the start of osteopathic and chiropractic medicine, and gained popularity in the 1980s.[2][3] In spinal manipulation, the hands are used to manipulate, massage, or otherwise influence the spine and related tissues.[4] It is the primary basis of chiropractic care.[5] In North America, chiropractors perform over 90% of all manipulative treatments.[6] In hospitals, it may be done under anesthesia [7] for patients who have failed to respond to other forms of treatment.[8][9] Although serious injuries and fatal consequences can occur,[10] these are generally rare, with mortality rates far lower than those seen in allopathic medicine.[11] Chiropractors also use conservative therapies including exercise, nutrition and wellness counseling and ergonomic advice. This fits a holistic paradigm espoused by traditional/complementary and alternative medicine.'' would get it up to the 20% mark -- a gain of 15%  on the Wikipedia readability scale. Collect (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then just fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice -- but at Talk:Chiropractic I was informed that medical articles are not supposed to be readable at all <g>. See that discussion, as "fixing it" will not work when faced with that argument in opposition.  Collect (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Trimming and rewording gets it up to F/K of 32 and Wikipedia rating of 17% -- well abouve its initial value of 3%. Collect (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how your edits improved the article.
 * This original research is in the main chiropractic article in the lede: "a Cochrane review found it ineffective for low back pain." There is a lot of original research in the lede of the main chiropractic article and now in this article.
 * For example, this text failed verification in this article: Spinal manipulation appears effective for chronic low-back pain.[11]
 * Previous wording was closer to the source: Spinal manipulation appears as effective to other commonly prescribed treatments for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy.[17] QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Um -- when we word exactly according to the source, we tread on copyright. The aim is to make the article understandable to readers -- not to parrot sources word for word.  I would note the sentence you object to is precisely accurate, and the added "bits" do not assist readers.  The article started at being in the worst 3% of all Wikipedia articles for readability which I regard as shameful.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits to this article and your proposals to the lede of the chiropractic resulted in original research to both articles. Have you seen the Autism? This is the way medical articles are written. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I proposed that the other article be made readable - and my example given at that article's talk page was for that purpose. Here an editor told me to be bold, and so I have.  If you do not like having readable articles, then you should go off to work at an incredibly inscrutable publication, but not Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. What you proposed for the other article was a poor summary compared to GA status articles. Also, adding OR does not make an article more readable. I asked, do you understand there is OR in both articles but you did not even comment specifically on those problems. What you did is not making the article more readable. You essentially deleted the chiropractic techniques. This is more like a spinal manipulation in general article. I can't imagine what your plans are for Spinal manipulation and Chiropractic. You know what to do. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice asides -- but I added no OR, and kept the sources given.  As for your snark -- you know precisely what to do with it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)