Talk:Osteomyology

Simon Troote
If that is really your name!!! I intend to discuss and alter the whole article with your kind co-operation -  Taking it piece by piece.

Open paragraphes from "Osteomyology to Chiropractic and Osteopathy" (Reference [1]) stands as is. From "Osteomyologists are therapists" to "Statutory Bodies" (ref. [2]) so using wiki rules -  quote cannot be endorsed as not contained in your reference.

Alan Clemens ( the real one)  Alan Clemens (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians should assume good faith!! Questioning who SimonTroote is, is not a good way to start and is immaterial. Please discuss changes here before editing. I suggets you post proposed edits here first. And please, remember. All material must be sourced. The best way to go about this may be tackle this a sentence at a time. Long winded, but we will get there. --84.201.173.210 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest a line by line change - one at a time, if you feel there are inaccuracies or problems. Any large scale edits that destroy references, degrade the article and introduce unsourced POV material will be reverted. --SimonTroote (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Clemens
Welcome Alan. I hope your presence here will strengthen this article. However, my guess is that you have not done too much Wikipedia editing before. I have had to revert you edits as they break a number of really important wikipedia rules. Firstly, we must try to stick to a Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). This might be quite hard for you as you are so close to the subject. Your opinions cannot be the subject of an encyclopedic entry on osteomyology. Everything in here should be verifiable through secondary sources (WP:V), (WP:CITE).

What you say may well be true, but Wikipedia cannot be the place for original research (WP:NOR). For example, you say "Osteomyologists have a well defined philosophy based on the principles of VITALISM ". We would need reliable source for this statement if we are to include it. Much, however does read like promotion rather than verifiable material. For example, "From the volume of patients treated on a weekly basis, and testimonials, the practice of Osteomyology seems to be lauded around the UK." This clearly cannot form part of the article.

I would strongly suggest that any future proposed additions are discussed here first, showing the proposed addition and the sources you will cite. As NPOV is going to be hard for you, I suggest you let other editors make the changes once they have been agreed. SimonTroote (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan. I strongly urge you to take some time out and consider what wikipedia is and how best to contribute to it. You cannot just replace articles with unreferenced/unsourced opinion pieces that look very much like marketing for your organisation. If you really are Alan Clemens who founded osteomyology then your contribution will be hugely beneficial - but only if you contribute in the true wikipedia collaborative style. This means sourcing your contributions and reaching consensus with other editors before editing. Your position as founder does not give you authority to make this article whatever you want. Should you continue to disrupt the article then you may get banned and then unable to help shape this article further. Warnings have been placed on your talk page.


 * Please start with suggesting changes here. Point out flaws and errors and suggest sourced alternatives. We look forward to working with you constructively. --SimonTroote (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have reverted the last edit as it broke references and was unexplained. Let's try to make this article sound by discussing how to improve it. SimonTroote (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed New Introduction
9th July 2008

OSTEOMYOLOGY Osteomyology (sometimes Neurosteomyology) is a form of alternative medicine practiced by Registered Osteomyologists[1]www.osteomyology.co.uk/about usfound almost exclusively in the United Kingdom there are however members in Germany, France, Italy, Australia and New Zealand and recently the United States[2]www.osteomyology.co.uk find an osteomyologistThe new discipline(1992) follows the Philosophy of Vitalism and is a method of using various treatment modules to bring safe and effective treatment to the patient [3] www.backtrouble.co.uk/listing.php?id=288, although the original treatment protocols stemmed from the practices of osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, shiatsu, kinesiology, physiotherapy and a mirade of others - the joining together of many different practitioners has resulted in an effective new way of treating patients [3]. At it's outset Osteomyology was a collection of Practitioners who, disillusioned by the dealings of the GOsC (general osteopathic council )and later the GCC (general chiropractic council), decided that, in their opinion, the higher fees and the general ethos of these bodies was not suited to their talents, sensibilities or philosophy.[1]

hope this is right

Alan ClemensAlan Clemens (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this just highlights the problem of someone so close to osteomyology being able to provide a neutral point of view to the subject. As this paragraph stands it is just simply unencyclopedic. For example, it is your opinion that osteomyology is safe and effective. This would have to be referenced from reliable sources. As the original article states, there appear to be no such sources so we cannot say this. Also, your comment about the 'watchful eye' is just pure POV. 'high handed' is opinion and 'extortionate' is POV since many practitioners did not think so and joined their governing bodies. The opening paragraph is really important and cannot appear to be promotional material. As it is the current version, is to the point, accurate and sourced and this proposed edit does not improve on that. --SimonTroote (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan - given your concern left on user talk pages about references, for the opening paragraph, I have added a couple of extra references.--SimonTroote (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

taking into account your comments here is our ammended version for your attention. We have referenced safe and effective treatment to reliable source (backtrouble). We have taken out watchful eye / high handed and extortionate.

We agree that the opening paragraph is the most important part of the reference, but we do not agree that your version is to the point, accurate and sourced - for example your [1] reference "brightcove" does not exist for any reference to Osteomyology, and as for the other references you have kindly added, [2] [3] neither of these substantiates "cannot join as they do not meet professional or training standards, or who have been suspended or struck off from these statutory bodies". There is no reference to this and it is bias and defamatory and to take your point, sheer POV, if it was true then every member would have been suspended or struck off.


 * Yes it does - the Brightcove link references an interview with you. Click on the [1]. --SimonTroote (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OSTEOMYOLOGY intro - rewrite
Osteomyology (sometimes Neurosteomyology) is a form of alternative medicine practiced by Registered Osteomyologists[1]www.osteomyology.co.uk/about usfound almost exclusively in the United Kingdom there are however members in Germany, France, Italy, Australia and New Zealand and recently the United States[2]www.osteomyology.co.uk find an osteomyologist The new discipline(1992) follows the Philosophy of Vitalism and is a method of using various treatment modules to bring safe and effective treatment to the patient [3] www.backtrouble.co.uk/listing.php?id=288, although the original treatment protocols stemmed from the practices of osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, shiatsu, kinesiology, physiotherapy and a mirade of others - the joining together of many different practitioners has resulted in an effective new way of treating patients [3]. At it's outset Osteomyology was a collection of Practitioners who, disillusioned by the dealings of the GOsC (general osteopathic council )and later the GCC (general chiropractic council), decided that, in their opinion, the higher fees and the general ethos of these bodies was not suited to their talents, sensibilities or philosophy.[1]

Alan Clemens (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have struck through areas that do not look right. Adding in the extra countries is probably unnecessary - especially in the introduction - it needs to be kept snappy. Changing 'almost exclusively' to 'predominantly' ought to deal with this. Do you agree? If so, let's change that.


 * The rest is unsourced. We do not have any good sources as of yet for the philosophy of 'Vitalism'. Nothing appears to be published in reliable sources about the philosphy - my guess is that we will not be able to say too much. Your reference to backtrouble.co.uk is totally unsuitable as this is promo material and is unencyclopedic. It most definitely cannot be used for supporting any claims that Osteomyology is 'safe and effective treatment'. We would need references to peer reviewed research for that. The best references so far for the safety and effectiveness for spinal manipulation therapies are already referenced here. If you want to say that Osteomyology is safe and effective then we need new studies.

The last sentence does not yet appear to reflect a NPOV and referenced statement of why people call themselves osteomyologists. The references do show that people become MAO when unable to register with stat reg bodies.


 * I would be very careful about using words like 'defamatory'. It is breaking the 'no legal threats' rule (WP:LEGAL)Such talk gets editors banned in a thrice. Usual protocol is to withdraw such accusation as soon as possible so we can get back on in good faith. In fact, this is pretty important to understand we can all act without a feeling of intimidation.

--SimonTroote (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

10th July 2008

With all due respect, Simon, before we continue, I suggest that YOU check brightcove [1] reference, there is nothing there, and also [2] & [3] for the struck off and unable to meet professional and training standards statement, also not referenced so therefore not permissable (your own words).

Alan Clemens (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It does look like the interview with you has gone. Are you aware of why this might be so and where else it might be found? --Twiga Kali (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a shame that this has gone. Apologies. It would be good to find a copy. --SimonTroote (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

11th July 2008

Replying to Twiga Kali -  As far as we are concerned we have never seen it in the first place. This is why I was so insistant that Simon checked it.

Reply to Simon -  Yes it is a shame, but lets get back to basics. You have no references for first part of your entry and no references for [2] [3] for the struck off and unable to meet professional and training standards statement,. So, can we therefore get down to writing a straight forward report on Osteomyology.

Alan Clemens (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The missing reference was to an interview conducted with you in Stratford this year during an osteomyology meeting. It would be useful to have reference to another instance of that. Do you know where one might be Alan?
 * The ASA reference states that someone holding a lesser qualification than a chiropractor can join the Osteomyology Association. That should be sufficient to support the exisiting statement. A GCC ruling  shows that someone registered with the osteomyology association used their membership in an attempt to escape sanction and was subsequently suspended from the register.


 * Stepping back, I can perhaps see the problem here. There are not too many reliable references around in the world about osteomyology. Those that do exist are being used here. I fear that we may well be overusing some less than reliable sources too. Were someone sceptical to read the article, the overall picture that emerges from these references is that of an organisation with no real development of philosophy or practice that is merely set up to allow spinal manipulation therapists to avoid being regulated by statutory bodies for one reason or another. This may well be the truth, but that is what is so valuable about having Alan Clemens here taking part. As the founder and leader of the association, then he ought to be well up to speed on any published books or peer reviewed articles that could be used as reliable sources to counter this perception and so achiever a better NPOV, if it exists.


 * As with Wikipedia advice on writing new articles, it is best to start with the reliable references weare to use to construct the article. My feeling is that is what we want to do now. Alan, and others: are there other significant books, papers, articles with high reliability than we use as a better backbone for this article? I think that is where we need to start now with a list of new references. --SimonTroote (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User Alan Clemens

Honestly Simon as the founder of a new discipline can you possibly imagine howe many interviews I give.

What greedence does the ASA's opinion that someone with a lesser degree than a chirpractor can join the ranks of Osteomyology, firstly I gave advice to this committee and they did not in thev beginning, know the difference between any of us. And who's opinion counts as to what is the lesser degree, the chiropractors will say their degree is superior, osteopaths say no ours is, Kinesiologists say well we contain a part of each and that makes us better. Then of course there is the Acupuncturists who quote the fact that their discipline has been going since the yellow emperor thousands of years. We accept Anybody with a professional degree qualification, which gives everyone a level playing field. Now frankly Simon you continually avoid the point, you cannot produce verifiable evidence to back up the "cannot join as they do not meet professional or training standards, or who have been suspended or struck off from these statutory bodies". To quote your own words it must be reliably sourced and this is not so. Alan Clemens (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan, the essence of wikipedia article is on verifiability and reliability of sources. Are you sure you cannot remember giving an interview in Stratford only a few months ago where is was online until just a few days ago? I find that very odd. It is not as if the web is awash with interviews with you.
 * But this is not the place to debate what the ASA said or even what you believe, but to get sources for the article. Your contribution would be huge if you started helping to list reliable sources for building the article. --SimonTroote (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

July 14th 2008

Simon

Agree with what you say but your remarks do seem to be one sided -  you brought up   the reference of the ASA but when I mention it  -  "this is not the place to debate   what the ASA said"!!!!!

Do not see how we can progress the article until you remove the "cannot join as they do not meet professional or training standards, or who have been suspended or struck off from these statutory bodies". Again you have no reference material for this quote and so therefore I am requesting that you remove it and the unsubstantiated reference [1] with it, then we are on the road to building a good informative site -  together.

Alan Clemens (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive and negative COI
I came here from the mention of this article at the fringe noticeboard. I do not see how either of the originally contending versions are acceptable, as one is essentially an advertisement and the other an attack page. I am also somewhat concerned over involvement in the related discussions of the general benefits or lack of benefits of manipulative therapy--such discussions have in the past led to great difficulty in being objective. Th sentences mentioned by AC just above are indeed totally unacceptable, and can not be supported by accounts of isolated cases. I suggest a rather shorter purely descriptive article, to be supplemented eventually by comment from additional sources. I gather both parties h=above have serious COI with respect to this organisation, I am glad they are so up front about them, for it wil facilitae the evaluation of the various statements. I hope they can be moderated to the extent that they will not prevent involvement with the article at all. I'll be back soon to see the improvements in the article. DGG (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First off on COI. I have none. Osteomyology is merely an interesting side story in the history of alternative medicine and it remains to be seen if a noteworthy article can be made of it. What is going to be vital is the gathering of appropriate, reliable and authoritative sources. This is hard - I would hope Alan Clemens could contribute in this area - but we have yet to see new sources. I totally disagree about the inclusion of a discussion of evidence for benefits as this is one are where there are thoroughly reliable and objective sources - similar sources are used on the articles on chiropractic and osteopathy. I suggest we review all sources - add others that we find and then decide what statements can reasonable be made in light of these sources. SimonTroote (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1st August 2008

DGG - I agree entirely with DGG's sentiments expressed in his above discussion. Please find a totally unbias history and meaning of Osteomyology.

Osteomyology (sometimes Neurosteomyology) is a relatively new form of manual physical medicine running along the lines of Osteopathy, Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Manipulative therapy. It focuses on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical and neurological disorders of the neuro, musculoskeletal systems and is classed as a complementary and alternative medicine health care profession.

The name is derived from Osteo (bone), Myo (muscle), ology (the study of). Practitioners of this discipline are all holders of degree status qualifications, in one or another, of the major manual manipulative sciences.

The General Council of Osteomyology (GCO) is the governing body and deals with any complaints, verification of insurance and mandatory CPD (Continuing Professional Development) quotas. This is overseen by various committees, Practice and Ethics, Disciplinary, and Education, all of which are staffed by a combination of practitioners and lay members.

Dr A Clemens PhD, founded Osteomyology in 1992 while studying Osteopathy, this started as a joke between himself and his fellow students however he went on to apply a different Philosophy to that of the Osteopathic profession more suited to the original Chiropractic beliefs of innate intelligence and Vitalism (-the theory that the origin and phenomena of life are dependent on a force or principle distinct from purely chemical or physical.)

Dr Clemens worked on the hypothesis that by combining disciplines of the different manual physical modalities one could discover different ways to treat patients

217.43.44.84 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Now what reliable sources are you going to use for this suggested edit? The basic problem that is emerging with this article is that RS are not available to support what you suggest is an unbiased 'history and meaning'. For example, where can we source the statements that OM is based on a theory of Vitalism? So far, we have few RS and those that do exist tend to present OM in a fairly negative light. Finding good sources is essential if this article is not to look like a criticism of OM.SimonTroote (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As the founder of Osteomyology, I have decided that Osteomyology is based on the theory of Vitalism as stated on www.osteomyology.co.uk. Just as Palmer decided vitalism for Chiropractic. What other reference is there or do you need?

86.145.183.50 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan. I do not doubt you for a second that Osteomyology is based on some idea of Vitalism. However, to quote Wikipedia rules: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." WP:V. This, at first, is almost paradoxical - but verifiability is what makes a reliable encyclopedia.


 * As I have been saying, we need to review all current sources and add new ones if found. The other important rule is WP:SOURCES - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What this means will depend on the claims being made in the article. For example, if we were to claim that osteomyology was beneficial for health that would require citations from high impact peer reviewed scientific journals. "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources". As it is, such journals are saying that manipulative therpapies are not effective for all but low back pain. We will undoubtedly have problems with self-published sources - such as www.osteomyology.co.uk. That is a major problem for this article. Again - we need to have more sources if we are to improve the article. If we cannot find any, then we need to review where we are and see what needs to be re-written. But, again, we have so little that can reliably describe OM in a way that you might find acceptable. SimonTroote (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition
Surely there is something actually published to quote. If not, word it as Clemens says on his web site that .... There's generally a way. DGG (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Isolated cases of false advertising etc.
This is unacceptable content. I've rewritten it. I'd hoped that I wouldnt have to come back for this. DGG (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see I should have come back earlier. An ip has reinserted the material. I have removed it. It does not meet BLP--it's like adding a paragraph to the article on robbery by describing some robbers not otherwise notable. It's sourced, but undue weight. I see a later ed. has let it stand, possibly with the good motive of wanting to avoid being involved in a revert war and possible COI. Since I have no COI I am removing it. Since this was some time ago, I'm not going to protect the article, but if it happens again I shall revert and protect, as is the practice with BLP, and block the account or anon inserting it. DGG (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see additional problems. The material in the final instance in the list refers to a registered chiropractor who had taken to calling himself a osteomyologist being struck of the chiropractor register for his poor practice while registered as a chiropractor. The council concluding in passing that  he had changed his professional description in order to avoid such regulatory action, but this was not the main point in the charges. This reference is also used in the lead paragraph to support general charges, which it however does not substantiate. This is improper. I have additionally made several   minor rewording in the direction of accuracy and POV.
 * I invite further editing, but not to turn this article into an attack on individuals. DGG (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OR-section
I have add this tag because the article seems to imply that chiropractic and osteopathic safety/efficacy studies are directly transferrable to describe the safety/efficacy of Osteomyology. Drawing this conclusion seems IMHO to violate WP:NOR. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material subject to removal
Too much of this article is not supported by any sources. Content that is unsourced is subject to removal. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)